House of Commons
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 1 month 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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
In July, the Government published their ambitious R&D road map, reaffirming our commitment to cement the UKs position as a science superpower. We will revitalise our whole system of science, research and innovation to release its potential, and our investment in multiple disciplines and methodologies will be guided by expert researchers.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. A successful transition to new approach methodologies requires the support of Government- backed infrastructure, a strategic allocation of funding, improved education, multidisciplinary collaboration between universities and industry, and close collaboration with the regulators. Will he undertake to prioritise the opportunities offered by human-relevant methods, so that the UK does not risk losing its position as a global leader in biomedical research and innovation?
Alok Sharma
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue and launched a white paper on it earlier this year; I welcome the contribution of that report. The use of animals in research is carefully regulated and remains important in ensuring that new medicines and treatments are safe. However, the Government are committed to reducing and replacing the use of animal research, and we have invested £67 million to support the development of new techniques that will help to achieve that.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
My Department has delivered a wide range of measures as part of the Government’s unprecedented support package. That includes £11 billion in grants supporting almost 900,000 business premises and over £57 billion in loan guarantees to over 1 million businesses across the UK. We have also extended the deadline for the loan schemes to the end of November, ensuring that there is further support for those who need it.
Craig Williams
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and for the support to date. When we emerge from the current crisis, we must build back in an environmentally sustainable way and ensure that we are on track to meet our net zero target. What is he doing to deliver carbon capture and storage across the UK, to ensure that manufacturing and agricultural businesses have certainty, with net zero in mind?
Alok Sharma
I agree with my hon. Friend: we need to build back better and build back greener. CCS will be an essential part of the transformation to a low-carbon economy, and it presents an opportunity for the creation of high-value jobs, which we want to see in our country. We have already announced a CCS infrastructure fund of £800 million to deploy carbon capture and storage in at least two industrial clusters over the next decade.
Dr Davies
Many businesses in the Vale of Clwyd welcome the measures that the Chancellor announced last week, but some local and regional employers of all sizes still face significant challenges—none more so than Airbus. Will my right hon. Friend recommit to doing all he can to support Airbus and its highly skilled staff at this particularly uncertain time?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend and other Members are champions for the businesses in their constituencies. Airbus has been discussed with me and other ministerial colleagues. Of course, Airbus is a vital part of UK aerospace. We are currently providing the aerospace and aviation sector with over £8.5 billion of support through the covid corporate financing facility, R&D grants, loan guarantees and export support. We are in regular dialogue with Airbus, to see how we can assist it and its employees.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Over 1 million people are employed in sectors that are currently shut down, including weddings, events and nightclubs. The Chancellor last week refused to support them because he said they are not “viable”, but those businesses are shut because they are rightly following the Government’s public health guidance to help tackle the virus. As the person responsible for standing up for the businesses of this country, does the Business Secretary not think it is wrong, insulting and terrible for our long-term economic future as a country to write off as unviable these businesses and jobs that provide livelihoods for so many people in our country?
Alok Sharma
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I talk to businesses every day, as he does, and I know it is very difficult for many of them right now. The job support scheme announced by the Chancellor provides targeted support for jobs and business facing lower demand over the coming months. He will also know that the measures have been welcomed by business groups and, indeed, trade unions. The TUC said:
“the Chancellor has listened and done the right thing.”
In addition to the JSS, there are other measures available to support all businesses across the country.
Edward Miliband
The Secretary of State did not answer my question about these businesses that are currently shut down and that are doing the right thing. Many of them have no income coming in, they are excluded from the JSS and they are already loaded up with debt, yet they have rent to pay and overheads to cover, and the Government are just leaving them out in the cold. I believe these were good, viable businesses before the pandemic. They were good enough for the Government to support them back in March, and we need them for our economy after the crisis is over. Will he stand up for these businesses that need help and give them the support they need to help at least survive the crisis?
Alok Sharma
Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Department does stand up for businesses. We have a very regular dialogue with sectors on an ongoing basis. As I said, I acknowledge that some of them are facing particular difficulties. As he himself knows from his time in government, we are not going to be able to protect every single job—very, very sadly—but that is why we are providing extra support in the welfare system but also, really importantly, in support with skills and, indeed, apprenticeships and the kickstart scheme for young people, so that we can help people into better jobs.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It has been confirmed that the Secretary of State is due to rewrite the industrial strategy this autumn. Given the concern from businesses that the Department is the voice of Government to business, as opposed to the voice of business to Government, could the Secretary of State confirm how businesses will be engaged in the drafting of the new industrial strategy?
Alok Sharma
The Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee of course raises an important point, and he will know that I have come to the House on previous occasions and outlined the detailed discussions we have. I set up a range of taskforces, where we had discussions on issues around the industrial strategy back in June, and we converse on a daily basis with sectors across the country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was really disappointed by the answers the Business Secretary gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I have global exhibition companies in my constituency that are on the verge of going bust. They do not need to be told about the kickstart scheme or apprenticeships, or to be told that universal credit is available for them. These companies are calling for an extension of business rate relief and a new grant scheme, bearing in mind that many of them were not eligible for the retail, hospitality and leisure grant. Will the Secretary of State consider this, and commit to publishing a provisional date when conferences and exhibition events can reopen, as has been happening in parts of Europe? Will he also agree to meet the sector? I have tried lobbying the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on this, and I am getting nowhere. Will he pay attention to this sector?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady outlines, this particular sector is the responsibility of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. However, I have been talking to representatives of the sector, as have my ministerial team and, as I have said, we will continue to have such conversations. As I have also said, the Chancellor set out a significant package of support since the start of this pandemic, and people are still able to make use of that support.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
My Department is working closely with the Department for International Trade to secure a swift settlement of the ongoing aerospace dispute to the benefit of all UK industries, including Scotch whisky, and demonstrating our commitment to free and fair trade.
David Mundell
Does the Minister recognise that it is very important to resolve this issue within the current presidential term? Will his Department therefore take forward urgent measures to resolve, bilaterally, the Airbus-Boeing dispute so that we can get these damaging tariffs removed from Scotch whisky, as I say, during the current presidential term?
Nadhim Zahawi
I reassure my right hon. Friend that the Government are urgently seeking a negotiated settlement of this dispute and are exploring all options. The imminent award of retaliatory rights should incentivise the US to engage in discussions to reach a fair and balanced settlement.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
As my hon. Friend knows, helping businesses reduce emissions is crucial to delivering our net zero commitment. To tackle some of our highest carbon-intensive businesses, we have just launched the £289 million industrial energy transformation fund, and we are also extending the £300 million climate change agreements scheme to incentivise businesses to invest in energy efficiency.
Neil Parish
I thank the Minister very much for his answer. The business sector has successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 30% since 1990. However, emissions from business transport are counted separately, and transport emissions have gone down only by 3% since 1990. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we have a great opportunity in the UK to be a world leader in green transport—from electric vehicles to hydrogen lorries—and will he work closely with the Treasury to incentivise businesses to use more low emission vehicles in the future?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We do have extensive plans. We have further plans for decarbonising freight that will form part of the transport decarbonisation plan, which we expect to publish later this year. We work constantly with other Departments to ensure that we can reach our net zero targets. My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise, in particular, the role that transport plays in carbon emissions.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
If we want business to play its full part in reducing emissions and to finance the innovation and infrastructure critical to the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Government need to address the very real barriers to private investment. One obvious way to do so is through a national investment bank with a clear mandate to channel both public and private capital towards projects that aid a green recovery and help the country to achieve its net zero target. Does the Minister’s Department as a whole support the establishment of such a bank, and if so, will he update the House on what progress has been made in convincing his colleagues in the Treasury to get behind the proposal?
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is no secret that there is plenty of discussion about a national infrastructure bank. The Green Investment Bank, which was set up in 2015, was successful, and this is something that we are constantly in conversations about.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
BEIS continues to engage with industry and suppliers to ensure that we can support our manufacturing sectors during and after the covid-19 crisis. This includes an unprecedented package of Government support to help with business continuity and drive recovery after the pandemic.
Miriam Cates
Steel manufacture is the heart and soul of towns like Stocksbridge in my constituency. It provides high-skilled, well-paid, productive jobs. Once we have left the EU, we will be free to use our procurement processes to favour British manufacturers. Will my hon. Friend commit to grasping this opportunity to make sure that our infrastructure revolution helps to secure the future of British steel?
Amanda Solloway
The Government have helped our steel industry to compete globally by providing more than £480 million in relief to the sector for electricity costs since 2013. We want to ensure that UK steel producers can compete for and win contracts associated with domestic infrastructure investments, including HS2. We are working closely with the sector and other relevant parties to realise these opportunities.
Greg Smith
Furniture manufacturing is an enormously important part of the economy in my constituency, with firms such as Ercol and Hypnos Beds located in Princes Risborough. As a result of covid, the industry estimates a 25% to 30% reduction in UK furniture sales this year, with 10,000 jobs at risk. Will my hon. Friend join me in backing the industry’s “Buy the Best, Buy British, Save Jobs” campaign, which is also supported by the all-party parliamentary group on furniture makers, and outline what more she can do to support our furniture makers?
Amanda Solloway
I will be delighted to support that campaign. It is great to see the furniture industry supporting high-quality British manufacturing with its “Buy British” initiative. Now, more than ever, we all need to do our bit by backing British industry to drive jobs, innovation and growth.
Simon Baynes
Manufacturing industries in my constituency such as Cadbury’s in Chirk—part of the Mondelēz group—Barnett Engineering in Rhos and Ifor Williams Trailers in Cynwyd are the bedrock of the country’s manufacturing sector. Will the Minister comment on how the Chancellor’s announcement of economic measures last week will help these manufacturing companies through the coronavirus crisis?
Amanda Solloway
I welcome the measures announced by the Chancellor last week and agree that manufacturing is a key component of the UK’s thriving industrial sector. The job support scheme will provide eligible manufacturing businesses in Clwyd South with a grant covering one third of all employees’ wages for hours not worked, up to a cap of £697.92 a month. Furthermore, the deadline for applications for coronavirus business interruption loans and the future fund has now been extended to 30 November.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
More than 90% of the UK’s manufacturing companies have kept working, even at the height of the pandemic, keeping food on supermarket shelves and medicines and ventilators in our hospitals. However, many of them will face a major crisis when the furlough scheme ends in a few weeks’ time. Demand is still incredibly low in some parts of industry, but Government support is being withdrawn. It is patently obvious that the well-paid and highly skilled jobs that we have in sectors such as aerospace and aviation should be the foundations of our future economic growth and the public will not forget it if the Government allow them to wither on the vine. As the voice of business within the Government—
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot read out a speech. It has to be a question, very short and very brief. It is a supplementary.
Sarah Olney
May I ask the Minister, as the voice of business within the Government, what she is doing to ensure that these vital jobs and skills are being protected?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Lady will know that the Government are absolutely committed to making sure that businesses are the future of the economy and that we need to get the economy back on track. We have invested billions of pounds making sure that we have all the schemes in place that will enable this economy to thrive.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have a long history of supporting the development of marine technologies. Since 2010, we have provided £80 million in research and development funding, and last month we published a call for evidence on the potential of marine energy, and we are looking forward to those responses.
Sally-Ann Hart
Will my hon. Friend please update the House on progress that has been made on the development of wind and wave technology around the coastline, as I know that the Crown Estate is looking at the development of wind farms off the south-east coast, near my constituency of Hastings and Rye?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is quite right. In addition to the proposed extension to the Rampion offshore wind farm off Brighton, I understand that there is significant market interest in the Crown Estate’s current seabed leasing round, and that, we expect, will include areas off the coast of the south-east of England, near my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
My hon. Friend will know that we continue to support the transformation of the sector towards zero-emission vehicles. Last autumn, we announced up to £1 billion of new funding for the next generation of innovative, low-carbon automotive technologies. A competition, as we speak, is under way.
Joy Morrissey
As we recover from the economic effects of the coronavirus, it is vital that we build back greener. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that he is backing the innovators who are working on decarbonising our automobile industry—companies such as Gridserve Sustainable Energy—and who can get their cutting edge ideas on to the market, supporting green jobs along the way?
Nadhim Zahawi
Green recovery is an absolute priority for my Department. We have brought forward funding to restart innovation, support business and deliver our decarbonisation ambitions. This includes £10 million through the Advanced Propulsion Centre and £12 million from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Vehicle regulations regarding electric vehicles, I am told, now come under the auspices of the electricity at work regulations. Not many garages realise that and as electric cars have the equivalent to domestic three-phase electricity amounts of stored energy that can kill very easily, what is he doing to ensure that we do not lead the world in deaths in this sector?
Nadhim Zahawi
There are 182,000 vehicle technicians in the UK, of which 21,000 are EV qualified. Last year, we endorsed the Institute of the Motor Industry’s TechSafe professional standards, which will help to ensure that staff are properly trained and qualified to work on electric vehicles.
Nick Fletcher
My hon. Friend may be aware that Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of Tesla Motors, recently landed at Doncaster Sheffield Airport and has seen the land ready for development. Will the Minister work with me to put a case forward to encourage this automotive giant to build its next gigafactory in Don Valley?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am very keen to secure battery manufacturing capability in the United Kingdom, and I am very supportive of discussions with potential investors about their requirements. As he knows, we are currently calling on industry to put forward investment proposals for gigafactories.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister of State has mentioned the production of electric vehicles as a key element of sustainable economic recovery in the automotive sector, and we want that production to be supported by the phasing out of new internal combustion hybrid vehicles by 2030. He, I think, wants 2040 to be the date, but we will agree, I am sure, that that must be accompanied by an appropriate national charging infrastructure. Its development, however, is seriously lagging. A recent report by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that as few as 5% of the chargers that will be needed by 2030 are currently installed. What is he doing to ensure that charging infrastructure can meet future demands placed on it?
Nadhim Zahawi
We have, as the hon. Member rightly mentioned, consulted on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a fast transition appears feasible, as well as including hybrids for the first time. We will announce the outcome in due course. I remind him that we are investing £2.5 billion in grants for plug-in passenger commercial vehicles and more than 18,000 publicly available charging devices, including 3,200 rapid devices: one of the largest networks in Europe. I want to see him supporting that endeavour rather than talking it down.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Ministerial colleagues and I have engaged closely with affected sectors throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Recently, I have had meetings with representatives of the retail, hospitality, consumer goods, weddings, nightclubs and events sectors, and small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK.
Mrs Lewell-Buck [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, but it is simply not good enough. My local pubs, bars, restaurants, theatres and taxi drivers were already fighting for their survival. The introduction of an arbitrary and unevidenced 10 pm curfew has led one of my constituents, Stephen Sullivan, who runs Ziggy’s in South Shields, to say, “I simply can’t see a way forward. There is no way out for my business.” When on earth will the Government abolish this curfew?
Paul Scully
I am sorry that the hon. Member does not feel that speaking to 3,000 or 4,000 businesses over the past few months to understand their issues is good enough. None the less, I understand the concern of the hospitality sector and other sectors in South Shields in particular, where there are local restrictions. It is so important that we get the economy up and running as soon as we can. The Government’s first priority is to save lives, but to save businesses and livelihoods is just as important.
Ellie Reeves [V]
I am proud of my many constituents who work in the creative industries, such as musicians, actors, producers and designers, to name but a few. Making ends meet in this sector can be difficult at the best of times, but it is now even more precarious as many businesses will not yet be able to reopen. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that workers in creative industry, including permanent, freelance, self-employed and those previously excluded, can receive financial support in the tough months ahead?
Paul Scully
That is something that I continue to engage with the Treasury and with businesses on, to understand it and to see what more we can do. I am someone who has in the past been a company director and paid myself through dividends, so I understand the position of those in the creative sector, who are doing much the same thing. We will work together to see what more we can do.
Jeff Smith
I used to work in the nightclub industry, like 70,000 people in the UK. Clubs are currently shut down on Government advice and are getting no support on rent, rates or other overheads. Loans are no good because they are just building up the debt. These are businesses that will be not just viable, but thriving businesses and good employers if they can get through the covid shutdown. What are the Government going to do to help them to get through this crisis?
Paul Scully
I have met nightclub representatives and people who run nightclubs. I have met with Sacha Lord and other people who work with the elected mayors. We have set up a nightclub taskforce to work with the Night Time Industries Association and other owners to try to work our way to a covid-19-secure nightclub, when we can start to open up the economy. Many nightclubs have actually repurposed to be able to open as bars and other areas of industry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister says he understands, but it beggars belief that his Government still refuse to support businesses that were vibrant and viable. Workers, freelancers, creatives and the newly self-employed have been hung out to dry. Government sources now predict that all pubs, restaurants and bars will be ordered to close for two weeks initially. Without furlough and restricted by curfew, why is he creating another class of the excluded?
Paul Scully
I am not sure where the Government sources are coming from. As I say, lives are absolutely first in our priorities; we are trying to make sure that we can stop the transmission of this virus. We want to keep the economy open, which is why we have put measures in place so that, although they are hampered because they cannot trade fully, pubs, restaurants and other sectors can stay open at this time.
Drew Hendry
The Government will not provide grants to struggling firms, they are giving a pittance to the self-employed and they are replacing furlough with a scheme that excludes businesses closing on health grounds. They are incentivising the rest to cut staff, with 3 million already thrown to the wolves and more to come. Did the Minister demand that the Chancellor introduce an emergency Budget to save the excluded? If not, is it not the case that his role is simply not viable?
Paul Scully
The Government have put in £160 billion-worth of support, wrapping our arms around as much of the economy as we can. We have put off business rates for these businesses. We have extended the VAT cut for another few months for the hospitality sector in particular. We will continue to see what more we can do to keep our economy open.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am afraid that talking and engagement is all well and good, but what we need is some action. Does the Minister think that Deer Park in Devon, which was fully booked for weddings next year, or the conference business in Manchester, which was 90% booked for next year, are unviable businesses? The Government have thrown those and thousands of other thriving businesses on the scrapheap this week—businesses that were very much viable and will be so again when the restrictions are lifted. They have taken the loans. They will not qualify for the job support scheme. They were promised that track and trace would allow them to reopen, yet the Government have now turned their back on them. The Conservatives are no longer the party of business. As a very small measure, will the Minister reallocate the cash grant underspend to ensure that we do not see thousands of businesses go bust on his watch?
Paul Scully
We have handed out £11 billion-worth of cash grants to businesses across the country. In terms of the underspend, the under-allocation varied by local authorities and how much money they could get to those businesses, which is why we need to have it in to reconcile. I work with the wedding sector. At the moment it is impossible to work through a system that makes it viable for those businesses to open beyond a certain number. However, they will be viable businesses in the future.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Ministers have clearly set out the benefits to all UK businesses of ensuring that goods and services can flow freely across the UK. That is in Scotland’s interests, given that it exports more to the rest of the UK than to the EU. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I have spent about 12 hours on these Benches with the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), having discussions and debating this issue.
Neale Hanvey [V]
Businesses in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency and across Scotland benefit from not only the most competitive business rates regime in the UK but vital schemes such as the transition training fund, the inward investment scheme and a half-billion pound infrastructure plan. With the internal market Bill allowing UK Ministers to spend in devolved areas, what guarantees can the Minister give that such expenditure will not result in a consequential reduction in essential Scottish Government funding, putting such schemes at risk?
Paul Scully
Spending from the UK Government will be complementary to that coming from the Scottish Government. We want to add to that and to make sure that the UK economy can flourish. Scottish business will be at risk without the regulatory certainty of this Bill, so we want to prevent additional layers of complexity.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I reassure the hon. Lady that we are looking with great interest at the Mersey tidal project and that the Government have already funded the north-west energy hub so that we can drive huge opportunities for the region in renewable energy. I know that BEIS officials recently met representatives from the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority to discuss the very Mersey tidal project that she mentions.
Paula Barker
Highly skilled, green manufacturing jobs should power our economic recovery beyond the pandemic and it is calculated that the Mersey tidal scheme could have the potential to generate up to four times the energy of all the wind turbines in Liverpool bay—enough energy to power 1 million homes. Liverpool city region’s Mayor has already secured £2.5 million of funding for the next phase of work. Given the Minister’s positive response, will he meet with the metro Mayor, local MPs and industry experts such as Martin Land, who now heads up the project, to help to accelerate it to feed stage development at the appropriate juncture?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I would be very happy to meet with MPs and representatives in the Mersey region. I know the Mayor, Steven Rotherham; I met him in my previous life as a DExEU Under-Secretary. I am happy to meet him and others again.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Any discrimination when selecting people for redundancy would be not only wrong, but unlawful. Employees with the necessary qualifying service can bring a claim to an employment tribunal where they believe that they have been unfairly selected for redundancy.
Jessica Morden
Citizens Advice research shows that one worker in six is facing redundancy and that parents and carers of those who have shielded are twice as likely to be made redundant. Will the Minister now provide additional emergency resources to enforcement bodies to ensure that people are treated fairly, equally and safely during this extremely worrying time?
Paul Scully
We work closely with the enforcement body to make sure that it can do its job and we resource it accordingly. We are also looking to the long term to see what more we can do for better enforcement in these matters.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Some 9.6 million jobs have been supported through the coronavirus job retention scheme and millions of people have now moved off furlough and back into work. The job support scheme and other measures, such as the extension of our temporary VAT cut for the hospitality and tourism sectors, demonstrate our commitment to supporting businesses and workers.
Paul Blomfield
May I return to a theme that has been raised by other Members without success in terms of answers? Sheffield City Region Music Board wrote to the Culture Secretary with local Members over six weeks ago about the problems facing the music industry. We have had no reply. The new job support scheme offers nothing to businesses that are unable to open, such as many of Sheffield’s iconic music venues, with impacts on jobs right across the sector. One constituent said to me yesterday that by declaring most music businesses not viable, the Government have basically hung everyone out to dry. Ministers did not address this issue in their earlier answers, so will the Secretary of State recognise the problem and spell out what action the Government will take to protect jobs in the music, events and creative industries?
Alok Sharma
I completely understand the concerns that colleagues have about the sectors that are not open. I can only reiterate, without going into full details, that we continue to have discussions with those sectors. The hon. Gentleman talks about the particular sector that he knows, which is the responsibility of another Secretary of State, but I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about those issues in the past day or two. We will continue to have discussions.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make sure that the economy stays open, and the vast majority of the economy is open, but we need to do that in a safe way. If we all play our part, we will be in a position where we can reopen the rest of the economy and move to some sense of normality.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
The UK is fast becoming an exciting place for developing small and advanced nuclear reactor technologies. That is why we have recently invested over £130 million to support their development. We will shortly be undertaking a comprehensive assessment of siting requirements, including suitability, safety and security.
Nadhim Zahawi
We are on record saying that we will publish the energy White Paper this autumn.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
We are committed to ongoing engagement with industry to understand the impact of the pandemic on manufacturers and to ensure that they have the support they need. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with manufacturers, including one yesterday with more than 100 manufacturers and major businesses, including Make UK.
Sarah Champion [V]
Manufacturers in Rotherham have faced huge disruption as a result of covid-19. It is now becoming increasingly likely that Britain may exit the transition period without a deal in place with the EU. Will the Minister please outline what steps he is taking to ensure that manufacturers in my constituency and across the country have the certainty and support they need from the Government to sustain their businesses in the face of unprecedented challenges?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed refreshing the industrial strategy, and, of course, manufacturing absolutely remains central to our industrial strategy. Some 65% of research and development is delivered by manufacturing in the UK. We remain the ninth largest manufacturer in the world, so manufacturing will be front and centre of our long-term investment in our green, sustainable recovery.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Government Departments consider the impact of any support they provide and the Government’s recent covid-19 measures have been hugely welcomed by businesses. Our upcoming consultation on subsidy control will allow us to gather views on how to ensure those measures continue to be effective in achieving our economic objectives.
Liz Saville Roberts
Putting the covid period to one side, it is worth remembering that in 2018 the UK spent only 0.38% of GDP on state aid. France spent twice as much and Germany four times more. With the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the Government will centralise state aid decision making in London. When will his Government lift the arbitrary borrowing cap on the Welsh Government to enable Wales to invest in Welsh infrastructure and thus boost Welsh productivity?
Alok Sharma
We have had this debate, of course, during the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill over the past few days. Subsidy control has never been a devolved matter. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. We have always been clear that the regulation of subsidy control is a reserved matter. There will be a consultation, but ultimately we want to promote a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The UK has one of the most vibrant and innovative tech sectors in the world, and it has been highly resilient through the pandemic. We are providing a wide range of support for high-tech industries, including the artificial intelligence sector deal, the industrial strategy challenge fund and the £1.25 billion coronavirus package of support for innovative firms.
Anthony Mangnall
The Minister will be aware of the value of the photonics industry to the UK economy. My constituency is home to the EPIC Centre in Paignton and its own site in Brixham. Given the leading value it has in the manufacturing industry and in quantum photonics, what support will it be given, along the lines of the research and development roadmap?
Amanda Solloway
Indeed, I know about the excellent work in Totnes. The Government recognise the important contribution made to the UK economy by the photonics industry and its underpinning role in growing the UK’s quantum technology sector. Successive Governments have supported the growth of the sector with R&D investment. As the Government implement our ambitious “UK research and development roadmap”, published in July, investing in cross-cutting technologies and realising the potential for regional strengths will be vital to making the most of the UK’s potential and becoming a science superpower.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
Nuclear power, which is a safe, reliable and low-carbon source of power, has a key role to play, alongside other technologies such as renewables, as we transition our energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Minister for his answer. The recent withdrawal of Hitachi from the Wylfa Newydd nuclear project in my constituency is exceptionally disappointing. I would like to thank the Isle of Anglesey County Council, Annwen Morgan, Llinos Medi Huws and all those at the council who worked so hard on the project, the team at Horizon and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Most importantly, I would like to thank the communities of Ynys Môn for their support, patience and vision. Vision is hope with a plan—
Mr Speaker
Order. These are meant to be short questions. Minister, pick anything out of that.
Nadhim Zahawi
I want to add one more person to that list for her work, and that is my hon. Friend. We recognise that Hitachi’s decision will be disappointing news for the people of north Wales. We remain willing to discuss new nuclear projects with any viable companies and investors wishing to develop the site. It is a great site that has a great amount of backing from the community.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
We are making good progress in implementing the Government’s ambitious R&D road map, including by investing £236 million around the UK through the strength in places fund, setting up the innovation expert group and the place advisory group, and taking steps to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.
Claire Coutinho
I welcome the near doubling of spend on UK R&D. Will my hon. Friend outline the work that is being done to draw in the R&D centres of international companies? This will be key to the prosperity not just of East Surrey, but of the whole country.
Amanda Solloway
As part of the R&D road map we are actively developing a place strategy, which will set out how we can develop and grow an R&D capability across the country. I regularly meet my noble Friend Lord Grimstone, the Minister for Investment, to discuss how we can leverage and increase foreign direct investment to benefit all regions and nations of the UK.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I know that the plight of sub-postmasters involved in the Horizon IT scandal has rightly concerned many hon. and right hon. Members. There have been repeated calls for a judge-led inquiry into this matter. I can confirm that former High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams will chair the Government’s inquiry, which begins this week. The terms of reference have been expanded following feedback from former postmasters and hon. Members. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is leading this work in my Department, will be pleased to update colleagues.
Mohammad Yasin
The landlord of the Burnaby Arms pub in Bedford has three staff on zero-hours contracts. One is currently on flexible furlough, working reduced hours. The other two are still on furlough and have been informed that they will lose their jobs when furlough ends unless the situation for wet-led pubs changes. How does the job support scheme—which actually costs this and many other businesses in my constituency more money to keep staff—prevent mass job losses?
Alok Sharma
The best thing we can do to continue to keep the hospitality sector open is to ensure that we get the virus and the infections under control, and that is precisely what we are doing with the proportionate measures that the Government are taking.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in this area. I also congratulate the United Downs project on last month securing £4 million from the Government’s getting building fund. As the Prime Minister has said this weekend, the UK will lead by example by keeping the environment firmly on the global agenda and serving as a launchpad for a global green industrial revolution.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Two years ago, having spent £1.2 billion of taxpayers’ money developing the European Galileo programme, the Government abandoned it to build a duplicate British system at a cost of £3 billion to £5 billion; they spent tens of millions on this “me too” sat-nav system, plus half a billion pounds on OneWeb, a bankrupt American satellite company. Now we hear that the British sat-nav system is to be abandoned too—and for what? According to newspaper reports, which are better briefed than Parliament, it is so that the Prime Minister can go head to head with Elon Musk.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have had this each day. I do not mind the shadow Minister asking questions, but the idea of topical questions is that they are short and punchy, not big, long statements and questions. Please can we have a quick question?
Chi Onwurah
What is the Government’s strategy for the British sat-nav system?
Alok Sharma
I think the hon. Lady is making reference to the UN global navigation satellite systems programme. It is not being closed; due to the importance of the Government’s ambitions for the space sector, the programme is being reset and its remit widened.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Alok Sharma
We are indeed refreshing the 2017 industrial strategy to reflect the Government’s priorities, which are putting the UK at the forefront of technological opportunities, boosting growth and productivity across our country, and supporting a green recovery. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the black country industrial strategy.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I recognise the historic significance and role of the post office in Sanquhar, and I thank all the staff who have kept it running over the years, particularly most recently through the covid pandemic. I very much hope that a long-term future for that post office can be secured.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are supporting the hospitality sector. Business rates are not required to be paid for the full year, and other support is available across the economy. If we want to get back to normality, we must get this infection under control, and we all have a part to play in that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend may know that we have funded Citizens Advice to provide local advice during this crisis, and we have negotiated a voluntary agreement with energy suppliers to support households impacted by covid-19. I also commend the Money Advice Service for developing the money advice tool, which gives people important practical support in managing their finances.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are very supportive of any schemes in this country that promote the net-zero agenda, and I would be interested to hear details of that scheme in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I would be happy to meet him, and others, to discuss those matters further.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Alok Sharma
The Vaccine Taskforce, which is part of my Department, has made incredible progress in securing access to the most promising vaccine candidates. We have invested to build our manufacturing capacity in Oxford, Essex, Scotland and north Wales, and we will continue to work with the UK bioindustry to determine how further to develop our vaccine capabilities across the whole country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman and I have different views on that issue. It stands to reason that as we go towards net zero, we will need dispatchable power and a source of firm power. Most of the analysis we have seen suggests that nuclear has a part to play in that net-zero future.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Alok Sharma
The Government of course recognise the challenges facing the industry. My hon. Friend is right, and I have also heard directly from representatives of the National Exhibition Centre about these challenges. Conference and events businesses can draw on the Government’s current support package, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for the sector, will continue to work closely with them.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
We currently have a close to half a million green jobs in this country. We want to create another 2 million. The hon. Lady will also know that the Chancellor announced the green homes grant package, which will support more than 100,000 green jobs.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes our jobs package. The Government continue to provide a full range of measures to protect jobs, businesses and livelihoods. Of course, I want this sector—indeed, every sector—to return to normal as soon as possible, but that will require scientific evidence to show that it is safe to do so.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Alok Sharma
I had the honour and pleasure of being questioned by the hon. Lady at a Select Committee in recent days. I repeat what I said then—that we are asking all countries to come forward with ambitious NDCs, and that I completely understand that there will be a requirement on the UK as well.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I am absolutely delighted to offer my congratulations to Heywood Magic Market, and everyone involved with this initiative, on demonstrating such innovation. As my hon. Friend knows, in May I announced the discretionary grant scheme to support market traders. We absolutely back entrepreneurs and innovators in Heywood and Middleton and across the country. The Conservative party has always been the party of business, and we will always continue to be the party of business.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Students’ Return to Universities
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the return of students to universities. Throughout this pandemic, our priority has always been to keep young people as safe as possible while they continue to learn. It is this commitment to learning and skills that has led the Prime Minister to announce today that, through our lifetime skills guarantee, we will upgrade further education colleges across the country with huge capital investment. We will expand the apprenticeship offer, we will fund valuable free technical courses for adults equivalent to A-level, and we will extend our digital boot camps. We will expand and transform the funding system so that it is as easy for a student to get a loan for a higher technical course as for a university degree. The Government will give everyone a flexible, lifelong loan entitlement to four years of post-18 education, so that adults will able to retrain with high-level technical courses instead of being trapped in unemployment.
At the beginning of September, we saw the successful reopening of our schools and colleges. Universities have been working just as hard to make campuses as safe as possible, including through enhanced cleaning measures, social distancing on campuses and changes to timetables to stagger and manage attendance on site. We have now seen the new intake of first-year students who are beginning a new chapter in their lives at university, together with those who are returning to carry on their studies. I know that this will not be the start that any of them would have wanted or expected, and I would just like to say that I am pleased to see that universities and students have followed the guidance in a responsible way, putting themselves, their friends and the local community in a safe place and out of harm’s way.
Students, as well as the wider community, accept that when we are living in a global pandemic we have to operate in a society with restrictions, but I do not believe we should look to inflict stricter measures on students or expect higher standards of behaviour from them than we would from any other section of society; there must be a parity. The decision to keep universities open and all our students learning has been a result of an enormous team effort throughout the university and higher education sector. We have drawn on the expertise of the HE taskforce that we set up, and we have been providing robust public health advice and regular updates to the sector to help it to plan carefully to keep students and staff as safe as possible. As with all our education settings, we will continue monitoring the situation closely and will follow the latest scientific advice, adapting policies as the situation changes
I know there has been some anxiety about the impact safety measures will have on the Christmas holidays. Students are important members of the communities they choose to study in. We expect them to follow the same guidance as those local communities. We will work with universities to make sure that all students are supported to return home safely and spend Christmas with their loved ones if they choose to do so. It is essential that we put in place measures to ensure that that can happen, while minimising the risk of transmission. Where there are specific circumstances that warrant it, there may be a requirement for some students to self-isolate at the end of term, and we will be working with the sector to ensure that will be possible, including by ending in-person learning early if that is deemed to be necessary. My Department will publish this guidance shortly, so that every student will be able to spend Christmas with their family.
Where students choose to stay in their university accommodation over Christmas, universities should continue making sure that they are safe and well looked after. Of course, it is inevitable there will be cases of covid occurring in universities, just as there are in our wider communities and the constituencies we represent, but we believe that universities are very well-prepared to handle any outbreaks as they arise, and we have been working with the sector and Public Health England to make sure that they have every support and assistance they need should this happen. I have been impressed by the steps that our universities have been taking, working hand in glove with local authorities and local public health teams to safeguard students and staff. All our universities have local outbreak plans, and all of those have been discussed with local directors of public health.
It is essential that we continue to allow our students to have face-to-face teaching wherever possible, as part of a blended learning approach. I have heard the Opposition call for all learning to move online. Although online learning is a highly effective part of the learning experience, many courses, including medicine and dentistry, as well as the creative arts, require a face-to-face element. That is why our guidance, published on 11 September, set out a tiered approach in higher education.[Official Report, 30 September 2020, Vol. 681, c. 6MC.] Tiers enable a balance of face-to-face and online learning within the context of the covid risk, and will operate alongside local restrictions that are placed on the wider community in the area that the university is in.
I would now like to mention the latest position regarding testing for students. We have been working with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the testing capacity is sufficient and appropriate for universities, and I am sure the House will be aware that the Department has now launched the NHS covid-19 app. The Department continues to make more testing available, and the vast majority of people can get a test locally. The Department is also increasing the number of local testing sites and laboratories, adding new Lighthouse laboratories in Newport and Charnwood to the national lab network, as well as additional walk-in centres being planned. While we know that testing capacity is the highest it has ever been, we are still seeing a significant demand for tests. It is vital that staff and students at universities, like any other member of society, get a test only if they develop coronavirus symptoms or if advised to do so by a clinician or a public health official.
I am aware that going to university can be a stressful time for some students, many of whom will be living away from their family and friends for the first time in their lives. This year will undoubtedly see added pressures because of disruption and uncertainty caused by the global pandemic, and we must be mindful of how that will affect the mental health and wellbeing of students. Many universities have bolstered existing mental health services and offer alternatives to face-to-face consultations. Once again, I would like to thank staff at universities and colleges who have responded so quickly and creatively to the need to transform those essential services.
We have asked universities to provide additional help and practical support to students as well, and I am pleased to say that universities are making sure students who are isolating are properly cared for and can access food and medical and cleaning supplies if needed. Student accommodation and support services will be a vital resource if any student has to isolate and for students generally during the whole period of the pandemic. As well as providing support for those in halls of residence, universities will make sure that students who live in houses in multiple occupation away from campus will still have access to advice and support if they need it. Universities are also able to call on £256 million provided by the Government for hardship funding for students who have to isolate.
The Government have taken a conscious decision to prioritise education. We know how fundamental a good education is to opportunity, to aspiration and to social mobility.
That is why we opened schools, and why over 99.8% of schools are now open, delivering education to our children. Delivering education and the opportunity to go to university is equally important for those youngsters who have left college or school as well. We will never be in a position where we can eliminate all risk, but we will not condemn a generation of young people by asking them to put their lives on hold for months or years ahead. We believe that universities are very well prepared to handle any outbreaks as they arise. I commend this statement to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. I am glad that, after a decade of slashing funding for further education, the Conservatives have recognised that this is an important sector for life chances and for our economy. I would like to work constructively with the Government to get this right, but their continued reliance on loans to fund education and the fact that the funding will not come on stream for many more months as we head for an unemployment crisis, are deeply concerning.
The situation as students return to university is desperately worrying. Across the country, many find themselves in isolated and cramped accommodation, parents are worried about their well-being and safety, and university staff who have worked so hard over the summer to prepare are anxious and angry that the Government did not keep their part of the bargain. They have all been let down by the Government, just as they let down many of the same students with their handling of exam results last month.
What students, staff and their families need now is reassurance. Nineteen days ago—the last time the Secretary of State commented on the situation at universities—he stressed the importance of delivering clear messages to students, and I hope he will use the opportunity of answering my questions today to do that.
Everybody knew that the return of students to universities would present significant challenges—SAGE warned of the impact weeks ago. What planning was put in place over the summer to ensure students would be able to return safely? Universities have stressed the importance of being able to work closely with local public health teams, so why did it take the Secretary of State and the Health Secretary until last Wednesday to write to local directors of public health about the return of university students?
What is the Secretary of State’s message to those students who have not yet moved to campus? They need clarity, should they do so. What urgent steps is he taking to ensure that every student can get the best possible education, whether they are at home or on campus? How many students are currently unable to learn remotely because of a lack of digital access or devices, and what is he doing to address that? What extra support will be given to students with special educational needs and disabilities? He is right that some courses require face-to-face teaching, but has he considered supporting universities to move all teaching online, where this is possible, at least for this first term?
For weeks now, Labour has warned the Government that they must get a grip on testing and tracing if we are to reduce the spread of the virus, and the failure to do so lies at the root of this situation. Sorting it must be the Government’s top priority. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that only those with symptoms should try to get a test. That will leave many without symptoms in self-isolation in difficult circumstances. Can he tell us how many students, staff and members of the community around universities have symptoms but are waiting for a test? What is the local testing capacity in each community with a university, and is he confident that it will be sufficient if there is a spike cases? Some universities have taken the lead where the Government have failed, and have begun to develop their own testing capacity. What support is the Secretary of State offering those institutions and others that wish to do this?
We cannot forget that, at the heart of this crisis, are thousands of young people—many away from home for the first time, and many now isolated with a group of people who are practically strangers. We can only imagine how hard it is for them. The Secretary of State said he has asked universities to provide additional help, but beyond asking, what will his Department do to help them? I am glad he has listened to Labour and finally given a straight answer on reuniting students and their families over Christmas, but why did it take several days and repeated contradictions from his ministerial colleagues?
In conclusion, the crisis now threatening our universities was predictable, and it was predicted. Today, the Secretary of State failed to outline a plan to get testing fit for purpose, failed to commit that every student who needs access to remote learning will get it, and had no plan to ensure the future of our universities. If he does not get a grip, the situation we have seen in recent days could repeat itself across the country. Students will be unable to continue their studies, families will be concerned for their wellbeing and universities will face serious financial difficulties—and the Secretary of State will once again have let young people down as a result of his incompetence.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I am glad she welcomes the announcements on further education. The changes we want to drive in further education are absolutely vital to ensure that our country is in the right place to seize new opportunities now that we have exited the European Union and to make sure our youngsters, and people of all ages, have the skills they need to drive productivity in this country and ensure that they get the very most out of their lives.
The hon. Lady mentioned the advice from SAGE. Understandably, we wanted to update the advice we had issued on 2 July on the return of universities and higher education institutions following the conclusions of SAGE, which we did. That took into account the issues that SAGE had raised and some of the suggestions that it had put forward. SAGE also warned about the impact of youngsters not going to university and of having the opportunity to return taken away from them. That was recognised across all four nations of the United Kingdom—how important it is for youngsters to be able to go to study at university.
The hon. Lady raises an important point about digital access. I am sorry that she missed the announcement that we have made £100 million available for universities to use to ensure that youngsters have digital access, including students from the most deprived backgrounds, who would perhaps not be in a position to access courses. It is vital that if we are in a situation where people will have blended learning, all students are able to access it. We are taking seriously some of the challenges that all students and universities will face, which is why we have made £256 million available to make sure that where students are facing real hardship, universities can access funding to help them.
I thank the Minister for Universities, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who has been in regular touch with universities over the last few days. A small number of universities have seen a number of coronavirus cases—it is not uncommon in communities across the country. She has been in touch with them to make sure that they know we are there to support them and give them any help that is required. We must not forget, however, that hundreds of thousands —almost a million—students have safely returned to university over the last few weeks. They will start their studies and benefit from a brilliant, world-class university education.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that a proportionate response means that students have a right to their course and to face-to-face education? All of us, including older people such as myself, must take personal responsibility. We cannot destroy the life chances of the young. If someone is doing a history degree, they cannot be condemned to permanent online teaching. They might as well sit at home; why have they paid all that money? Will he confirm that, of course, students must self-isolate if they get ill, but we cannot have whole halls of residence being locked down? That is not the sort of university that we all want—a place of light and learning, not enforced lockdowns.
Gavin Williamson
We expect students to follow the same rules as we ask everyone in society to follow. Those who have tested positive for covid or have been in close contact with someone who has would understandably be asked to self-isolate. Universities are working closely with local public health teams to ensure that that happens. We always want to ensure that there is a sensible and proportionate response to ensure that students are able to go about their business and continue their learning online and, importantly, face to face.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I start by declaring an interest: my son is currently at university having to deal with online lessons and my husband teaches in a university.
Unfortunately, covid is only one of the challenges facing universities, with a hard Brexit fast approaching. I start by joining the Secretary of State in praising the steps that universities have put in place to keep staff and students safe through blended and online lessons and mental health support. I hope he will join me in recognising the support that has been given by individual universities such as Glasgow, which will refund one month’s rent for any student having to self-isolate in halls, and Dundee University, which is offering free accommodation to international students who have to quarantine. Students and young people should not be blamed for the rise in cases. The vast majority are complying entirely with the guidance.
While Scottish students attend university in Scotland for free and therefore are not financially impacted by fees, students in England will pay over £9,000 for a mostly online education. This is clearly the time to reflect on the fee-paying structure of higher education and consider following Scotland’s example of free higher education for all. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues on reducing fees and increasing Government funding to universities? We know that there have been issues in accessing tests in England, and that can be more acute for students, who may not have the ability to travel to testing centres. What steps is he taking to set up on-campus tests for students?
Finally, in the Science and Technology Committee earlier this month, the principal of Glasgow University, Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli, described the R&D road map published by the Government in July as a “very high-level document” that
“needs to be turned into a definitive plan very quickly”,
with clarity given on the Government’s exact plans for investment. Could the Secretary of State set out when details of the road map will be released?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for her many comments. I know that both the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Caledonian, which neighbour her constituency, have been doing an awful lot of work in welcoming students from all four parts of the United Kingdom. That demonstrates how important the United Kingdom is for all universities to succeed, in terms of collaboration.
I thank the hon. Lady for putting forward policy suggestions for future Conservative party manifestos. We want to ensure that universities are properly funded, so that they are able to have world-class facilities that can beat other universities anywhere in the world. Universities in Scotland also benefit from the UK finance system, as do Scottish students. In terms of test and trace, we continue to work—
Mr Speaker
Order. It might be helpful to remind the Secretary of State that answers and questions are meant to come through me. Addressing the SNP Chief Whip is not quite what we need. Please remember to speak through the Chair.
Gavin Williamson
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I spent so long with the SNP Chief Whip when we were Chief Whips together that I naturally gravitate to him and have a lovely conversation with him. Old habits die hard, but I will ignore the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).
In our work with universities, we recognise that we are dealing with a fluid situation. We are working with the test and trace system to ensure that there is availability for all students to access testing at universities, close to their residence.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I know that locally, Keele University and Staffordshire University have been working extremely hard during the pandemic to support students. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the challenges we face, everything possible must be done to ensure that students get as enriching an experience as possible this year?
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to those two great universities from Staffordshire, the University of Staffordshire and the University of Keele, for all they have done to give a warm welcome to all students and ensure that they can progress their life chances and have the opportunity to learn. We want all youngsters in all four nations of the United Kingdom to have that opportunity.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What we have seen this week in two halls of residence in my constituency sums up everything that the Government are getting wrong in handling this crisis: no planning over the summer and no foresight, even though it was obvious that halls of residence would be the main area of risk; confused messages that even the Secretary of State’s own Ministers cannot keep track of, let alone 18-year-olds arriving in our city from different parts of the country; and a woeful lack of quick testing, which could have helped us to avoid this situation. When will his Government get a grip, especially of the testing regime, so that others do not have to face restrictions because he has lost control?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady is probably aware that we are doing more tests a day than ever before: 225,000 tests every single day. We are increasing the testing capacity to 500,000 by the end of next month. We recognise that this has to be targeted in areas of high need, such as the areas the hon. Lady has highlighted, but we will be asking—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady is going to ask questions, she may want to have the opportunity to hear the answers.
We are asking students, where they get tested and there is a positive test, to self-isolate and, as in the wider community, that the immediate contacts also self-isolate. However, we do recognise how important it is for universities to be able to provide support for those youngsters—I touched on this in my statement—with food and cleaning products, and other support that may be available. My hon. Friend the Universities Minister spoke to the vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan just yesterday, making clear our offer of support—we are there, standing behind universities and helping them to support their students—which is so critical. I know that is a view both the hon. Lady and I share.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
One of the things that has worried a lot of university students is the idea that, if they either test positive or are a contact of someone who tests positive, they might have to self-isolate, even over Christmas, in their university accommodation, and I am glad the Secretary of State confirmed that we will treat university students like everyone else. The regulations yesterday confirm that people can self-isolate not just at their own home, but at the home of a friend or family member, so someone could return to a family home if that was appropriate. To reassure university students, can he confirm that they will be able to do that and will not be trapped in their university accommodation for the period of self-isolation?
Gavin Williamson
We are very conscious that a lot of students—most students—will not want to be in university accommodation over the Christmas period. We will be setting out quite clearly how that will be avoided, so any students who do not want to be in that position will be able to be at home with their loved ones. We will make sure that all students who want to return home are able to do so.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
There are lots of very worrying reports that young people are scared, confused, isolated and vulnerable to mental ill health, so could the Secretary of State please confirm on what date specifically he knew that some universities were planning to put groups of students in quarantine and on what date specifically he first discussed asking them to put measures in place so that every student had access to mental health support?
Gavin Williamson
The work on mental health support started right at the start of this covid crisis. We made sure that we put in place measures to support students and to put the whole education community at the heart of what we do, recognising the importance of dealing with mental health issues. If we look back at the guidance issued on 2 July and the guidance issued on 11 September, we can see that there was always a recognition that people who tested positive for covid would need to self-isolate. Those people who have been in close contact with those who test positive—not dissimilar to what we would see in workplaces and other educational settings—would also have to isolate as a result.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Following on from that, for many young people, even in a normal year, this is a difficult time of transition—moving to independent study and living, managing finances, meeting new people, and all in unfamiliar surroundings—and a lot of great work is done by universities and the likes of Student Minds, for example. Could my right hon. Friend say a little bit more about the support that is available, and about how it is being stepped up in universities and can be stepped up to fully support our young people?
Gavin Williamson
An amazing amount of work is done by every single university, but there has also been a recognition by the Office for Students that there may be gaps. That is why the Office for Students has stepped in to ensure that where students find that there is not that type of provision, something is provided for them, so that no student is in a position of not being supported. It is incredibly important that all students understand that support is available to them for them to be able to enjoy their time at university and succeed in their studies.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The climate of fear deliberately created by Ministers and their advisers has done untold damage to individuals and to the economy as a whole, and has now hit students and universities, with lock-ups of students and students being denied face-to-face education and unable to engage in the activities we normally associate with student life. Yet they are expected to pay the full price for this substandard opportunity in higher education. Does the Secretary of State think it is fair that universities still hold on to the money paid by students when they are not offering the student experience that they promised? Will he clarify whether the direction that students can go home at Christmas was a result of Government guidance or a decision by universities themselves?
Gavin Williamson
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it was guidance issued by Government and a decision of Government, because obviously any actions that are taken have to be taken in the context of dealing with covid right across the United Kingdom. I am sure that he will have taken the time to read the guidance that we issued on 11 September and studied it in detail. He will have seen the four tiers that we set out to ensure that students benefit from the maximum amount of learning face to face with their lecturers so that every student gets the very best experience that can be made available to them in all universities in England.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
It is right that we are keeping universities such as the University of Bolton open. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that efforts are being made, first, to stymie perpetually enforced self-isolation within the student community, and secondly, to ward off financial ruin caused by unsubstantiated scaremongering on things such as closing down Christmas for students?
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to the University of Bolton for all the work that it has been doing in order to be able to welcome back its many thousands of students. The University of Bolton plays an important role in providing education not just for students who have travelled internationally and across the country but locally for many young people. We will continue to work with the University of Bolton to ensure that people understand how the rules are applied. We need to make sure that people understand who needs to isolate and how long they should be isolating for, but equally, they need to understand that many young people can go about their normal business while observing the restrictions and courtesies that we ask all universities and all people within society to observe.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
What concrete action did the Secretary of State put in place over the summer to ensure that all students and staff requiring a covid test will be able to have one?
Gavin Williamson
As I mentioned, we continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and with Test and Trace to expand the footprint of testing facilities, which are going to be increased to 500. We are making sure that all universities are within walking distance of a testing centre. Many universities will be making some of their facilities available so that testing centres can be placed there. We have also had assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care in terms of mobile testing facilities that will be made available if there are any local outbreaks and that is required.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Surely the right approach is that, despite the virus, we all have to get on with our lives as best we can, and that includes students. Does my right hon. Friend agree that starting the academic year on time was exactly the right decision, and that social distancing and isolation rules that apply to the rest of us need to apply to adult students, no more, no less?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There should be the same set of rules across the board. There is a real cost to not opening up our universities, as there is a cost to not opening up our schools. The cost is not in money: it is in the missed opportunities for those youngsters who want to study to be a doctor, a dentist, a nurse or a teacher, or to train to become an engineer. Denying them the opportunity to be able to return, to learn and to have the opportunities that so many in this House have had would do them an injustice. That is why it has been right to make sure that young people are able to go back to university and benefit from what so many Members in this House have also benefited from.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
First-year students have already had to endure the Government’s chaotic handling of A-level results and now the predictable campus outbreaks, but without sufficient testing or support in place, and the very distressing threat to them and their worried parents that they might not be able to return for Christmas. Will the Secretary of State clarify the point in his statement where he talks about ending learning early? Is he proposing now that all students should have to self-isolate at the end of term, so that they can return safely for Christmas? If so, why not, instead, pursue mass testing with universities so that those students can safely go about their lives and return safely home?
Gavin Williamson
The right hon. Lady obviously listened to only a part of the statement. I said that all youngsters who want to be able to return home will be able to do so. We will look at where there are specific cases. She will be fully aware that many universities end at different times for Christmas, but, where there are specific cases and specific local circumstances, we will be working with the university sector to look at shifting to online learning solely to be able to ensure that all students have the benefit of being able to return home to be with their families for Christmas. We envisage that that will cover only a very small number of universities.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am glad the Secretary of State has confirmed that face-to-face learning will continue where possible, but in some cases students will be paying full fees for what are now only online courses. The financial burden must be shared with universities, so can he ask the Office for Students to confirm, and strongly advise, that university bonuses should not be paid out unless fees are lowered?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We have had an issue of excessive vice-chancellor pay and bonuses for quite a long time. I will be asking the Office for Students to look at this and give very strong and clear steers on this matter to ensure that no bonuses are going out as a result of this crisis.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I declare an interest: my son has started university in the past week or so. He has not had to self-isolate yet, but a lot of his friends have and I will tell the Secretary of State what they are saying. They are saying that this is exactly the same as the A-level debacle. It was completely predictable and completely avoidable. They have lost confidence in the Secretary of State being able to deliver a safe education. What can he say to them to ensure that, moving forward, they can have confidence that this pattern will not be repeated for the next six months?
Gavin Williamson
I very much hope that the hon. Member’s son is enjoying his time at university and the opportunities that it will open up. We have always been clear that, if youngsters contract covid, they will have to self-isolate. We have also been clear that, where students have been in close contact with people who have covid, they will also have to self-isolate. Those are the rules that we expect everyone right across the country to abide by, so it is right that we also expect that of students. What he would see, if he had taken the time to read the guidance that we issued both on 2 July and the 11 September and the additional work and support made available to universities, is that we recognised that there were going to be challenges as a result of this. That is why we have worked with the university sector and asked it to reduce the risk as much as possible, so that young people are able to have the benefits of university and their learning is not impacted by covid—or the impact is minimised.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Education is essential for opportunity and social mobility. The role of further education colleges is absolutely vital, as I am sure he will endorse. Does he agree that it is right to prioritise education by keeping schools, colleges and universities open, and that we cannot ask young people put their lives on hold for months?
Gavin Williamson
As someone who has worked in the FE sector and feels so passionately about it and about the opportunities that not just further education but higher education and all schools provide all our youngsters, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to advocate the importance of opening not just our universities but our schools and colleges at the earliest opportunity. Let us not forget that when we suggested opening schools on 1 June, the Labour party opposed that. When we issued guidance on 2 July to see the full opening of all schools in September, the Labour party opposed that. The Labour party does not come forward with positive suggestions; it just tries to politicise a global pandemic, in the words of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State presided over the GCSE and A-level fiasco over the summer. That was a dog’s breakfast, and now he is not able to guarantee students testing when they need it. The World Health Organisation has called for testing since March, yet this Government have shown nothing but incompetence. Can the Secretary of State give a straight answer and guarantee that every student who needs a test will get it, instead of this fiasco that he presided over right through the summer? He has failed to prepare and plan. He needs to do his job.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady is probably aware that in order to be able to access testing, someone has to be symptomatic. That is where the testing is most likely to produce the most accurate results. Those guidelines are produced by the Department of Health and Social Care, and I would be very happy for my office to forward them on so she can better understand them.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and also the Prime Minister’s statement today. Training and retraining have never been more important than in our now rapidly changing economy. But with parents worried about the cost of university accommodation—they often act as guarantors—and students worried about the heavy debt they will have to repay after university, as well as the paucity or even trauma of their university experience due to lockdown, will my right hon. Friend champion two-year degree courses, such as those offered by our own excellent Buckingham University, which ensure academic excellence and achievement at a much lower cost to students and families?
Gavin Williamson
The pioneering work that has been undertaken by the University of Buckingham and its vice-chancellor, the brilliant Sir Anthony Seldon, who has done so much for education in this country, is something to behold and something that I would like to see more universities copy. We need to ensure that young people understand that there is not only one option available to them at the age of 18, that going to university is not the only way to succeed. There are so many opportunities, including pursuing an apprenticeship or even a degree apprenticeship, or going on to one of our brilliant further education colleges. Expanding the breadth of that choice is one of the key missions of this party. We recognise that that is how we will level up opportunity for all youngsters in this country.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
In April, a report commissioned by the University and College Union on the impact of the covid pandemic found that universities were facing a funding black hole of £2.5 billion in 2020-21, and students still graduate with average debt in excess of £50,000. Calls for an urgent sector-wide funding guarantee have fallen on deaf ears, and we now face the covid crisis in the university sector, putting lives at risk. This was avoidable. Will the Secretary of State now listen and act on the advice of experts by making online learning accessible to all, enabling students to go home without fear of financial penalty, and providing the sector and students with proper funding?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady is maybe not aware that we have taken a number of actions to support the sector, including changes and improvements in research funding, making sure that we continue to protect the vital scientific research base in which we are truly a world leader; the actions that we took before the summer to bring stability to the sector; and working with Universities UK to ensure that the profiling of money to universities works best for them and gives them stability to be able to provide for young people, not just in England but hopefully also with benefits in Wales.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Universities, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for their work on getting students back to university as soon as possible. It is very important that students are able to continue their studies with as little disruption as possible, and the university is the largest employer in Loughborough. I would therefore welcome the Ministers’ comments on the steps being taken to ensure that students can now safely remain on campus for the duration of their courses.
Gavin Williamson
I know the wonderful work that the University of Loughborough has been undertaking, and the fact that it is in The Times’ guide to the top 10 universities in the United Kingdom is testament to the amazing work that it is undertaking. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that students want to go to university to get the most out of the experience at university, and that is why the unprecedented measures that our universities have taken to create a safe and secure environment, so that students can benefit from being at university all the way through the year, are so important. We will continue to work with universities such as Loughborough to provide that to all students.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that face-to-face teaching should continue wherever possible within the context of covid risk and local restrictions. Should the local context or restrictions require a university to move teaching online completely, however, will the Government ensure that neither the university nor its students will be punished financially for doing the right thing?
Gavin Williamson
We continue to work with the sector to ensure that there is the very best quality of teaching. If youngsters have an issue with the quality of teaching, the Office for Students has made it absolutely clear that it will investigate this and take action where it is required against universities that are not delivering what is in their contract with the students.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Our fiercely independent universities are rapidly adapting to this new way of operating so that thousands of young people who have been hard hit by coronavirus can get on with their lives after six months of the pandemic, and I think they deserve all our support. However, many of those students might have planned to use the summer months to earn money to support themselves through university or, indeed, they might have been looking for part-time work while they were studying as a way of ensuring that they could support themselves through these important years of their lives. I am interested to hear from my right hon. Friend what additional work the universities will be doing to ensure that those students who are working hard will be able to get the support they need if they hit financial hardship.
Gavin Williamson
Quite rightly, both this Government and the previous Labour Government put a really high value on ensuring that students who started their studies were able to complete them. The ways in which universities ensure that that happens is something that we monitor closely. We have worked with the Office for Students to ensure that hardship funding is available. That is part of a quarter of a billion pound package that was made available to universities so that proper assessments could be made of students if they required that support. The Student Loans Company also offers a system whereby extra maintenance support can be made available through individual assessment if a student chooses to go down that route.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
While people can pin the exam results fiasco on the Education Secretary, they certainly cannot blame him for the shambolic privatised test and trace system, which is being personally led by the Prime Minister, his chief adviser and the Health Secretary, and which has put the lives of our young people and their families at risk. Given that many of us fear an increased university drop-out rate among students, along with increased stress and mental health issues, can the Secretary of State promise that every student will have access to tests so that they can travel home safely, especially for Christmas?
Gavin Williamson
As we have made clear, we want to ensure that all students who wish to do so can return home safely for Christmas. We and the university sector are confident that the best way of keeping students and young people engaged in their studies is for them to be part of the university community; that is an important step towards ensuring that we do not see high drop-out rates. As I have said, both the hon. Gentleman’s party and my own have always put a great emphasis on the need to ensure that youngsters complete their studies, to ensure that they get something incredibly important from the investment that they make, because this will stand them in good stead to achieve the very best in life. We will continue to work with the sector to give young people the support that is required in these times that are much more challenging than any of us thought we would ever have to face.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
We are rightly proud that the UK attracts so many international students who come to our country every year to study. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what steps his Department is taking to support those students during these unprecedented times?
Gavin Williamson
We have been working closely with the whole university sector to reach out to nations right across the world to make them understand not only that we have the best universities in the world and so many of the best research and teaching universities, but that we offer a brilliant lived experience of being here in the United Kingdom and the opportunity of post-study visas, which are incredibly important. We have also been working with the Home Office to ensure that visa applications are done well and quickly, and ensuring that we have a campaign reaching out to those nations to make sure that youngsters there understand that this is a great country to study in.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said, most university courses this academic year will now involve a blend of online and face-to-face teaching, but it is clear that those proportions might change in response to circumstances. An informal survey conducted by Disabled Students UK shows that changing learning set-ups can cause anxiety and fatigue. Many disabled students also experience issues with pre-existing conditions flaring up when they are adjusting to a new study environment, and excessive screen time can be problematic for people with some conditions. Disabled students and those with chronic conditions might also be more fearful of attending in-person classes. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that every student has the equipment and support they need to learn remotely and that the needs of disabled students are not an afterthought?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady rightly raises an important point, and under equalities legislation there is a duty on universities to ensure that there is proper and fair provision for all students. That is what we would expect from all universities. I wonder whether she would be kind enough to share with me the details of the survey. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities would very much like to follow this up in a meeting with her to discuss it in more detail. As we have touched upon in terms of the availability of devices and the £100 million fund, I certainly hope that youngsters who are suffering with disability would be a top priority for any university, but I look forward to my hon. Friend taking this further in discussions with the hon. Lady and hopefully offering her full and total reassurance on that matter.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Much has been made of the short-term impact on students and on universities, but there is a long-term impact too, and we have known for a while that for increasing numbers of university students the graduate outcomes are not great. This health crisis is only going to exacerbate that problem, so will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to examine the choices that we are offering to young people as they leave school and what the proper role for universities in our education system might be?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend knows very well that, while I am a passionate advocate for universities, I cannot help feeling that we must never ignore the great opportunities that are offered through our further education colleges and through apprenticeship routes. For far too long, this area has been ignored. We need to see changes, we need to see improvement and we have to make sure young people realise that sometimes these opportunities are as good as, and in some cases much better than, going to university. That is what we are looking at delivering and what we are going to deliver as part of this Government’s agenda.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The blame for the coronavirus outbreak on campuses lies squarely with the Government’s decision to ignore their own evidence warning that face-to-face teaching and halls of residence were areas of risk. Independent SAGE has called for all teaching to be moved online, as has the University and College Union, the staff union. By choosing not to do so, are the Government not putting student and staff safety at risk simply to uphold a broken university model, as they fear that online teaching would lead to demands for fee or rent refunds?
Gavin Williamson
I am always grateful to get a direct question from the UCU, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Schools, further education colleges and universities in and around my constituency are doing all they can to get great, positive educational outcomes for the young people they are looking after in these difficult times. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will be devoting 100% of his efforts to the education of Britain’s children and young people, rather than seeing the global coronavirus pandemic as a “good crisis” and an opportunity to score political points, which is, sadly, the stated position of the Opposition Front Bencher?
Gavin Williamson
I certainly know that my hon. Friend is putting 100% into representing his constituents in North West Durham and making sure their voice is heard in this Chamber, including on driving changes and improvement to Derwentside College to make sure that youngsters get the very best opportunity, as, far too often, it had been neglected in the past. He is absolutely right to say that Government Members are 100% committed to making sure young people get the very best in education, as against constantly taking the line of trade unions and trying to find excuses not to do things.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his replies thus far. Will he outline what has been done in tandem with hospitals to ensure that fourth-year medical students can get hands-on practice, bearing in mind that many are reporting that they are being excluded from normal mentoring and in-room observation as a result of social distancing protocol? How will he ensure that the doctors of the future have the complete, rounded education that is vital for their ability to practise medicine?
Gavin Williamson
This is incredibly vital, for all four nations of the UK. We have been doing a lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that that is made available to all medical students in England. I will take up this issue again with the Health Secretary, as well as with the devolved Health Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that that is being delivered. If we want to continue to ensure that we have our world-class NHS, we have to ensure that that pipeline of brilliant doctors, nurses and clinicians continues to be provided for it through our universities.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am delighted to have Imperial College London partly in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will give all the support necessary to our world-class educational establishments and that we will do everything to ensure that our students get as normal an education as possible in these difficult circumstances?
Gavin Williamson
Imperial College is one of the great shining lights of our university sector, known around the world for its excellence. My hon. Friend the Minister for Universities visited Imperial College just the other week, seeing at first hand not only some of the measures it was putting in place to ensure that students could return safely, but some of its world-leading work that gives it the reputation it rightfully has. It is important that we continue to work with the sector to do everything possible to ensure not only that students have the quality of experience, but, most importantly, that they can continue to benefit from the brilliant learning and research that is at the very heart of great universities such as Imperial.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It was the Health Secretary’s refusal last week to rule out students not being able to return home for Christmas that caused a great deal of distress to students and indeed to parents, so the Education Secretary’s clear statement today that students will be able to go home will be welcome. However, may I bring him back to the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), which I do not think he quite answered? Under the current rules, can students go home to self-isolate?
Gavin Williamson
We will be setting out clear guidance in terms of students and making sure that that fits within the broader guidance right across the country that is available for the wider population as well.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, education is fundamental to improving opportunities and driving social mobility. It is right that he has done all that he can to reopen education. However, many parents in Darlington are concerned that their children will not be able to return home for Christmas. Although we welcome his announcement today, may I urge him to do all he can to ensure that the fear of missing out on Christmas does not jeopardise our students’ first term?
Gavin Williamson
We all know the importance that we all place on being with our families at Christmas, and it is vital that we set out clearly that we are going to ensure that all students can do so this Christmas. We have to set that in the context of what is happening nationally, and we will work with the Department of Health and the university sector to ensure that all those youngsters who are currently studying and want to return to their loved ones can do so—not just in Darlington, but right across the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that his Government prioritise education and that he stands behind universities, but he knows that the only financial support the sector has received is to address the shortfall in scientific research funding, which is critical but does not have an impact on the learning experience. Will he specify the support that Newcastle University in my constituency will receive to ensure that 30,000 students receive a supportive, safe educational experience in a city with the second highest coronavirus infection rate in the country?
Gavin Williamson
I spelt out in the statement the £256 million that was made available for universities to support students to continue their studies. We also reprofiled student loans to provide support and have continuously worked with the sector. We have set up a restructuring regime for universities that are facing financial hardship and difficulty, so that they can work with us and we can support them.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Some 2,500 new and returning students arrived at the Keele campus in my constituency in the past week, all accommodated in small and tightly-defined households. I am pleased to say that the vice-chancellor reports no significant issues so far. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming these students to Newcastle-under-Lyme—to Staffordshire? Will he also welcome the sensible approach of Keele University and its blended approach to learning, including through face-to-face teaching, and will he set out what measures his Department has taken to alleviate any concerns that staff and students have, given the recent rise in covid cases?
Gavin Williamson
We all recognise that we are operating in quite unique circumstances, in which we are seeing a rise in the number of coronavirus cases. The work of Keele University—setting out clear policies to welcome students back safely, and into a warm and friendly environment—is critical. Like me, my hon. Friend wants to ensure that universities can benefit from the brilliant experience of studying at Keele and to continue to make Keele one of the great universities to study at.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Students are asking why they have been sent to university halls only to be locked in their rooms and to rightly receive online teaching. The University and College Union and the National Union of Students warned what would happen, but the Government ignored them. One answer—maybe a cynical one—is that the marketised higher education system needed students to return. It needed their tuition fees and their rents, and that is why student welfare has been sacrificed. Is the cynic right, or is this straightforward Government incompetence?
Gavin Williamson
I know that the hon. Lady feels passionately about this issue, but we want youngsters to be able to go back to university and benefit from education and learning. As she is aware, it is not just students and those who have been in contact with them who have to get tests and who may have to self-isolate if they are displaying symptoms; it is the whole of society. It is so important that we deal with this as a nation. We cannot have one rule for students and another rule for the rest of the population. This is the right approach, ensuring that we continue to do everything we can to control the virus.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about supporting the mental health of students at this time. May I encourage him to ensure support for the employability skills of students, which could easily be neglected with online sessions? Even if it is only online, let us keep them on track for the lives they want after university.
Gavin Williamson
A key metric we always look at is what universities are doing to ensure that students do not just learn but can benefit from that learning and study and bring it into the world of work. That should not be neglected at this time, but rather there should be a greater emphasis on it. What is the point, if people go to university and are not given the tools to enter employment and fulfil their dreams and ambitions through the work they get on the back of degrees they have achieved?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Students from my constituency and elsewhere who are away at university for the first time are being put in the impossible situation of facing huge restrictions on their education and social life, but they are still being expected to pay full fees and rent. That is both grossly unjust and unfair. Will the Secretary of State tell me what plans the Government have to address that issue?
Gavin Williamson
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, anyone who has not been receiving what they should have been receiving, in terms of education and support from a university, can, through the Office for Students, make a complaint. If they are not getting the support and the study they should be entitled to as part of their contract, they are entitled to be reimbursed.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Staffordshire University and Keele University are important local employers for the areas of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove, Talke, Newcastle-under-Lyme and across north Staffordshire, as well as a vital lifeline for the local economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that bringing students back to university for face-to-face learning is also important, so that local economies can thrive?
Gavin Williamson
We all recognise the important role that universities play, in terms of not just direct employment but the innovation they bring to communities and the research they do, which often supports local business. They also train people in skills to enter the workforce not here in London, but in Stoke, Talke, Kidsgrove and many other areas across north Staffordshire. They are an important local employer, and an important part of economic regeneration for many areas up and down the country.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Young people have borne a heavy burden throughout the pandemic: financially, emotionally, through the loss of education, and now with a disruptive return to university. Will the Secretary of State use his position to advocate that young people should not also bear the burden of paying for this crisis through fees and accommodation costs for the rest of their lives?
Gavin Williamson
I reassure the hon. Lady that this Government are not going to treat students like the SNP Government did in Scotland, as a different set of citizens and by putting a different set of restrictions on them from those on the wider community. We recognise that we should treat people fairly and equally, so we will not make the SNP’s mistakes.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you for getting all the way through this call list to me, at the bottom of the class? Will the Secretary of State inject some positivity into the Chamber? Going to university is the most amazing opportunity. Yes, it will be different this year, but our young people are durable and flexible, and they will take the opportunity that is afforded to them in the way that generations before them have. Will he conclude by sending out a message that these young people will power our future generations and economy through these very difficult times?
Gavin Williamson
Mr Speaker, I think you will agree with me that my hon. Friend deserves a first-class degree for that question. He is absolutely right to say that university students will face a different set of circumstances, but going to university opens up so many doors and opportunities, in terms of not just study and what they will learn but the opportunities and friendships they will forge over their period of study.
Mr Speaker
We are not quite finished yet: we have the Chair of the Education Committee to come, Robert Halfon.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker —much appreciated.
I strongly welcome today’s remarkable announcement on skills, which we should all celebrate, and I thank my right hon. Friend, and the Universities Minister, for the work that they are doing on universities. There are 3,000 students, roughly, in lockdown at the moment. All I ask of my right hon. Friend is that if that number grows dramatically—to 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000—he review the current policy, which he set out today.
May I also ask my right hon. Friend specifically about a long-term issue that has been exposed by the coronavirus? Of state school pupils, 45% go on to higher education; of pupils on free school meals, it is 26%; and of white working-class boys on free school meals, it is just 13%. What are my right hon Friend, and the Universities Minister, doing to reverse that and to ensure that more white working-class boys and girls go to university?
Gavin Williamson
Few people in the House can match my right hon. Friend as such a staunch and consistent advocate for high-quality further and technical education, whether through our further education colleges, apprenticeships or independent learning providers. He truly is an inspiration not just to me but to so many others to ensure that we provide that for young people in the future.
My right hon. Friend rightly says that the university situation is something that we need to constantly keep under review. We will constantly work with the sector very closely to ensure that we adapt and support it if the pandemic means that we have to make changes.
On why not enough youngsters on free school meals or white working-class boys are going to university, that is a real issue. We need to see change. We need to look at different options to ensure that those youngsters realise that they can succeed as well at university as all the other youngsters who choose to go. We will ensure that we deliver it as we level up across the country over the coming years.
Points of Order
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise what I submit is an important issue concerning the extent and interpretation of the Law Officers’ convention in relation to questions and answers given in this House. On Thursday last week, I asked the Attorney General for information on what support she had had from officials, Treasury counsel and others in relation to the preparation of a statement on the Government’s legal position on to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement, which was published to Select Committee Chairs on 10 September. She declined to give me a substantive answer to that question, relying upon the convention.
I submit that it is very clear from “Erskine May” that the application of the convention is strictly and deliberately circumscribed so as to limit it to protecting the giving of legal advice or opinions by the Law Officers to the Government. I submit that the publication of a statement of the Government’s opinion on the legal position cannot be advice given to the Government, and therefore the convention cannot apply to it. If that be the case, I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on whether the Attorney General was in order in relying upon the convention, and how I might elicit the information that I was seeking.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order, and for giving me notice of it. Ministers are, of course, responsible for the answers that they give, but I can help him in some respects. It seems to me that he states the convention as reflected in the ministerial code accurately. A Law Officer can choose to make their advice public, as has happened in the instance to which he referred, and, as my predecessors have ruled, the rules of the House are in no way involved should they choose to do so, as is stated in “Erskine May”.
It is out of order to ask a question that seeks an opinion on a question of law, but I can confirm that the question that the hon. Member asked did not infringe that rule. He is entitled to table further questions to pursue what he considers to be an unsatisfactory answer. I have no doubt that he will do so with great urgency.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise hon. Members whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given an indication that he will come before the House to make a statement regarding the announcement this morning from the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland that there would be no further prosecutions of soldiers in relation to the events known as Bloody Sunday? The outcome of that has been that campaigners are now indicating, even though it is almost 50 years after the event, that they intend to seek a judicial review into these issues rather than into the murder of police officers three days before Bloody Sunday, even though that has never been investigated or inquired into at all.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. As he knows, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but the House and the Government Front Benchers in particular will have heard what he had to say. I would be disappointed if there is not a statement coming forward on this very important matter. I think it is very, very important to the House, and that information should be coming here.
As there are no further points of order, to ensure the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House.
Problem Drug Use
Tuesday 29th September 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Problem Drug Use Bill 2019-21 View all Problem Drug Use 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
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to declare problem drug use a public health emergency; to require the Secretary of State to review the effects of welfare sanctions on people who use drugs; to make the Department for Health and Social Care the lead department for drugs policy; to require the Secretary of State to respond publicly to recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; to amend the classification of drugs in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; to make provision for safe drug consumption facilities; to decriminalise the possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use; to make provision about the stigmatisation of problem drug use; to amend the Equality Act 2010 to recognise drug dependence as a health condition; and for connected purposes.
This pandemic has shone a spotlight on many of the problems we face as a society, but it has also diverted our attention from many other pressing social problems. One of those is the question of problematic drug use, which afflicts every community in every part of this land. Thousands of people are losing their lives. Tens of thousands have their lives and their health blighted, and hundreds of thousands of people living in our communities have their lives compromised by the effects of this problem, yet the big problem we have is that the principal piece of legislation governing this area that we look to—the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—is simply not fit for purpose. In fact, worse than that, it is a hindrance to taking action and compounds the very problems that we perceive.
The Act does that in a number of ways. First, by criminalising the entire area, and the production, distribution, supply and consumption of drugs, it takes any concept of regulation or control and places it firmly in the hands of organised crime, rather than public agencies. Secondly, stigmatising and criminalising the end user makes it very difficult for anyone caught up in the problem to seek help. They are often torn between threats of violence from their supplier and the threat of arrest and detention by the police. Thirdly, it compromises the ability of health service workers to intervene and do something about the problem, in many cases also placing them under threat of prosecution. Finally, it shrouds the entire area in ignorance and a lack of information, meaning that we cannot shine a light on the problem and decide what to do.
It is nearly 50 years since the Act was passed, and I can think of no other legislation on social policy that has remained unreformed and unreviewed for half a century. The case for reform is all the more compelling when we consider that the scale and nature of the problem we face today is so different from that faced by our predecessors at the end of the 1960s. Drugs have changed. More people are using them, and we now know far more about what to do with them than ever before. That is why we should have a comprehensive review of drugs legislation. I hope and pray that the Government will see the wisdom of doing that at some stage in the near future, and that we will move away from an approach based on criminalisation and prohibition, towards one based on compassion and regulation.
But that is not what today or this Bill is about. I do not seek to overturn or amend the 1971 Act. I seek to introduce additional specific measures that will deal with the problems in front of us today. When discussing this whole area we must first realise that this is not a new problem. Narcotics have existed for as long as we have. They were there in the past; they will be there in the future. Ever since humans beings grew legs, we have been chewing leaves or drinking potions in an attempt to combat pain or overcome boredom. For some that is a response to dramatic and poor conditions in their lives, but for others it is simply part of the curiosity inherent in human nature.
We understand much more than we used to about the science behind this problem. That science is still developing, but we know that the problem of drug addiction in our society is principally to do with biochemistry. It is not a moral question about right or wrong. What is happening is not to do with the actions of some aberrant individuals who are deciding to be bad; it is a social problem about how we interact with our world and environment.
When people like me make such arguments, two arguments are usually thrown against us. The first is to say that drug problems in society are a result of many other social ills, and we should be concentrating on the incohesion in our society, the poverty, inequality, abuse, violence and our mental health crisis, and we are misplacing our energy if we talk simply about reforming drug laws. I know of no one on this side of the argument who does not call for a radical change in social policy to try to overcome the policies that we are afflicted by, but it is a false choice to present this as “either we do that, or we reform drugs legislation.” We need to do both. Although in many cases those social problems are the consequences of drug addiction, in some cases they are also the causes of it, and that interrelationship must be addressed.
The second point argued when people like me say things such as this is that we are going soft on drugs. To use the Home Office’s phrase, we are “giving the wrong impression”, as if somehow reforming criminal law in this matter would encourage drug consumption, addiction or problematic drug use.
The problem with that argument is not only that there is not a shred of evidence to support it, but that there is abundant evidence to support the opposite point of view. Over the last 20 years, many countries have made often radical and dramatic changes in their legal framework surrounding drugs. In not one single instance has that led to an increase in the problem. Everywhere—everywhere!—it has led to a reduction in the problem, with fewer users, fewer drugs, fewer deaths and fewer demands on law enforcement. That is the fact of the matter across the world. Today, in Portugal, which has taken serious action—probably more than any other European country—four people for every million of the population die from problem drug use. The figure in the United Kingdom is 85 people per million. That should mean that we do something about this problem, and I hope very much that we will.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of the Bill. Much of the debate has been about drug consumption rooms, and I want to be clear just how irritated and frustrated I become when some people refer to these glibly as shooting galleries, as if they were a site of entertainment or relaxation. I have visited these facilities in Canada, Germany and Portugal, and they are as far away from anyone’s concept of recreation as it is possible to get.
Some people just do not understand how providing a facility to allow people to take their own drugs can in any way help them. Surely we should be intervening with rehabilitation. Surely we should be offering these people help and advice. The people who say that misunderstand the problem, and they misunderstand this proposal. We cannot give advice to a dead person. This proposal, and facilities such as drug treatment rooms and drug consumption rooms, are about keeping people alive today so that we can make those interventions tomorrow. These facilities are, in effect, overdose prevention centres. Because this entire matter is shrouded in the criminal law, most of the 5,546 people who died from this problem last year died alone, behind closed doors. They died unintentionally because, by the time they realised something was wrong, it was too late to call for help. However, the real horror is not the deaths, but the fact that they are entirely preventable if we choose to bring this whole area into the light and look at it seriously.
In my last minute, I want to address how policy is made in this Parliament. We have a Select Committee system. Committees are set up to scrutinise areas of legislation and Executive action. Over the last year, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee have done exactly that in this field. They have brought forward experts, who have studied this matter in detail, and they have—independently of each other—made the same recommendations, which reflect the proposals in the Bill. The Government’s response, in rejecting those recommendations out of hand, has been woeful. I say to the Government that this matter will not go away. They cannot keep their head in the sand. They should take it out and tell us what the alternative is. If the UK Government are incapable of acting as a state on this, they should give the capacity and the power to the devolved Administrations, so that the countries of this land can learn from each other.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tommy Sheppard, Ronnie Cowan, Alison Thewliss, Tonia Antoniazzi, Clive Lewis, Ben Lake, Caroline Lucas, Crispin Blunt, Grahame Morris, Jeff Smith, Wendy Chamberlain and Pete Wishart present the Bill.
Tommy Sheppard accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 189).
Delegated Legislation
Public Health
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 935), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 September, be approved.—(Maggie Throup.)
Question agreed to.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Tuesday 29th September 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 September 2020 - (29 Sep 2020)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment to the programme motion.
Ordered,
That the Order of 14 September 2020 (United Kingdom Internal Market Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) to (6) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Paul Scully.)
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Tuesday 29th September 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 September 2020 - (29 Sep 2020)
18:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 350 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 351 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 342 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 348 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 340 / Noes: 256 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have not selected the recommittal motion in the name of Ian Blackford.
New Clause 4
Objectives and general functions
‘(1) In carrying out its functions under this Part the CMA must have regard to the objective in subsection (2).
(2) The objective is to support, through the application of economic and other technical expertise, the effective operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom (with particular reference to the purposes of Parts 1, 2 and 3).
(3) The following do not apply in relation to the carrying out of the CMA’s functions under this Part—
(a) section 25(3) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (duty to seek to promote competition), and
(b) sections 6(1)(b) (function of giving information or advice to the public) and 7 (provision of information and advice to Ministers etc) of the Enterprise Act 2002.
(4) The CMA may give information or advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to any of its functions under this Part.’—(Paul Scully.)
This new clause makes provision about the objective to which the Competition and Markets Authority must have regard in carrying out its functions under Part 4, and the application of certain general functions of the CMA in relation to its functions under Part 4. The clause would be inserted after Clause 28.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government new clause 5—Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups.
New clause 1—Withdrawal Agreement and rule of law duty—
‘(1) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part (Northern Ireland Protocol) applies must—
(a) respect the rule of law;
(b) allow for the possibility of judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission by the appropriate authority;
(c) use the provisions of Article 16 of the Protocol to protect the interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law.
(3) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with—
(a) the requirement under Article 5 (Good faith) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to assist each other in full mutual respect and good faith to carry out the tasks which flow from the Agreement;
(b) the requirement under Article 167 (Consultations and communications within the Joint Committee) for the EU and the United Kingdom to endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution;
(c) the requirement under Article 184 (Negotiations on the future relationship) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period;
(d) the requirements of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date.
(4) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.’
This new clause is intended to replace Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill, to require Ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts and the practice of judicial review, and to require UK Ministers to implement the Withdrawal Agreement.
New clause 2—Internal market common framework—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must seek to reach agreement with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on a common framework on the United Kingdom internal market.
(2) A common framework under subsection (1) may cover—
(a) the functioning of the United Kingdom internal market;
(b) the effectiveness of market access principles; and
(c) drawing up a shared prosperity fund to balance economic development across the whole of the United Kingdom.
(3) The Secretary of State must take into account the common framework on the United Kingdom internal market in exercising any powers under Part 6 (Financial assistance powers) of this Act.’
This new clause would put the Common Framework process on a statutory footing.
New clause 3—Duty to consult, monitor, report and review—
‘(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 commence.
(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 (1).
(4) The reviews under subsection (1) 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.’
This new clause would ensure Ministers have a duty to report back to Parliament on the progress of the functioning of the internal market; market access; progress towards agreeing common frameworks; progress towards drawing up a shared prosperity fund; and progress in resolving issues through the Joint Committee machinery in the Withdrawal Agreement.
New clause 6—Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement—
‘(1) Any financial assistance provided under Part 6 of this Act for the purpose of economic development must take into account the overarching need for a sustainable strategy aimed at long- term national well-being.
(2) Every proposal for financial assistance under this Act must be accompanied by a climate and nature emergency impact statement.
(3) Responsibility for the production of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with the applicant for financial assistance.
(4) Responsiblity for assessment of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with Ministers, who are required to publish this assessment for any successful proposal.
(5) The climate and nature emergency impact statement produced should take account of any carbon budget, climate, nature and environmental goals approved by the relevant Parliament.
(6) In subsection (5), the “relevant Parliament” means—
(a) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in England, the House of Commons and the House of Lords;
(b) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Wales, Senedd Cymru;
(d) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly.’
The intention of this new clause is to ensure that those seeking financial assistance for economic development, etc under this Act are obliged to undertake a climate and nature emergency impact statement to ensure public money is only granted to development consistent with climate, nature and environmental goals and targets.
New clause 7—Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market—
‘(1) As part of its obligation under Article 6.2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to use its best endeavours to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK, the UK Government must—
(a) publish an assessment at least every 12 months of any impact on businesses and consumers arising from the Protocol on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and vice versa; and
(b) develop mitigations to safeguard the place of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in the UK internal market.
(2) The assessment published under paragraph (1)(a) must include assessment of the impact of any actual or proposed regulatory or trade policy divergence on Northern Ireland’s place in the UK Internal Market.
(3) Any official or administrative costs arising from the duties under subsections (1) and (2) may not be recouped from the private sector.’
New clause 8—Interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol in accordance with International Law—
‘(1) In the event that the European Union fails to act in accordance with the principles of public international law in its implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, by
(a) failing to undertake acts that are required by the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(b) committing acts that are not in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(c) failing to undertake acts that are necessary for the effective implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(d) asserting positions in the Joint Committee that are not in accord with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol; or
(e) refusing to discuss in the Joint Committee proposals on implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol tabled by the United Kingdom;
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the principles of public international law that may be invoked include—
(a) the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986, including, in particular,
(i) the need to act in “good faith” and
(ii) the need to avoid results that are “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”;
(b) established international practices, having the status of customary international law; and
(c) the commitments made in the preambular paragraphs of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
(4) A unilateral interpretative declaration issued under subsection (1) may not be submitted unless—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament
(i) a copy of the proposed declaration,
(ii) a statement on the nature of the dispute with the European Union,
(iii) a statement of the intended effect of the proposed declaration; and
(b) the declaration has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the declaration has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(ii) 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 paragraph (b).
(5) When a response to the submission of any unilateral interpretative declaration is received from the European Union, a Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament the response received from the European Union, and—
(a) in the case of the approval of the declaration by the European Union, the Minister shall issue a written statement confirming that the declaration has obtained the status of an authentic interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol;
(b) in the case of opposition to the declaration by the European Union, the Minister shall issue a written statement, assessing any alternative interpretation formulated by the European Union and indicating the government’s intended response; or
(c) in the case of the recharacterisation of the declaration by which the European Union purports to treat the declaration as an illegal reservation, the Minister shall issue a written statement of what action it intends to take to resolve the dispute.
(6) In this section—
“approval”, “opposition” or “recharacterization” of a declaration shall have the meaning given in Guideline 2.9 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, contained in the report of the International Law Commission on its Sixty-Third Session in 2011;
“Joint Committee” means the Joint Committee established under Article 164 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement;
“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);
“submit” means to make a submission to the depositary of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, as specified in Article 183 of the EU Withdrawal Agreement; and
“unilateral interpretative declaration” means an interpretative declaration as defined by Guideline 1.2 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, contained in the report of the International Law Commission on its Sixty-Third Session in 2011.’
Government amendments 31 and 32, 19, 33 to 38, 20 to 26, and 1 to 11.
Amendment 16, page 37, line 10, leave out Clause 45.
Government amendments 12, 13, 15 and 14.
Amendment 18, page 38, line 36, leave out Clause 46.
Amendment 29, page 39, line 27, leave out Clause 47.
Government new schedule 1—Constitution etc of Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups.
Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 48, line 14, at end insert—
‘(8A) 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 amendments 27 and 28.
Amendment 30, in title, line 7, leave out from “aid” to “to” in line 10.
Amendments 18 and 29 would remove both clauses in Part 6 (Financial assistance powers). This consequential Amendment removes from the long Title “to authorise the provision of financial assistance by Ministers of the Crown in connection with economic development, infrastructure, culture, sport and educational or training activities and exchanges”.
Paul Scully
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to begin by thanking all Members for their engagement throughout the passage of the Bill and the Public Bill Office for its excellent work in supporting Members and officials.
Before I turn to the specific amendments that we are debating, I want to briefly remind Members why it is crucial that we pass this Bill. Around 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is around three times as much as exports to the rest of the EU. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain. In some local authorities in Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, laws made in Europe can be made in the UK.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Minister will have noticed yesterday that the Scottish Government declared their intention not to give this Bill a legislative consent motion. Does he intend to ignore that or dismiss it, and does he hold Scottish democracy in contempt?
Paul Scully
I very much do not hold the devolution settlement in contempt. It is right that we work together. I believe that the UK is stronger together. It is important that we give Scottish businesses—just as much as Welsh, Northern Irish and English businesses—the certainty that they want to be able to trade, so we will continue to engage with the Scottish Parliament and officials and politicians up there to achieve legislative consent.
Hundreds of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government in an unprecedented transfer. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this Bill and why it is essential that we pass it. We want to guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK.
I will begin by speaking to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, starting with those that strengthen the Bill’s measures relating to the governance and functioning of the Office for the Internal Market. The office will sit within the Competition and Markets Authority to monitor and report on the internal market on an equal basis for all Administrations. The Competition and Markets Authority has a strong reputation for independence and impartiality. The Government have strived to preserve that reputation in setting out the functions to be carried out by the Office for the Internal Market. By providing non-binding, expert reporting and technical monitoring on regulations and proposals, it will provide robust evidence on the actual or potential impact of regulatory measures.
New clause 4 gives the Competition and Markets Authority the objective of supporting the effective operation of the UK internal market through the provision of economic and technical advice and expertise. That will exist in parallel to the existing objective of the Competition and Markets Authority to promote competition for the benefit of consumers.
New clause 5 enables Competition and Markets Authority functions under part 4 of the Bill to be carried out by an Office for the Internal Market task group and introduces a new schedule setting out the Government’s arrangements for the Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups. That mirrors the existing arrangements for the establishment of panels and groups that it has in place.
New schedule 1 establishes a panel of experts to lead the work of the Office for the Internal Market. The Secretary of State will appoint a chair and further members, following consultation with Ministers from all three devolved Administrations.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the arrangements under the Bill regarding the CMA guarantee that we will not have any jurisdiction by the European Union or the European Court over the CMA and, furthermore, that one of the cardinal principles on which the European Union and the Commission are taking their stand is that they insist that we should not benefit competitively from leaving the European Union and we should not be able to compete with them on reasonable terms?
Paul Scully
I am grateful for that typically wise intervention. I am happy to provide that confirmation.
Amendment 1 provides absolute privilege against defamation for the Competition and Markets Authority when carrying out its functions under part 4. That will ensure that it can report and provide advice independently without needing to expend resources on preparing to defend litigation, and that businesses with deep pockets cannot sue or threaten to sue the CMA to obstruct it from carrying out its functions.
I shall set out briefly for the House the amendments that will improve the Bill’s drafting. Through amendments 31 to 34, we are taking the opportunity to put it beyond any possible doubt that alcohol minimum unit pricing-type regulation and any other sales requirements are not in the scope of the mutual recognition principle, unless they amount in practice to a total ban on a good being sold. That came up in Committee. We want to make sure that rather than politicking, we can return to a business continuity approach.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister just told us about an amendment to take into account concerns about the minimum unit pricing aspect, but UK Government Ministers have been telling us for weeks that the Bill does not affect that. Clearly, that was a concern until now and we were right. Is it not also true that the non-discriminatory aspects of the amendment make it completely useless anyway?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is no. To ensure we take that political football totally off the table and return the Bill to what is was always designed to be about—giving businesses in Scotland and all parts of the UK the business continuity and certainty they need without such distractions—the technical amendment dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For Northern Ireland to be a successful part of the United Kingdom, may I gently suggest that the Minister should work with us on new clause 7, which my party has tabled? It is an imperative tool to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind in Brexit in terms of being an integrated member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—in other words, that we are treated equally.
Paul Scully
I will turn to new clause 7 in a second, but clearly we will treat Northern Ireland equally.
Amendments 2 to 11, 24, 27, 28 and 35 to 38 are technical changes to remove sources of potential confusion in the drafting. Amendments 19 and 21 provide fuller clarification that a wide range of agricultural processes are considered to be in scope when we refer to the production of goods. Amendment 20 ensures that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can continue to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants and that they are excluded from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the Bill.
Amendments 22 and 23 clarify the meaning of clause 16 that a change to the conditions attached to an authorisation requirement would bring it in scope of part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 26 ensures that the exemption in clause 23 covers the replication of non-statutory rules as well as a re-enactment of legislation. Amendments 12 to 15 ensure that the higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may make declarations of incompatibility in respect of the regulations under clauses 42 and 43, but may not quash them. That will ensure that, in the unlikely event of a violation of convention rights, there is a remedy available through the courts.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Notwithstanding the terms of amendments 12 and 13, can the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State continues to be confident that the statement he has made in terms of section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is accurate?
Paul Scully
We have been quite clear in the approach that we have taken in terms of the human rights impact, so I am confident that the Secretary of State has talked about that.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I press the Minister a little further in relation to amendment 13 and so on? I accept “preserving a remedy”, but it is a remedy by way of a declaration of incompatibility, as opposed to removing any offensive regulation in domestic law. It is a much harder burden or obstacle for a litigant—for every person—to go through to get a declaration of incompatibility. What is the compelling reason for adopting this unusual approach?
Paul Scully
This achieves the right balance in terms of a remedy, in the unlikely event of a breach of convention rights, for the reason that I have covered in terms of our impact assessment on human rights. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will feel able to support these important but mainly technical amendments.
I will move on to the Opposition amendments, because it is important that we give them due care and attention, but I first want to remind hon. Members of the core purpose of the Bill. The Bill puts into law a market access commitment by enshrining the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination in the law. That means that goods and services from one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and it will ensure that there is equal opportunity for all UK-based companies trading in the UK.
New clause 2 would place an obligation on UK Ministers to seek to agree a framework covering the UK internal market, which would need to be taken into account in the exercise of financial assistance payments. The new clause would fundamentally alter the basis on which common frameworks are developed and would not be in line with the design of common frameworks that was agreed by the UK Government and devolved Administrations. The principles agreed made it clear that the common frameworks are based on consensus rather than legislation, as we discussed in Committee. The principles also set out that the common frameworks are limited in their scoped powers returning from the EU, which have a devolved intercept.
An overarching framework would not materially contribute to effective joint working between the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations. Through the common frameworks programme, we are agreeing mechanisms for effective intergovernmental working. Those will cover many areas engaged by provisions in the Bill for the internal market.
We are also developing proposals for an enhanced intergovernmental system, which will support work to maintain policy coherence across the United Kingdom. This collaborative model is likely to be more effective and provide greater clarity than the process set out in the new clause, which does not clearly define when the duty in subsection (1) and the due regard duty in subsection (3) would be met.
Common frameworks are designed to allow for collaborative and flexible working between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. Creating a framework such as this, which is underpinned by obligations in law, could undermine that effective joint work.
New clause 3 seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with regular reviews on the functioning of the internal market, the effectiveness of provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and progress towards delivering provisions not in the Act, such as common frameworks. While I commend the intention behind the amendment, the review provisions it seeks to deliver are already provided for. They exist either in the Bill, through the Office for the Internal Market, or in previous legislation.
As part 4 of the Bill sets out, the Office for the Internal Market will have a number of reporting and monitoring responsibilities. Clause 29 sets out how the office will need to compile yearly “health of the market” reports on the functioning of the internal market, and five-yearly system reviews on the operation of parts 1 to 3. Those reports will be laid before the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures for consideration, ensuring parliamentary transparency and accountability. I consider, therefore, that the new clause risks being highly duplicative.
It is essential that both those reports are compiled at arm’s length from both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. That will enable the office to deliver a credible, impartial and expert analysis that delivers difficult messages to the Administrations, if necessary. However, when conducting those reports, the Office for the Internal Market will be able to consider the views of all relevant interested parties, including the devolved Administrations, in order to present evidence on how well the internal market itself and the Government’s proposals are serving stakeholders across the UK. Moreover, regarding the specific areas listed in the amendment, the Government already publish quarterly reports entitled, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks”, which set out joint progress on common frameworks.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is putting a brave face on things, as always. It is all very well talking about reviews and reports, but does he accept that, for an internal market to function, there actually needs to be communication between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the devolved Administrations? Why has the Prime Minister failed to communicate regularly with the First Minister of Wales, instead speaking to him only once every few months? Especially at a time of national crisis, why has the Prime Minister been so poor in his communication?
Paul Scully
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Ministers work with all the devolved Administrations. My colleague in the Business Department has meetings—especially at this particular time—with businesses across the devolved Administrations, including in Wales.
As I say, for this particular area, we already publish the report I referred to. However, we consider it right that any reporting on the Joint Committee machinery or the UK shared prosperity fund should be undertaken separately from that on internal market provisions. For that reason, I am not able to accept the amendment.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that Brexit is a huge opportunity to increase the powers both of this House—over our own internal market and economic prosperity—and of the devolved Administrations, which will gain power? Should everybody not cheer up and welcome the fact that both the devolved Administrations and the Union Parliament can take back control?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to absolutely agree with him that this gives us a great opportunity to come together as the United Kingdom, to give that sense of certainty to businesses and, just as importantly, to grab hold of the opportunities provided by leaving the European Union.
Before I address the amendments to the Bill’s Northern Ireland protocol measures, I remind hon. Members of the points made by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), in Committee last week. He made it clear that
“the Northern Ireland protocol…is designed to recognise and protect the needs and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Central to that is ensuring that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, its successor agreements, and the gains of the peace process are protected.”
He stressed that it was crucial to
“ensure that the delicate balance between all communities in Northern Ireland is maintained and that the UK Government pursue policies for sustained growth and stability in Northern Ireland…Through this Bill, we are acting to uphold those priorities and deliver the commitments we made in our election manifesto that we would provide unfettered access between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and ‘maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of the internal market’.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 647.]
I will now speak to new clause 1, which seeks to replace clauses 42, 43 and 45, as well as amendment 16, which intends to remove clause 45. The Government have already been clear that these clauses are required to provide a safety net of powers in reserve, which Ministers may need to use to guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and to ensure that we are always able to deliver on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, in line with the three-strand approach of the Belfast agreement.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Minister talks about giving a safety net to the people of Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that the majority of people in Northern Ireland regard the Bill as taking away their safety net by undermining the Good Friday agreement? That is the view in Northern Ireland, and it is important that the Government listen to it, not act contrary to it.
Paul Scully
I have spoken to businesses in Northern Ireland, and a number of them are very supportive of this. I suggest that anybody in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK who believes that the Bill actually takes away from the Belfast agreement is listening to the wilful misrepresentation of the Bill by certain people politicking. Actually, the Belfast agreement has a three-strand approach, and the Bill will be a safety net only in the event that we cannot reach agreement with the EU through the Joint Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Scully
I will make progress, because these are important points. New clause 1 and amendment 18 would remove that safety net, which we just cannot agree with. These clauses were supported by clear majorities of the whole House at Committee stage.
I can reassure hon. Members that many of the proposals in new clause 1 are already addressed in the Bill. First, the Government have been clear that regulations made under clauses 42 or 43 would be subject to judicial review on general public law grounds, while ensuring that any claims must be brought within three months. This ensures any challenge to the regulations will be subject to timely resolution before the courts. This is essential to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and investors in Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need. Amendments to this effect have already been agreed to in Committee, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who helped make that happen.
Secondly, on article 16 of the protocol, which new clause 1 mentions, in the event that regulations were made under clauses 42 or 43, we have been clear that we would activate appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms to find a solution in parallel to domestic legislation. Thirdly, the UK Government will continue, as we have always done, to negotiate with our friends and partners in the EU in good faith.
For the avoidance of any doubt, let me confirm again that we are of course committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do this. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the gains of the peace process or the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market—
John Redwood
Would the Minister confirm that the Government are not intending to break the law—and I do not think anything they have suggested is breaking the law—and will he confirm that those who say otherwise are deliberately undermining our negotiations with the EU?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Indeed, our intention, as I say, is to work on implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. I have talked about the fact that we have taken many practical steps to do this. We continue to negotiate in good faith.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Scully
I am going to make progress because I still have a number of amendments to cover.
We cannot accept any amendments that will undermine provisions in the Bill by rendering them no kind of safety net at all. New clause 1 does that, I am afraid.
I now turn to new clause 8. I appreciate entirely the spirit in which this has been put forward. While all of us hoped that the EU would negotiate and discharge its obligations under the withdrawal agreement and protocol in good faith, this amendment seeks to frame in statute a number of steps that Ministers could take under international law were that not to happen. However, this amendment is not necessary, as it would already be open to Ministers to take the steps my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) proposes.
As I have mentioned, the Government have been working with the European Union to reach agreement through the Joint Committee process, and through this Bill we are preparing for a scenario where that does not happen. On 17 September, the Government issued a statement setting out the circumstances in which we would use the powers provided for under clauses 42 and 43: the Government would
“ask Parliament to support the use of the provisions in Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the UKIM Bill, and any similar subsequent provisions, only in the case of, in our view, the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations, and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that those who object to the clauses he has just mentioned should bear in mind the language that has been used by the EU in recent weeks in terms of what it interprets the Northern Ireland protocol to mean? It has denied the existence, as it is written on the face of the Northern Ireland protocol, of matters such as the internal market, unfettered trade and so on. So these provisions are necessary as a safety net—nothing more than a safety net. I say to the critics, “Just look at the language of the EU” and if they look at the language of the EU, they will see that these measures are perfectly reasonable.
Paul Scully
I am grateful for that, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are reasonable steps to act as a safety net.
In the statement I referred to, the Government also make it clear that
“in parallel with the use of these provisions it would always activate appropriate formal dispute settlement mechanisms with the aim of finding a solution through this route.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Scully
I will happily give way to the mover of that amendment. [Interruption.]
Sir Edward Leigh
Actually, to be fair, the Minister has just been dealing with new clause 8, which I have moved. I am very grateful for what he has said. He seemed to suggest that the new clause was not in itself wrong, but was not necessary. But will he accept that, certainly when this Bill goes to the House of Lords, it might be helpful for the Government to produce an idea like this as another arrow in the armoury to reassure those who want to use international law in the right way, if the EU acts unreasonably? The advantage of a unilateral interpretive declaration under the Vienna convention, is that we can do it in this way, so I am grateful to the Minister.
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend. It is right that he gets to speak as it is about his amendment. He is trying to be helpful in this regard, and I know that Ministers in the other place will take heed of his comments as they engage with colleagues there.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to come in at this point. There is no need to consider what steps would be taken in that scenario, given this new clause. It is open to the Government to accept the new clause and thus give clarity and comfort to businesses in Northern Ireland who do not know, but suspect, that there may be divergence, difference and associated costs. Nothing that he has said thus far would be injurious to his position or frustrate his hon. Friends in supporting the new clause this evening.
Paul Scully
I heard cries from the Opposition Benches, but I think it is fair that I give way to Members who have tabled amendments.
We will obviously consider how we reduce the burden further, but we do not think it necessary at this stage to make such reporting a statutory requirement or, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said, to frame it in the very broad terms set out in the new clause.
Amendment 17 deals within the mutual recognition of authorisations granted under the EU’s REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulation. It would automatically allow substances authorised to be placed on the market in Northern Ireland under REACH to be placed on the market in Great Britain. The acceptance of mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals in schedule 1 is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take into consideration local conditions such as lower river flows or exposure levels where those chemicals are used in Great Britain. I would like to emphasise that authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern, such as chemicals that can cause cancer. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account in order to prevent avoidable harm to human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals.
Gavin Robinson
That response is in precisely the same terms as the one we received last week in Committee, but we are not touching on, or interested in, what the local considerations may be. The fact is that this Bill, even though we are talking about non-discrimination and the implications that there could be for business, envisages businesses having to adhere to and satisfy two separate regulatory regimes. We cannot square the circle between discrimination and non-discrimination in two separate and distinct legal regimes, whether there are local factors or not; we should have to adhere to only one. From a business perspective and an animal welfare perspective, it would be useful to have clarity. We can have one or the other, but definitely not both.
Paul Scully
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and obviously we are moving towards that one regime, when we can, but we are also already committed to working on a common framework for chemicals and pesticides policy. That common framework is being co-created by the Government and the devolved Administrations, and will allow us to co-ordinate policy making on matters such as REACH authorisations. Through this framework, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will be required to set out the strategic direction for the UK regulatory regime, ensuring that existing environmental, human health and workplace standards are maintained, or exceeded where possible.
Finally, I want to discuss the amendments that address the power to provide financial assistance. By creating a new power for the Government to provide financial assistance in the areas of infrastructure, economic development, culture and sports, and education and training activities, the Government will deliver on the commitments upon which they were elected: levelling up, delivering prosperity for all our citizens and strengthening the ties that bind our Union together.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister did not seem to mention amendment 16 when he went over that area. The amendment would remove clause 45, because legal experts fear that if the clause stands as it is, it will set up the Government against the courts. Will he explain why he thinks that is not the case?
Paul Scully
I think I have covered why those clauses should remain, although I did not specifically talk about the amendment.
I want to turn to amendments 18, 29 and 13, which together seek to remove the power to provide financial assistance. The Government are determined to deliver on those commitments, as I was saying. It is important that we strengthen the ties that bind our Union together, that we level up and that we deliver prosperity for all our citizens.
Paul Scully
I will not give way at the moment.
Part 6 of the Bill, which includes clauses 46 and 47, helps us to achieve that. This part of the Bill confers a power to ensure that the UK Government can invest UK taxpayers’ money nationwide on UK priorities. In terms of immediate relevance, it would allow the Government to support people and businesses across the country to recover from covid-19. The Government have a responsibility to people, businesses and communities across the whole of the UK.
Paul Scully
I want to make some progress.
This part of the Bill will allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales without taking away responsibilities from the devolved Administrations. New clause 6 will require by law all financial assistance given under part 6 to take into account the applicable climate, nature and environmental goals and targets. It will require that any financial assistance be accompanied by the Minister’s assessment of the project’s climate and nature emergency impact statement.
The Government are committed to ambitious climate targets, and next year we will lead the world in discussions at COP26. It is also crucial that the UK meets its domestic obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 and its international obligations under the Paris agreement. The Climate Change Act requires Governments to set five-year carbon budgets towards meeting our target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, covering the whole of the UK.
Paul Scully
Not for the moment.
Any net emissions increase from a particular policy or project is therefore managed within the Government’s overall strategy for meeting carbon budgets and the net zero target for 2050, as part of an economy-wide transition. Moreover, through the Environment Bill that was introduced into this House in January, the UK Government will have a power to set long-term, legally binding environmental targets across the breadth of the natural environment.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
That whole section of the Minister’s speech was a perfect example of why he should not be objecting to this amendment. It is a helpful amendment that would simply ensure that the financial contributions would actually support all those lovely climate and nature objectives he has just talked about. EU structural funds have a requirement to align with sustainability. His Government keep telling us how Brexit gives us the opportunity to go further than EU environmental policy, so in that case, why does he not accept the amendment? Why is he flunking his first test?
Paul Scully
I have had non-viability and flunking today—I am doing well! I will come to this in a moment. We are framing this in a number of pieces of legislation. I have talked about the Environment Bill, which was introduced in January. It will require the Government to set at least one target for each of four priority areas: air quality, biodiversity, water and waste reduction, and resource efficiency. It will also protect the environment from future damage by—
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman keeps wanting to intervene. At least he has had the decency to put his name down on the speakers list this time, so maybe he will have a chance to make his points when he speaks later.
The Environment Bill will protect the environment from future damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of policy development across Government, with clear and pragmatic guidance on their implementation. The environmental principles will be used by Ministers and policy makers to ensure that policy and legal frameworks help minimise the ill effects of human activity on the environment. Given the Government’s strong commitment already to meeting their ambitious climate targets, and the frameworks established under the Climate Change Act and proposed under the Environment Bill, I do not think that it is necessary to put such a legislative requirement in this Bill.
Paul Scully
I know that a number of people want to speak. I hope that I have set out the rationale for the Government’s amendments to the Bill, and that hon. Members will support them. I trust that I have addressed in sufficient detail the Government’s objections to the amendments put forward by other hon. Members, and that they will therefore feel able to withdraw them. I look forward to engaging in the debate on this crucial Bill.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Here we are again—day five in the new House of Commons series, “The Internal Market Bill Debates”. While the coronavirus crisis rages on, here we are again, watching Ministers justify a Bill that breaches an international agreement signed only months ago and that threatens to break up our United Kingdom. It is a shame that we will not hear from the Prime Minister again today on Third Reading, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was hoping for a sequel. He will have to make do with the Prime Minister’s understudy, the Business Secretary—what fun.
If Government Members have not been tuning in to the previous episodes, let me repeat our position on this Bill. We support a strong, successful internal market that underpins a vibrant, prosperous Union, with the UK Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of that market. We do not want a Brexit rerun; we want to get on to the next series—you know, the one where the Prime Minister delivers on his oven-ready deal and gets a good trade deal with the EU? That one. That is what the trailers promised us, anyway, and it is what the Prime Minister promised us, too.
Lucy Powell
That is what we are calling for: getting Brexit done. Get the oven-ready deal done. The hon. Gentleman says that is what this Bill is about. The Government have had months to prepare it, and here we are adding amendment to amendment at this late stage.
We have been clear that the Bill, as drafted, is a bad Bill that is not in the national interest. Today, we will once again work to try to improve it. It is a Bill that breaks the law and could break up the UK. We have heard some noble and notable interventions during the debates. We saw that many distinguished Government Members felt unable to support the Bill on Second Reading and on some of the key clauses in Committee. As usual, though, they were met with a tin ear from the Government.
Stephen Doughty
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that this disquiet seems to stretch across Government. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office this weekend launched a campaign called “This is democracy”. It features a picture of a judge standing in their robes, and it says:
“Independent judges free to uphold the law. This is democracy. #BeHeard”.
Does she think that perhaps the FCDO is trying to send a message to the rest of the Government and the Prime Minister?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like him, I had a wry laugh when I saw that advert.
Lucy Powell
I will just make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Those noble contributions aside, we really have heard it all from those on the Government Benches during these debates. In trying to justify their latest cack-handed approach to public relations ahead of crunch trade talks with the EU, they have come up with a whole menu of reasons to support the Bill as drafted. Here is the highlights package. Do the Government break an international agreement—an agreement that the Prime Minister signed a few months ago? Do they break the law? Apparently, this Bill only breaks the law in a “limited and specific way”. Others on the Government’s own Benches, as we have already heard today, disagree. Some Members said that the Bill does not break the law in any way, but the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said that it was okay because other people break the law, too. So which is it?
Lucy Powell
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might be able to answer that question. Which is it?
Sir William Cash
I would just like the hon. Lady to answer a simple question. Is she aware that, when in power, the Labour party frequently overrode treaties and has, therefore, in her own terms, broken international law. Is she aware of the number of times that that has happened and how egregious it was? The same applies to many of the matter to which she has just referred.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman has failed to give me an example, so I am not sure what he is referring to. He has spent his whole political career campaigning for us to leave the EU treaties, and the withdrawal agreement, which he supported and which his Government signed, did exactly that, and he is still not happy with it, so I do not know which it is.
The former Prime Minister said in a powerful speech last week that this Bill will tarnish and do “untold damage” to our reputation and weaken the UK in the eyes of the world.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this breaking of the law not only affects our relationships with the European Union, but jeopardises our chances of securing a deal with the United States?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. We heard that from the presidential candidate and others after the Foreign Secretary’s visit there the other week.
As I was saying, the former Prime Minister made a very powerful speech. Others agree with her. One said:
“The rule of law is the most precious asset of any civilised society.”
Another said that the UK is renowned
“for promoting the rule of law, and for doing business with integrity.”
In another notable quote, we heard that
“the rules-based international order, which we uphold in global Britain, is an overwhelming benefit for the world as a whole.”
It was not Members on the Opposition Benches who said those words—oh, no—but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister himself. We have had some debate about when the withdrawal agreement would actually break the law. Is it now as we pass the Bill, or upon the powers being used? The truth is that, even with the additional vote conceded from my friend the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), it does not change the fundamentals that this Bill itself breaks the agreement and breaks international law.
Lucy Powell
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Alex Sobel
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. We also heard another former leader of the Conservative party, Lord Howard, say that, even with the concessions, even with the amendments that the Minister is bringing forward, the Government are still asking Parliament to pass legislation that will break international law.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the first time probably in my political career, I agree with Lord Howard on that point as well. Our new clause 1 would require Ministers to respect the rule of law while implementing their own withdrawal agreement. This is the crucial amendment today for those who want to stand by those values espoused by members of the Cabinet.
The Government have also told us that this is merely a tidying-up exercise or an insurance policy, as we have heard today—it is okay because there were “deep flaws” in the withdrawal agreement, and it was not any good anyway. It just beggars belief. In October last year, the Prime Minister tweeted that he had a “great” new Brexit deal. He told the House that this deal was a good arrangement for Northern Ireland, so which is it? No, okay, we do not have any answers to that. As the former Prime Minister also said in her speech last week:
“The United Kingdom Government signed the withdrawal agreement with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Parliament voted that withdrawal agreement into UK legislation. The Government are now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the Government…be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it signs?”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 499.]
Ministers had no answer for her then and I wonder whether they do today—no, no answer on that one.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is making a powerful case in favour of new clause 1, which I absolutely support. Does she agree that Government amendment 13 makes the illegal power grab that she is describing even worse, because not only are Ministers seeking to take powers to legislate in breach of international law, but they are trying to close down every possible way in which Parliament could hold the Government to account?
Lucy Powell
I strongly agree; I will come to that point shortly.
The Government’s next justification was that it was necessary to rip up the withdrawal agreement because the European Union is ripping it up itself, but we have heard differing accounts of this: the Northern Ireland Secretary said throughout the summer:
“The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith”.
Which is it? We are still not clear about that.
Perhaps the most dangerous of all the contortions relates to Northern Ireland. The shifting justifications of the Government over the last three weeks have added to the sense that they are using Northern Ireland as a pawn in a wider negotiating strategy. Remember, this is a deal that the Prime Minister told the House was
“in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]
Callous or careless? Untrustworthy or incompetent? The Government are playing a dangerous game, and it is the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the price.
Jim Shannon
I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive way in which she is putting forward her point of view. Does she agree that new clause 7, which was tabled by my colleagues, among others, and has some supporters in the House, is essential to ensure the viability of businesses in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland whose biggest trading partner is the UK? Does she further agree that Northern Ireland cannot be left at the whim of Europe and that we must have security when these measures go before the House?
Lucy Powell
Yes, I do agree. I will mention that point in a moment.
For the people of Northern Ireland, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama; it is a profoundly worrying moment. Little wonder that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland himself, Sir Declan Morgan—a widely respected voice—said that the Government’s actions “undermine trust”. Let us remember that this issue could scarcely be more sensitive. In order to ensure the continuity of the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—recognising the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland sharing a land border with the Republic, and therefore the special responsibility and role that the UK and the Republic of Ireland have as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement—any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland rests on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland in their plurality. That is why it is essential that the protocol upholds Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and that this delicate compromise builds the confidence of all communities. That is the principle behind new clause 7, which we have co-sponsored with the DUP and Alliance.
But instead of proceeding with due caution and going the extra mile to seek consensus, the Government resort to legislative vandalism. They also stoop pretty low—into “straight bananas” land—with scare stories about what the Bill is needed to prevent, some of which we have heard again today. The Prime Minister warned that the Bill was necessary because the EU wants to enforce an embargo on the transport of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and are
“holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 43.]
Yet nowhere in the Bill do the Government safeguard against this. Despite the many amendments at every stage, there is nothing at all in the Bill regarding the movement of goods from GB to NI.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is failing to answer my point, which is that there is nothing in the Bill to protect against the very thing that the Prime Minister told us we needed an insurance policy to guard against.
When the Prime Minister was challenged—or, should I say, humiliated—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North on this point, the Prime Minister shrank into his seat. They then said that they would bring forward changes in the Finance Bill to protect against these imaginary blockades by EU warships in the Irish sea, but there is no Finance Bill now, is there? So what is their plan for dealing with this? Maybe the Minister could tell us.
In their final flourish to push the Bill through, the Government say it gives back powers to the nations, but the devolved Administrations strongly disagree. The Labour Welsh Counsel General has called the Bill
“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
A Conservative Senedd Member, the former shadow Counsel General, resigned because he shared those concerns. As we have argued, if the Westminster Government decided to lower standards, there could be no voice for the devolved nations, because the Government have decided not to legislate for common frameworks, but are legislating for their own veto.
The Government must respect the devolution settlement and work collaboratively in good faith with the devolved Administrations to build a strong and thriving internal market. Our new clause 2 would facilitate just that. Not doing so would threaten our precious Union by putting rocket boosters under the campaign for independence in Scotland and elsewhere.
The Government have also said that this Bill will ensure more money for the nations and regions, as we heard again today, yet we still have no detail on how the shared prosperity fund will operate. They say they want to level up and invest in the regions and nations. “Trust us,” they say on this point, “because we have the right motives.” Yet last week, the mask slipped, didn’t it, with the breath-taking admission from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that his Government were going to funnel this cash into the new Conservative seats—pork barrel politics at its worst.
Our new clause 3 would ensure that Ministers had a duty to report to Parliament and ensure oversight of the progress of this and other measures in the Bill.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly about the English regions. I am from the south-west as she well knows, and the south-west has consistently returned Conservative MPs and received a great deal of money from Europe, and is frankly getting little in return. Could not the Government elucidate on how they are going to meet their promises across the regions in England and across the various nations in the United Kingdom, and on how they will make sure that places such as Cornwall do not lose out further?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am afraid that, as we heard last week, her constituency is unlikely to get more money because it is not one of the new Conservative seats that we heard were going to be prioritised for this reallocation of money.
The truth is that the Government have been making it up as they go along. The UK’s reputation and territorial integrity are collateral damage to a No. 10 fixated on public relations and posturing more than on making sure that its policy works and is in the national interest. We have had an unprecedented number of amendments from Ministers to their own Bill during its passage. We have further new clauses today, which, as we have heard, further undermine the rule of law. They are making it up as they go along—change after change underlying the haphazard incompetence of this Government.
We want a successful internal market. This Bill does not deliver that. We want a strong Union built on mutual respect. This Bill could fatally undermine it. We want the UK to play a global role for good. This Bill actively damages that. The Prime Minister says that measures in the Bill are just an “insurance policy”, but you cannot get insurance for a house you have already torched.
I hope Conservative Members who still have reservations about the Bill will support our new clauses and join us in the Lobby.
Sir Robert Neill
One of the most salutary but, in retrospect, useful put-downs I ever had when I was a young barrister came when I perhaps overindulged in hyperbole in advancing arguments to the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce said to me, “There’s no jury here, Mr Neill, you can cut out the hyperbole and stick to the arguments.” He was right and perhaps it is not a bad thing to try to do in the Committee on the Bill, as there has been a deal of hyperbole surrounding its passage, coming from those in all parts of the House. We might be better off cutting it out a little and getting back to the nuts and bolts of what we are discussing, because a lot of the Bill is perfectly reasonable and necessary. It is not a necessity I particularly like, because I wish we were not leaving some of the arrangements we currently share, but it has to happen as we exit the transition period. The real difficulty comes from the issues in part 5, which we have discussed on a number of occasions, so let me just return to them.
I listened with care to the Minister, and I do not doubt his sincerity and good intentions in this regard. He must have thought it a pretty rum do when, as a trade Minister, he found himself in the middle of a lawyers’ argument, but that has never stopped the lawyers making that case. I recognise that the Government have endeavoured to shift to try to make clear some of their intentions in relation to the difficult and sensitive matters that part 5 threw up. I will not pretend that we should have started from here; it might have been better to have contemplated the idea of some emergency legislation should we be confronted by what, I am glad to say, the Minister says is an unlikely eventuality, as this is what we all want to avoid if at all possible. I can see arguments the other way as well, so I welcome the constructive approach the Government have adopted towards myself and a number of my hon. Friends who had significant reservations with the Bill, as tabled, to try to make it clear that it is not the Government’s intention to act in a way that would undermine our reputation as a nation and jurisdiction that supports and upholds our obligations in international as well as domestic law.
Sir William Cash
I am glad my hon. Friend is referring to a constructive role. I gather from what he said the other day that he was talking very much in terms of last resort, and I want to be constructive, too. As he knows, I have already made the point that the Labour party has been passing Acts of Parliament that clearly and unequivocally override international law and that this has also happened in relation to other legislation in the UK, as I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). So will my hon. Friend bear that in mind when he is considering the question of last resort, the threshold he referred to the other day and the fact that this is more common and happens more frequently than he may appreciate and that sovereignty, above all else, is the keystone upon which the whole of Brexit depends?
Sir Robert Neill
I am not sure whether or not that is an argument for Brexit; on that basis, the Don Pacifico affair was a great statement of national sovereignty, but I do not think it was a great triumph of intellect, integrity or national interest. Leaving that to one side, I accept that there will be a number of occasions when Governments may have departed from their international obligations, but that does not make any of them desirable and it does not mean that we should not seek to limit the circumstances in which that might occur to the barest necessities. So I think we have some common ground there, or at least I hope that we have. That is why I welcome the statements the Government have made to flesh out their intentions on the way in which part 5 would be used.
I say to Opposition Members that I accept that there are certain circumstances in which we might find ourselves in difficulty because of the attitude of our counterparties in the EU. I hope that that will not come to pass and that we are seeing just a matter of the rhetoric of negotiation. There is, however, a respectable legal argument, which has not been ventilated before, although it is held by a number of senior lawyers I have spoken to, to say that, as we all know, the withdrawal agreement is binding on the UK as a matter of international law—that must be right—but that that is based upon the true construction of the withdrawal agreement.
The withdrawal agreement is clearly subject to the provisions that stipulate that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. There is an obligation on the parties in good faith to negotiate a free trade arrangement between the UK and the EU such as would render the need for checks on goods passing between the UK and Northern Ireland largely, if not completely, unnecessary. Provided that is done, I do not think any of us get into any difficulties. I accept that in negotiations there has been some language—I hope it is no more than the language of negotiation at this stage, a posture—that might suggest that the EU could argue for a substantial array of checks that might go beyond that which is compatible with the true construction of the agreement in so far as it must respect the role of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
Sir Robert Neill
Can I just finish my point, and I will happily give way to the hon. and learned Lady?
Were it to get to the stage that the level of checks being insisted on were to threaten the integrity of the UK, it would, arguably—perfectly respectably arguably—be threatening the integrity of the agreement itself upon its true construction. That, I think, would be an arguable point for saying in international law that the UK would have a case for saying it was entitled to take measures to protect the underlying purpose of the agreement.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think that he is describing a situation in which the European Union might be in bad faith, but last week when Professor Catherine Barnard, the very well-respected professor of European law at Cambridge University, gave evidence to the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union, she said that there is no evidence whatever at present that the EU is negotiating in bad faith but that there is a strong argument that the existence of the Bill and clause 45 breaches the United Kingdom’s duty of good faith in article 5 of the withdrawal agreement. As Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is a widely held view by lawyers. Does he recognise, as she said, that there is a strong argument that, merely by bringing the Bill to the Floor of the House, the United Kingdom is already in breach of its article 5 duty of good faith under the withdrawal agreement?
Sir Robert Neill
With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not regard it as total tosh. I happen not to agree with it in totality, but I do not think that we should ever dismiss serious legal argument from serious practitioners on either side of the question as being out of consideration. It is a matter that we ought to weigh carefully. I do think that there is an answer. Part of that answer is the one I have just been formulating, which suggests to me that there can be certain circumstances in which the breach of the true meaning of the agreement is such that the UK itself will be entitled to use its international law right.
Sir William Cash
I just wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider that bringing in a Bill was a matter of privilege for the House.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sure that it is a matter of privilege for the House, but I just come back to the point: I do not think that that engages with the issue we are concerned with here. Of course, it is perfectly within the rights of the House to bring forward any legislation it likes. I know my hon. Friend played a role in having section 38 inserted into the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, but, with respect, that simply restates that which we already knew and probably picked up in the first week of the law course; that, essentially, Parliament is sovereign and of course it can legislate in the way that it wishes. It can legislate in a way that is incompatible with international law. That does not make it a desirable course to go down. I think that is the point that needs to be said. Of course, it may be possible and I do not think privilege is engaged. The point I am seeking to make is that the UK should be very wary about doing anything that breaches its international obligations. I do not think it has yet and there are reasons why we may be able to avoid that, but that is why I think we need to keep the debate a little more calm in terms of what the rights are.
Joanna Cherry
Is not the problem that some Government Back Benchers are falling into the distinction between domestic law and international law? It is true as a matter of domestic law that this House can pass any Bill it likes, but as a matter of international law, as stated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 55 of its judgment in Miller 1, it does not impinge on international law. If we sign treaties, we are bound in the eyes of international law. There is a distinction here between domestic law, which means that this House can do what it wants—God forbid—and international law, which means that sometimes when this House does what it wants, it could be in breach of international law.
Sir Robert Neill
I think that is clearly established law. It is perfectly possible to act within one’s domestic law and still breach one’s international obligations; however, I do not think that that means that the Bill itself, at this stage, is a breach of our international obligations, particularly now that it has been reinforced by comments made by Ministers on the Floor of the House, which I am sure the Government therefore regard as binding as a matter of good faith in itself, that the provisions would be used only in circumstances where the EU had behaved in such a way that it had breached its duty of good faith under the agreement.
The Government have also importantly committed not to use the provisions of part 5 to undermine the pre-existing provisions in relation to both article 16— the safeguarding arrangements of the protocol—and articles 167 onwards, on the arbitral arrangements. Given those circumstances, I reach a different conclusion from that of the hon. and learned Lady and the professor. I do not dismiss the arguments, but I make the case for why I think, as a matter of law and fact, it is possible to distinguish them.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have these complications with this agreement because it was only half an agreement? The original idea was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, which would include the future relationship. A lot of that had to be shunted into the political declaration. The danger of what was signed up to is that part of the agreement on so-called withdrawal matters could pre-empt the future agreement in a disobliging way to the United Kingdom. That is why we are in this difficulty and why I think that there is nothing illegal at all in the UK seeking to sort this out in the negotiations and not be at a disadvantage in them. Does he agree with that?
Sir Robert Neill
I think that we are in agreement to the extent that I do not believe that the UK has yet trespassed over its international legal obligations, and I agree that we want to get this sorted out in the negotiations. I do not think that I can go further than that at this stage, but I understand that we all want this to be dealt with in the negotiations if possible. I voted for the withdrawal agreement, and I voted for the previous Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. It might have saved us a lot of trouble if Members on both sides had voted for that withdrawal agreement in retrospect, but we are making the best of the situation that we have inherited, if I might respectfully say so.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is being generous in giving way. Does he accept that damage has already been done to the UK’s international reputation? He rightly wants to deal in facts and the reality of what is going on. I know from conversations that I have had with, for example, officials in UN institutions in Geneva, that the UK has been publicly questioned by other countries, in elections to bodies and negotiations on other matters beyond this matter, because of the very statements that the Government have made and the very clauses in the Bill. That, potentially, seriously undermines our abilities on the international stage on a series of issues: security, trade, climate change and well beyond.
Sir Robert Neill
It is certainly fair to say that it would have been better to have had the caveats that the Government have now put into the Bill to begin with, and I am grateful to Ministers for having worked in the way in which they have to achieve that. It would be absurd to pretend that there has not been real concern expressed by people whom we respect and ought to be able to deal with as allies and counterparties going forward. There is a way to ensure that that concern is alleviated and lasting harm is not done, and I am sure that the Government are committed to trying to do that.
Superficially, new clause 1 is attractive, but I am inclined to give the Government the benefit of the doubt that it is not necessary for the reasons that they have set out. I was going to press the Minister, but he has anticipated much of what I have to say. I am sure that he will confirm again, in winding up, that we are committed to ensuring that part 5 is not used to undermine the legally binding commitments and until such time as it is necessary to act to protect a significant national interest of the UK in relation to the integrity of the Union, as a result of bad faith by the EU counterparty —which, please God, I hope never arises—and that we will do so without seeking to oust the legal obligations that we entered into in relation to the safeguarding provisions and the arbitral arrangements under article 167.
Given that, we can make a good case for saying that new clause 1 is not necessary and that the Government’s own intention will deal with that, but I urge the Government, as a friend, to ensure that they reinforce those points very strongly as we go forward, because to persuade the Upper House will be an important task. Continuing evidence of good faith and a willingness perhaps to look at some of the wording would be helpful to the Government.
I have sympathy for new clause 8. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I were reminiscing that we were the two youngest members of the Conservative group of the Greater London Council. We were actually abolished by Mrs Thatcher, by Act of Parliament, but that does not seem to have entirely destroyed our careers or done us lasting harm. I very much take on board my right hon. Friend’s points about the value of the Vienna convention. He and I served on the Council of Europe together, and that convention—again, the UK contributed significantly to it over the years—may benefit us a good deal going forward. Even if it is not necessary to take the wording of new clause 8 into the Bill, the sentiment behind it is useful, and I hope the Government will bear in mind the arguments my right hon. Friend will advance later in the debate, because they may well be useful elsewhere.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Colleagues will see that many Members want to speak in the debate. We simply will not be able to get through everyone unless speeches are brief. My advice would be for Members to limit their remarks to five or six minutes, but if they do not, I will have to impose a time limit. I would rather not do that, but I am keen that we get as many people in as possible. I call Drew Hendry.
Drew Hendry
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although I will try to be as quick as I can, this Bill fundamentally affects Scotland, and therefore I have a lot to say about it. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and to the Minister, who is an affable and normally very helpful chap. I have great sympathy for him as he tries bravely but barely conceals his embarrassment at having to drag this shabby Bill through the House.
Before I get to my party’s amendments and our reasoned amendment, let me report on the Bill so far. This Bill sets out to break international law. It sets out to break devolution. It sets in train the biggest power-grab since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened and a race to the bottom on health protections and environmental standards. The flood of amendments simply proves that the Bill lacks credibility. It is reckless, and it is absolutely typical of this Tory Government and their entire process.
Drew Hendry
I will make some progress.
In setting out to break international law, the Government are undermining trust, respect and shared values in a very specific but very unlimited way. The Bill sneers at the words “trust”, “honour” and “obligation”. Because of this Bill, any deal, understanding, commitment, promise or even legally binding treaty is now utterly dispensable—think of that! The questions now must be: what is the next inconvenient law for this Government? What happens to society as the Government embrace lawbreaking? How will international players treat their agreements with the UK? Make no mistake: this is going rogue.
Both the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) still sits in the House and is likely to vote against the Bill—and the former Northern Ireland Secretary have spoken out against this action. The Law Society of Scotland has confirmed that clauses 40 to 45
“would empower Ministers to make regulations that are contrary to the Withdrawal Agreement… and preclude challenge in the UK courts through clause 45”,
and that the Bill, if enacted,
“would breach Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement.”
Part 5 of the Bill has triggered international condemnation. As we have heard, presidential candidate Joe Biden warned that
“Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement”—
the Good Friday agreement—
“and preventing the return of a hard border.”
There are already meetings in Washington amid American interest in Brexit’s implications for Northern Ireland. The Government’s amendments to part 5 of the Bill create more problems and unanswered questions. As Professor Mark Elliott, in consultation with Graeme Cowie of the House of Commons Library, points out:
“clause 45(1) provides that regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 ‘have effect notwithstanding any relevant international or domestic law with which they may be incompatible or inconsistent’. How is this to be reconciled with the fact that clause 45 as amended now contemplates the possibility of judicial review?”
He goes on to note that Government amendments 12 to 15 would produce an “extremely odd outcome”, and that amendment 13 appears to attempt to “cancel out” the effect of amendment 14. He concludes:
“It leaves us with a Bill that clearly authorises Ministers to break international law”.
Joanna Cherry
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Government amendments 12 and 13 may render incorrect the statement by the Secretary of State that the Bill is compatible with convention rights under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998? Is he aware of any plans the Government have to revisit that statement? I asked the Minister about that, but he did not seem to understand the point I was making.
Drew Hendry
My hon. and learned Friend makes a telling point. No, of course the Government have not brought anything forward on that, because this is a Cummings-directed Prime Minister and a complicit Tory Government who have sought to justify a law-breaking, democracy-reducing, shabbily produced, lazy and dangerous Bill with a breathtaking factionalism bordering on pseudologica fantastica.
Mr Vara
As we go through the process of leaving the European Union, this Parliament will take no powers away from the Scottish Parliament. In some 70 policy areas currently managed by the EU, powers will be handed over to the Scottish Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman not bring himself just once to be a statesman and appreciate that this will actually be for the benefit of the Scottish Parliament? Just once, be a statesman!
Drew Hendry
If this were not so deadly serious, it would be a comedy, such is the hypocrisy from Tory Members. There is good reason why people in Scotland are now looking at independence as the settled view and the majority view in Scotland. It is because of the reckless disregard that the hon. Member has for the facts. He has not even looked at the fact that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will have, contained in the Bill, the power to overrule anything that the Scottish Parliament decides. I will come back to that point later.
Put simply, this is a bad Bill. It does bad things and no matter how much the Government scramble to justify it, they cannot get away from that point. Let us face it, the Tories have always hated devolution, but even by their standards, the Bill reaches a new level of contempt for the Scottish Parliament and for those of the other devolved nations. Clause 48 is a blatant power-grab, with the UK Government reserving the devolved policy of state aid. In clause 46, powers are given to UK Government Ministers to design and impose replacements for EU spending in devolved areas such as infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, education and training, and much more, centralising power at Westminster—exactly what the people of Scotland rejected when they voted in 1997 to re-establish the Scottish Parliament. We see in poll after poll that people in Scotland reject it now. That has led, as I said earlier, to the fact that independence is now the majority view in Scotland.
This power-grab not just the view of the SNP, and it is not just the view of those in Scotland. The Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford highlighted the issue, when he said that there are
“some voices in the Conservative government who having found out that devolution exists after 20 years, find they don’t much like it, and think it would be better if we returned 20 years and all the decisions were made in Whitehall and would rather not be spending their time talking to us very much.”
Does not that just capture it correctly?
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Drew Hendry
I want to make some progress.
Organisations across Scotland are also deeply concerned about the proposals. NFU Scotland has confirmed the attack on devolution. It said that
“it is the clear view of NFU Scotland, and the other faming unions of the UK, that the proposals pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolution.”
The General Teaching Council for Scotland said that the proposals
“would undermine the four UK nations’ devolved education functions.”
The STUC has warned:
“Johnson is uniting political parties, trade unions and wider civil society in Scotland against a power grab which would see UK Government interference in previously devolved matters and a rolling back of the constitutional settlement we voted for in 1997”.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I have resisted the temptation to ask the hon. Member to give way up to this point, despite the fact that he may be inadvertently misleading the House by pretending that, in some way, this Government are intent on grabbing powers back from Holyrood and taking them to Westminster when nothing could be further from the truth. I will bring him up, however, on his using the National Farmers Union of Scotland and its arguments as a reason not to back this Bill. The NFUS said:
“NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority, in the clear interest of Scottish agriculture…is to ensure the UK Internal Market effectively operates as it does now.”
That is what the Bill delivers. Nothing of what he has said up to this point is any way relevant to the Bill today.
Drew Hendry
Of course, the hon. Member is entirely wrong with his selective quoting. This absolutely underlines why the Tories have not won an election in Scotland since 1959. You have to be about 90 years old to remember voting in an election that the Tories won. Why? Because they do not listen to the people of Scotland and they do not have their interests at heart. Using this Bill, they are able to lower standards by holding a veto over Scottish Parliament decisions. The mutual recognition mechanism in the Bill starts a race to the bottom on standards, with the UK Government imposing their will.
As we heard, clauses 2 to 9 contain sweeping powers on animal welfare, food safety, environmental protections —every single aspect of Scottish life: the water we drink, the food on our table, the buildings we construct, and even our NHS. We know that chlorinated chicken is on the table and that it will be bloating our tables as a result—[Interruption.] They groan, but Donald Trump said that
“everything is on the table”—
and that means products from the States, including that and hormone-injected beef. What else will be presented to us while the UK Government desperately scratch around for a trade deal, leaving no stone unturned regardless of who or what is underneath it?
The Bill hamstrings the Scottish Parliament from protecting the highest standards of food safety, from protecting Scottish farmers’ livelihoods, and from protecting the highest standards in our environment and our building control. It hampers the Scottish Government’s ability to keep public companies in public hands, including preventing attacks on the NHS. Worse still, as I said earlier, it puts the power to overrule Scotland’s Parliament in the hands of one Tory Minister. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the
“power to alter these exclusions”.
Professor Michael Dougan has warned of the impact of the mutual recognition principle and the effect that it will have on Scottish produce:
“The impact in practice of this Bill in many of the proposed exercises of devolved competence in relation to trading goods or services is to effectively penalise domestic producers or traders and not be able to enforce the same standards against imported goods or service providers.”
As I mentioned earlier on the teaching council, Scotland requires secondary teachers to have a relevant degree in the subject that they teach. However, part 2 of the Bill, on professional qualifications, forces Scotland to accept teachers with lower qualifications. The chief executive of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, Ken Muir, said that
“our key concern about the Bill is the extent to which we ourselves, and parents, and users of the education system would feel that”—
it—
“would be watering down the teaching profession in Scotland”.
The Minister mentioned that the Government have tabled a new technical amendment, amendment 32, with the purpose of
“further clarifying the freedoms of all parts of the UK to regulate pricing and manner of sales policies as long as they are non-discriminatory.”
Of course, that is the key line—
“as long as they are non-discriminatory”—
and they say that “we have now acted to provide increased legal certainty around this point”. The Minister conceded earlier that that was in relation to alcohol minimum unit pricing. I remind hon. Members that Ministers had told us that that was not affected by the Bill and did not come into account in it, and now they are admitting that it does and they have put this absolute sham of an amendment in place to cover that. All it does is leave this open to be overridden by the non-competitive clause.
We heard about financial assistance. In case anyone is seduced by the spending promises, I have been calling for clarity on the so-called shared prosperity fund since 2017 along with my SNP colleagues. As the Financial Times reported, an individual close to the discussion said:
“The current plan is an odd combination of reserving state aid [for control from London] but then agreeing to a free-for-all. They just want to be able to bung money at things and do not want UK internal market legislation cutting across that.”
That is odd, or is it just convenient?
The Tories’ Communities Secretary has spent millions of pounds from the towns fund on 61 towns, 60 of which happen to be Tory marginals, including his own seat. In the highlands, we understand that directly, because in 1992, Prime Minister John Major took money from the highlands to shore up flagging support in the south-east of England. We have experienced the altruism of Tory Governments.
The flood of amendments to fundamental aspects of the Bill, including from UK Ministers, shows that it is completely bad and shoddy. Clause 5 transfers the CMA functions to the OIM. Drafting errors abound throughout. Amendment 15 actually attempts to further undermine the rule of law. It says:
“No court or tribunal may entertain any proceedings for questioning the validity or lawfulness of…section 42(1) or 43(1).”
That is dangerous and toxic stuff. That follows an absolutely useless and terrible consultation that failed to include and engage the devolved Governments on aspects of the Bill that see the Government strip powers from Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. The legislation was shared with the devolved Governments only hours before publication.
The recklessness of the Tory Government only creates more uncertainty. When their reasonable worst-case scenario is two-day delays to freight on the channel and 7,000 lorries in Kent, with an estimated 275 million new customs declarations each year post Brexit that will cost about £15 billion, they can add the words “absurdly” and “tragically” to reckless.
Poll after poll now shows that people in Scotland understand that the only way to protect their democratically elected Parliament, to protect standards and to keep their waters and NHS safe is through Scotland becoming a normal independent nation and taking its place in the international community. This Bill insults Scotland. We will not vote for this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just another reminder: I am conscious that many of the initial contributors are speaking to amendments, so it is important that we are flexible, but I say again that if we want to get in the many Members who want to contribute to the debate, it is important that at this stage, Members are as brief as they can be while getting their important points in.
Sir William Cash
There has been a heated and, in many respects, misconceived debate about the question of our compliance with international law. I had something of an exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on Second Reading. I made the point that UK law has, in the past, breached international treaties. That stands, because it is important for us to recognise that that has been the case.
Indeed, it is often forgotten that the EU guidelines of 29 April 2017, which my right hon. Friend’s Government allowed to happen, unilaterally imposed on us requirements contravening article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and insisted that we should obey the basis of the EU’s idea of the conduct of negotiations. As Clausewitz said, diplomacy is war by other means; I believe the gloves are about to have to come off.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration recognise the autonomy of the EU and the UK, but whereas the UK is a sovereign state, the EU is merely an international organisation. UK sovereignty is expressly recognised by the EU as of its own kind—sui generis. The EU manifestly contradicted that by insisting on European Court jurisdiction, thus subverting the constitutional status of Northern Ireland itself. It was even reported that that was the price we would have to pay. The EU continually denied our sovereignty during the negotiations with a wanton disregard of our unique, unwritten constitution and sovereignty, which it is bound to understand because we have been in a relationship within the same legal order for the last 40 years.
Sir William Cash
I do not have time, I am afraid.
At the same time, there have been a number of UK precedents, which I have explained already. I do not have the time to go into them; I will attempt, as other Members will have to, not to go into huge detail, but I will give a few examples. In 1945, a Finance Act passed by the Labour party overrode international law. The same applied to the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Burma Independence Act 1947. In fact, in the case of India, more than 400 treaties were broken.
Sir William Cash
I assure the hon. and learned Lady that I am not giving way. I am very happy to do so normally, but not today.
Furthermore, a Conservative Government, in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, provided clauses that were notwithstanding anything contrary to the arrangements of the Act. It goes on. It is a substantial list.
I will go further. Those who are interested can look at my previous contributions to other debates, where I extensively describe the myriad occasions when the EU itself has broken international law and, furthermore, when EU member states have egregiously broken international law and admitted it in their own Parliaments. For example, Helmut Schmidt, in the Bundestag, could not have been clearer, going through every single treaty that Germany deliberately broke in defence of its own vital national interest, because that is itself a reason why national law can have a degree of predominance over international law.
National and constitutional law, in certain circumstances —where it affects sovereignty, as in this case in the United Kingdom—can prevail against international law. I am extremely grateful to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who I know recognises this. It has taken a bit of time for us all to come to terms with that, because it is a bit complex, but the reality is that it is well established in international law itself. The German federal court confirmed this as recently as 2015. I quoted the court in a previous debate, so it is already on the record that it is well within the framework of international law for a country—a democratic country, I hasten to add—to actually override international law in its own vital national interest, and most specifically, as in this case, on questions of sovereignty.
I will therefore just touch on my exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). With regard to Miller 1, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that, under the dualist approach, treaty obligations only become binding in the UK system to the extent that they are carried out in domestic legislation, and that whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament alone.
This principle was approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in Miller 1.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend is nodding his head because he knows this is the case.
Gavin Robinson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He is right to chide the European Union about seeking to interfere with the integrity of this sovereign nation. However, the end of that sentence should encapsulate the disappointment of some of us at the fact that our own Government would accept a framework that seeks to do just that.
That brings me to our amendments, which are in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. colleagues—both new clause 7 and amendment 17. Last week, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is a pleasure to address you in that way—a very concerned constituent of mine, Mike, chided me engagingly, as he always does, for referring to you in personal terms. I had to outline that that was because we were, for day after day, in Committee, so it is good that we are on Report. I am mindful of the time constraints, so I do not intend to rehearse the many sincere arguments that we advanced in Committee that lie underneath our amendments, but I will touch on them in relation to new clause 7 and amendment 17.
I listened carefully to the Minister, who is now back in his place, when he spoke about amendment 17 in his opening remarks, which, as I mentioned in my intervention, replicate quite closely those of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker):
“I understand Members’ concerns and support mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle, but the exception to mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take local conditions into consideration. I emphasise that the authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account when they decide how to protect human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 658.]
That is a fair enough analysis of why we should be within the UK regime on REACH regulations, but the thrust of this Bill is to ensure that our businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged in the conduct of their activity. I have highlighted in Committee and I highlight again today the fact that it is unnecessary to ask businesses to adhere to two separate and distinct regimes on chemicals and dangerous substances—an EU regime and a UK or GB regime—in the conduct of their business.
I heard the Minister say, in response to my intervention, that the Government were working on a common framework, but in pushing this amendment, we are asking them to accept that this will have real, tangible implications for a small subset of our businesses. It demonstrates acutely the burdens that will be added to our businesses when we have one foot in the GB market and one foot in the European Union single market, with all the rules that come with that, and when we are expected to adhere to the rules of both jurisdictions. That will make our businesses less competitive.
Jim Shannon
To illustrate the “best of both worlds” that my hon. Friend has referred to, does he remember that as recently as last year two Northern Ireland skippers were arrested for fishing in waters within six miles of the Republic of Ireland, after an EU judgment? We never seem to get a good deal in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that that illustrates the importance of our new clause 7, which would guarantee a review of business and trade?
Gavin Robinson
My hon. Friend touches on new clause 7, which I will turn to in a moment. The egregious circumstances to which he refers, in which the skippers were arrested last year, were completely outrageous. However, Judge Coughlan in the south recognised that they were men of deep integrity, that they did not deserve convictions and that Irish fishermen were doing exactly the same in Northern Ireland waters. Had it not been for his clarity of thought, things could have been much worse.
Sammy Wilson
My hon. Friend makes the good point that businesses in Northern Ireland might have to adhere to two sets of regulations. Does he accept that there will be occasions when EU regulations could be totally contrary to the regulations developed for the rest of the UK, and that at that stage, Northern Ireland businesses would have to choose? In fact, they would not have to choose, because they would be obliged to follow the EU regulations and would be unable to comply with UK regulations affecting trade.
Gavin Robinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a conundrum that we keep having to address, and the reason we have to keep raising it in these debates is that it is not filtering through. Despite the “lines to take” that have been distributed to colleagues and friends across the Chamber, those conundrums have yet to be answered, and businesses in Northern Ireland still require clarity, whether on selling into the GB market or buying from the GB market. The Bill attempts to address part of that journey, but only part of it, and it does not give us the clarity that we need.
On the REACH regulations and amendment 17, I want to refer to an email I got yesterday from a constituent called Audrey, who outlines something that had not been part of my thought process. She says, “All new and existing substances made and imported into the EU under the REACH regulations at levels of more than one tonne per year must be registered with the European Chemicals Agency. Registration also involves tests on live animals. Cruelty Free International estimates that already 2.6 million animals have been poisoned and killed in this process and that a full minimum data set for the high production chemicals would be approximately 5,000 animals per year, including rats, mice, rabbits, fish and even birds. Based on the information from the Health and Safety Executive, in two years of the UK’s exit from the European Union, UK-based companies must provide the full data package that supported their original registration with the ECHA, including full test reports for each applicable toxicity concern. Because of access to those data issues, many UK registrants could be left with no choice but to repeat the tests on animals that have already been complied with for EU purposes.” Even if Members do not accept my arguments around the implications for businesses, do they think—if those datasets are not agreed and if a common framework is not reached between the EU and the UK—that all those subsets of tests and all that cruelty is genuinely necessary? I think it is avoidable, and I ask the Government to consider amendment 17 more thoughtfully.
On new clause 7, I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the Committee who support the endeavour and the aspirations that it brings. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for their engagement with and understanding of the implications that there are for Northern Ireland. They signed the amendment and I am grateful to them for doing so. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who similarly joined us in this endeavour, and, I have to say, to the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who have indicated their positive approach to the new clause and signed it when we tabled it to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill back in January.
Nothing that the Minister said—I cannot re-emphasise this point enough—undermined the benefits of accepting new clause 7. He indicated that the Government will rightly carry out an analysis of the implications for business in Northern Ireland, so there is nothing wrong with agreeing to it as part of the Bill. We know that there are distinct differences associated with the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The new clause seeks not to undermine the protocol but to ensure that Government carry out these impact assessments. In doing so, it seeks to indemnify businesses in Northern Ireland who are unduly, unfairly and uncompetitively put at a disadvantage to their colleagues and counterparts in GB. That is the very essence of the commitments that have been advanced as part of the Bill; indeed, the “lines to take” that Conservative Members have been given tell them that the Bill is about ensuring the integrity of the UK internal market. If they believe that to be the case, then there is nothing in new clause 7 that undermines their position. I say that very earnestly.
Looking across the Chamber, I see Members—friends—who have an interest in Northern Ireland and, more than that, an unbridled belief in the benefits of the Union, and who believe that we should not only hold but build and enhance what we have. If they are of that view and respect our integral place within the United Kingdom—I know that many have gone through the angst of having to accept compromises as part of the withdrawal agreement to get Brexit for themselves in England, knowing that it will have distinct differences for us in Northern Ireland—I earnestly hope that they will consider new clause 7 in a positive vein. It does not undermine the Government’s position—they have offered no fundamental objection to it—and it does not undermine the process that Members are seeking to achieve on Brexit. It would, however, make an enormous practical difference for businesses in Northern Ireland who are faced with uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the arrangements that will come forward, and, should there be a negative impact or consequence, they would know that Government will stand with them.
Sir Edward Leigh
I rise to speak to new clause 8 in my name. I shall attempt, within your time constraint, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get these complex legal and international law arguments on the record.
The problem is not the possibility of the UK breaking international law, which we do not want to do, obviously; the problem is the UK’s being prepared in case the EU fails in its willingness to interpret the protocol on Northern Ireland in a proper way. We have a legal tool at our disposal that would help clarify the situation in accord with international law: a unilateral interpretative declaration. My new clause 8 describes in some detail how that could be done. It would help our negotiating position in securing an EU trade agreement and, just as importantly, it would help get the Bill through the House of Lords.
Many in the other place will be concerned about the possibility that the UK Government may be opening the door to breaking international law. We pride ourselves on the rule of law and we should maintain our commitment to it. The real problem is whether the EU is willing to implement the protocol in a reasonable and effective manner. We do not need to break international law; we need to prevent the EU from breaking international law by violating its treaty commitments.
The EU has suggested that it would break its commitments in the protocol. It has said that it would consider breaking its commitments to allowing food from England, Wales or Scotland to be sold in Northern Ireland if the UK did not make concessions on the free trade agreement. That is on the record in Michel Barnier’s statement on 10 September. In the light of that, the Government understandably introduced this Bill, so that we can act when the EU threatens the economic integrity of the United Kingdom.
We are committed to implementing the protocol, which we signed up to, but we are only committed to what we actually agreed to—no more and no less. This is the nub of the problem. We are not bound by new interpretations of the protocol that the EU might seek to impose on us. We are not required under international law to accept all the proposals that the EU tables in the negotiations. We cannot accept any bargaining linkage being made between implementing what has been agreed under the protocol in good faith, and what has still to be agreed about our future relationship.
There is a compromise available. We can use international law to ensure that the EU meets the commitments it made in the protocol. We can assert our position, as I have argued, in a unilateral interpretative declaration, if—and only if—the EU behaves unreasonably.
The initial version of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed to in November 2018 could have bound us indefinitely to maintaining full alignment with the EU’s single market regulations and membership of the customs union. In an Adjournment debate in February 2019, I advocated the use of a conditional unilateral interpretative declaration to assert the temporary nature of the backstop. That word “temporary” was then in the protocol.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who was then the Attorney General, took this up to seek a time limit or a withdraw mechanism from the backstop. That was the basis of documents tabled on 11 March 2019 for the second meaningful vote. Unfortunately, the unilateral declaration issued then was not made strong enough to guarantee an exit from the backstop according to many people in this House. The Government, I believe, should have asserted a stronger interpretation.
Nevertheless, in December last year, we succeeded in getting rid of the backstop. The question is whether the agreed Northern Ireland protocol will be implemented in good faith. The protocol is a good compromise. Rather than abandoning international law, we must use the full provisions of international law to ensure that the protocol is implemented as we agreed.
The general principles of international law applicable to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol are spelled out in the 1986 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. In addition, in 2011, the International Law Commission of the UN codified a guide of practice for handling disagreements about the interpretation of treaties. That allows an individual Government to issue a declaration on their interpretation of the meaning of specific aspects of a treaty. The UK can do that unilaterally, without any agreement from the EU.
To leave the realm of politics and enter the realm of international law, any unilateral interpretative declaration must be sent to the depositary of the treaty. I proposed in an amendment in Committee that the Government should use this declaration to assert their position if the EU were to fail to implement aspects of the protocol. My new clause 8 now spells out in some detail how the declaration could be used. Subsection (1) specifies that the Government should invoke this procedure if the EU fails to carry out the requirements of the protocol. Subsection (2) specifies that the Government should ensure that their interpretation of the protocol is justified by, and in accord with, the provisions of the Vienna convention.
It is important to note that the Vienna convention covers the need to act in “good faith” and the need to avoid results that are “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”. Subsection (3) therefore requires the Government to obtain parliamentary approval before they make a legal challenge, and subsection (4) requires the Government to report back to Parliament on whether the EU has approved the interpretation. If the dispute were to continue, there would be a choice: we could seek negotiations to achieve a compromise in the Joint Committee, or we could invoke the withdrawal agreement’s arbitration procedures. If the dispute could not be resolved and arbitration were required, we would have acted in good faith—that is the point—in international law. We would have established our case and started arbitration on our own terms.
The Government are right to challenge the EU. We can uphold international law. We can challenge the EU with proper legal methods. We do not need to accept its interpretation of the protocol. When we face unreasonable demands, we have a chance to state our interpretation of what we agreed when we signed the protocol. We can challenge the EU with a unilateral interpretative declaration and, hence, defend our position in full accord with international law. I ask the Government to consider positively this compromise, on which we can all agree and which is offered to the Government in good faith.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to new clause 6, which is in my name. Its intention is to ensure that those seeking public money for economic development under this legislation are obliged to undertake a climate and nature emergency impact assessment.
The powers set out in part 6 of the Bill provide assistance in a way that would be subject to very few restrictions. New clause 6 is designed to be a genuinely constructive and practical suggestion to help Ministers see the serious gap in the legislation, and to help them to assess and decide whether the money they are dishing out is trashing the environment or supporting its restoration.
Both the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), earlier this afternoon, and the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), last week, said that the UK Government have a determination to see climate and environmental goals achieved. Well, I am very glad to hear that, but it makes me even more perplexed that they are not willing to accept what I regard as a helpful and friendly amendment. In fact, both Ministers have also said that it was not necessary to introduce any kind of conditions on the financial assistance powers in the Bill, because apparently there is already an overarching legal and policy framework for achieving those goals. That is not good enough. We need commitments that would make those fine words actually bite when it comes to the wide financial assistance decisions set out in the Bill.
The Bill has conferred astoundingly broad powers on Ministers, but without clarity or direction over the mechanisms that they will use to judge whether they are upholding policy commitments—and vague references to overarching frameworks just will not cut it. The bottom line is that, in order to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, the state must not risk supporting projects, companies or industries that threaten to undermine progress toward meeting climate, nature and environmental goals and targets. To avoid that risk, people need to be asking and proving how their requests measure up to climate, nature and environmental goals and targets, and the Government need to check.
The production of impact statements for any proposal for financial assistance will not only help to ensure that individual projects consider long-term sustainability, including avoiding or mitigating potential negative impacts, and maximising the benefits of delivering a green economy; it will also enable Governments across the UK to better understand the aggregate impacts of such financial assistance, and measure them against the goals and targets to which they have already committed themselves. In other words, impact statements would be not an additional burden, but a necessity to reach stated goals. They would also provide a useful opportunity to demonstrate the positive impact that ambitious and well directed investment can bring. The statements would help Ministers—and, indeed, all of us—by providing the benefits of public accountability and value for money, as well as important integrated policy making to tackle the nature and climate crises.
Let us not forget that we have had so many commitments —at least in fine words—from this Government on keeping high standards post Brexit. The Conservative party manifesto promised
“the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.”
It is extraordinary that a Government who say that balk when it comes to any practical measure that would enable them to implement that commitment.
Just yesterday, the Prime Minister’s comments at the signing ceremony of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature sounded positive. He said that we need to turn words into action, and I could not agree with him more. He said that we need ambitious goals and binding targets and, in his characteristic language:
“We cannot afford dither and delay because biodiversity loss is happening today.”
Yes, Prime Minister, it is, and this straightforward measure would enable him to deliver on the fine words by supporting a mechanism that is designed to achieve exactly that. Otherwise, words are cheap.
New clause 6 is not just a “nice to have” or a green add on; it is a vital way of ensuring that we implement our existing commitments. In May last year, Parliament passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. Marvellous —I was the first to be pleased about that, but we need a mechanism to ensure that subsequent policy making is in line with that commitment. Otherwise, it is meaningless. We have heard time and again how post Brexit, the UK will be able to have higher environmental standards than the EU, yet the next round of European structural funds will have tackling climate change and addressing the just transition as a major theme. Surely at the very least we should aspire to do the same.
Evidence that we must act responsibly and urgently is mounting every day. As I have already said, the UK Government are failing to meet as many as 17 of the 20 biodiversity targets that we set ourselves 10 years ago. We have plenty of examples of money that is being spent in a way that undermines environmental sustainability, so we know we need to act.
Just this morning, Professor Simon Lewis of University College London reminded us that the biodiversity crisis is not a problem in someone else’s backyard; it is happening in the UK. We live in one of the most nature depleted countries on earth. We have lost 55% of our forest birds in 50 years, and 97% of our flower-rich meadows since the second world war. We have just 13% woody cover, compared with an EU average of 38%. Scientists regularly document huge declines in beetles, bees, butterflies, moths and ladybirds.
Those things do not happen by accident. They happen as a direct result of public policy. They happen as a direct result of where money is spent. It is therefore critical that, if and when Ministers choose to exercise the powers in the Bill, they do so in a way that is consistent and compatible with any environmental and climate goals and targets in the relevant part of the UK.
I know time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to say how much I support new clause 1, which has been tabled in the name of the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). His powerful speech to the House on Second Reading left the Prime Minister embarrassed and exposed. Embarrassed because this is frankly all a bit of a game for a Prime Minister who does not like to lose, and exposed because the Prime Minister is at least supposed to uphold international law. In this case he is asking Parliament to give his Government authorisation to break a treaty that he negotiated and signed last year, and on which his whole general election campaign was based. You almost couldn’t make it up, but that comes after the Prorogation scandal, and a string of attacks on civil servants and the operations of our democracy, delivered by a Prime Minister who thinks little of shutting down Parliament when it gets in his way.
Under any Government of principle, new clause 1 would not be contentious, but sadly it is needed tonight because the Government’s amendment still leaves us with a Bill that clearly authorises Ministers to break international law. This is not a matter of left or right, or of leaving or remaining in Europe; this is about our democracy. To vote for the “treaty undercut” clauses in this group is not to provide a safety net, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster desperately suggested yesterday. Instead, it is to fire a cannon ball through the safety net of democratic principle. By contrast, new clause 1 gives MPs the opportunity to demonstrate the immovable principle that it is outrageous for any Prime Minister, any Attorney General, any Justice Secretary—indeed, it should be out of the question for any MP—to be part of legislation that authorises Ministers to break the rule of law. So I hope that every Member of the House will vote for new clause 1, and against the indefensible precedent that the Government seek to set.
Government amendment 13 is yet another attempt by the Government to avoid scrutiny of their actions, this time by the courts. It is basic to our way of life and to our history that no one is above the law, but clause 45 is a crude attempt to put Ministers above the law. Not only are Ministers seeking the power to legislate in breach of international law, but Parliament is being asked to pass a law whose aim is obviously to prevent any effective constraint on Ministers. This should be out of the question for any Government with any respect for the rule of law. Again, none of the Law Officers, no Minister and no MP should be prepared to vote for such an attack on the basic principles of our constitution.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I support the Government’s amendments to the legislation for the reasons outlined admirably by the Minister—it did need a little strengthening and this is a welcome clarification—but I rise mainly to oppose new clause 1.
I am disappointed with the official Opposition, because I was delighted after the clear decision of the people in the last general election that the Opposition said that they now fully accepted the result of the referendum, although it took place years ago—the previous Parliament blocked its timely implementation. We had a rerun in the general election and the Opposition fully accepted the verdict of that general election, yet here we are again today, with new clause 1 deliberately trying to undermine the British Government’s sensible negotiating position in the European Union.
Whenever there is a disagreement in interpretation of that original withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the Opposition and most of the other opposition parties rush to accept the EU’s—very political—interpretation of the situation and rush to say that anything the UK Government wish to assert in this Parliament, or in a court of law if it came to that, is clearly illegal.
It is preposterous that we have so many MPs who so dislike the people of this country that they are still trying to thwart the very clear wish to have a Brexit that makes sense.
John Redwood
I must not take up too much time. I wish to develop my argument quickly.
We have to recognise what we are dealing with here. The EU withdrawal agreement was pretty unsatisfactory and one-sided because the previous Parliament stopped the Government putting a strong British case and getting the support of this Parliament in the way the British people wanted. The Prime Minister wisely went to Europe and did his best to amend the withdrawal agreement but it was quite clear from the agreed text that a lot was outstanding and rested to be resolved in the negotiations to be designed around the future relationship, because we used to say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that the withdrawal terms had to run alongside the future relationship.
The EU won that one thanks to the dreadful last Parliament undermining our position all the time. This Prime Minister is trying to remedy that and the only reason I was able to vote for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—much of it was an agreement that I knew had lots of problems with it—was that we put in clause 38, a clear assertion of British sovereignty against the possibility that the EU did not mean what it said in its promises to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and did not offer that free trade agreement, which was going to be at the core of the new relationship. We therefore needed that protection, so I am pleased that the Government put it in.
That made me able to vote for the measure to progress it to the next stage, but I was always clear that the EU then needed to get rid of all its posturing and accept what it had said and signed up to—that the core of our new relationship was going to be a free trade agreement. We were going to be a third country, we were not going to be under its laws and we were not going to be in its single market and customs union, but it has systematically blocked that free trade agreement. The UK has tabled a perfectly good one based on the agreements the EU has offered to other countries that it did not have such a close relationship with, but it has not been prepared to accept it. Well, why does it not table its own? Why does it not show us what it meant when it signed up to having a free trade agreement at the core of our relationship? If it will not, we will leave without a deal and that will be a perfectly good result for the British people, as I said before the referendum and have always said subsequently.
Of course, it would be better if we could resolve those matters through that free trade agreement. As colleagues will know, many of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol fall away if we have that free trade agreement, and we are only in this position because the EU is blocking it.
Why is the EU blocking the agreement? It says that it wants to grab our fish. I have news for it: they are not on offer. They are going to be returned to the British people, I trust. I am always being told by Ministers that they are strong on that. The EU wishes to control our law making and decide what state aid is in the United Kingdom. No, it will not. We voted to decide that within the framework of the World Trade Organisation and the international rules that govern state aid—rules, incidentally, that the EU regularly breaks. It has often been found guilty of breaking international state aid rules and has been fined quite substantially as a result.
I support the Government’s amendments, and I support this piece of legislation. We need every bit of pressure we can to try to get the free trade agreement and the third-country relationship with the EU that we were promised by it and by the Government in the general election. We can then take the massive opportunities of Brexit. It is crucial that new clause 1 is not agreed to, because it would send a clear message to the European Union that this Parliament still wants to give in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have not done too badly, all things considered. However, after the next speaker, I will introduce a four-minute time limit, so that we can get in as many people as possible. I call Stephen Farry.
Stephen Farry
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Regardless of that, I will try to honour what you just said about the length of speeches. I primarily want to speak to amendment 16, in my name and those of others, regarding the removal of the most offensive and dangerous clause in the Bill—clause 45—and I will touch on some other amendments.
At the outset, I want to be extremely clear: the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and most businesses in Northern Ireland do not want to see this Government breaking or threatening to break international law, period, and they certainly do not want to see it happening on their behalf. Let us get that straight. The Government are not doing this for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.
The breaking of international law undermines the Good Friday agreement, which is lodged with the UN and is part of international law. In particular, breaking the withdrawal agreement and undermining the protocol does not help our businesses one bit. Instead, it places them in a much more uncertain legal situation for doing business. That is not in their interests, because businesses need to operate in a long-term, sustainable legal framework, especially if they are trading internationally. It risks Northern Ireland being turned into some sort of rogue state.
Whatever happens today, it is important that this House ensures that nothing goes forward in the Bill that either threatens or breaches international law, because it is a very dangerous route to go down. The opportunity exists this evening in new clause 1 and my amendment 16. Any efforts to soften that or put hurdles in place to make the prospect of breaking the law more difficult or push it further down the line defeats the purpose, because the threat is still on the table. That is no way for this country to do business internationally, and it sends a worrying message around the world.
Some of the spin in relation to the Bill is extremely disingenuous. In another debate, we heard references to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and doublethink, but the Government are taking that to a new level with some of the arguments used today and previously. In particular, we are told that this is about a safety net for Northern Ireland. I have already made the point that this is anything but that. This is about removing the safety net for Northern Ireland by undermining the Good Friday agreement.
The Minister talked about the businesses of Northern Ireland being supportive of the Bill. That is news to me, and I would certainly be keen to hear who those businesses are. He talked about people who are opposing the Bill wilfully misrepresenting the Good Friday agreement. I was there as part of the negotiations on the Good Friday agreement. I saw John Major, Bertie Ahern and others negotiating the agreement. I saw the role of the United States and the European Union. They understand what is at stake here and what the Government are potentially doing. It is extremely arrogant to suggest that people are wilfully misrepresenting the agreement when we are trying to defend it.
The principle of consent is embedded within the withdrawal agreement. The European Union is very clear and keen that that is the case. We can talk about other consent issues all we want, and if we are doing so, we go back to the very first principle: that Brexit itself was imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland against their will. That is when the issue of consent and pulling away from a carefully balanced set of arrangements began.
Some of the amendments tabled today seek to disapply the Human Rights Act in relation to clause 45. I remind the Government that the Good Friday agreement contains reference to the importance of the European convention on human rights, and the Human Rights Act puts that into domestic effect. The Government are talking about protecting the Good Friday agreement, in their terms, while at the self-same time putting in a clause that undermines it clearly and unambiguously. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, two institutions named in the Good Friday agreement, have expressed deep concern at the amendments that have been tabled by the Government.
Breaching international law will be a dead end for the Government, and I am not sure what they are seeking to achieve by it. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about those on the Opposition Benches undermining the negotiations. The Government are doing that all by themselves at present. This is not a tenable or sustainable direction of travel. Until the Government withdraw the threat of breaking international law, they are not going to get a proper future relationship agreement, or a free trade deal with the United States. It is no longer just an issue of the Democrats and such people as Speaker Pelosi or Vice-President Biden. We now have Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s special envoy, echoing those self-same comments. This is now a bipartisan issue in the United States. Whenever the Government have been out-Trumped, that is a very clear message of the danger of the route that they are going down.
In relation to us in Northern Ireland, we have to get the best route possible in terms of the protocol. The protocol is the direct outworking of the UK Government’s decisions around Brexit, so the protocol arises from what the UK has decided to do. It is imposing, essentially, binary choices on a society in Northern Ireland that works only through sharing and interdependence. We do not want any borders, but we have to try to work to mitigate the impact of the protocol. The way we do that is through building the trust and confidence of the European Union, so that we can ask for waivers and other forms of mitigations, not through unilaterally seeking to breach the terms of the protocol.
A very clear example is around the issue of export declarations and other export procedures. As part of the withdrawal agreement, the Government have already recognised that that is the prerogative of the European Union under its customs code; however, waiving that would not really threaten the integrity of the EU’s single market or customs union, unlike some other potential aspects. That may well be a fairly easy thing for the EU to give, but we are not going to achieve that if the Government cannot establish that confidence to work in good faith with the European Union and their partners going forward.
I will make two more points. The first is on new clause 7 from my DUP colleagues in Northern Ireland. As Members may have noticed, the Alliance party does not always follow the DUP on Brexit—indeed, we take radically different positions, including on this Bill—but there is common ground in a number of areas, in terms of trying to ensure that we have unfettered access from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I recommend that the House approve that amendment if it goes to a vote. I do not think that it does any damage to the protocol or the withdrawal agreement, but it tests on a periodic basis the commitments that the Government are making and that are reflected in the withdrawal agreement itself. I have probably gone on for slightly too long, so I will end on that point.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I approach the Report stage of the Bill as a Welsh MP for a border constituency where protecting and enhancing the relationship between England and Wales, and the whole Union of the United Kingdom, is not a conceptual political argument but a vital matter of day-to-day practicality. Thousands of my constituents in Clwyd South go across the border each day to work, attend school or college, visit family and friends, or go shopping, so I am strong supporter of the Bill, which will ensure that businesses in all parts of the UK can continue to trade seamlessly across the UK as they do now—protecting jobs and supporting the economy by avoiding unnecessary burdens and costs being placed on businesses or consumers.
The rest of the UK is Wales’s biggest trading partner by some way, accounting for 61% of Wales’s exports, worth £30.1 billion, and 64% of Wales’s imports, worth £34.3 billion.
Much of those are found in small businesses close to the border with England, such as those in Clwyd South. This Bill will protect the UK’s centuries-old internal market, by ensuring that goods and services in one part of the UK are recognised in the others, and ensure a fair playing field for all companies. As has been mentioned, the Bill will enshrine the principle of mutual recognition, so that goods and services in one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and the principle of non-discrimination, so that there is equal opportunity for companies trading within the UK, regardless of where they are based. The Bill will also ensure that high standards are protected across the whole UK by promoting co-operation between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. There will be no reduction in our food hygiene or animal welfare standards.
Wera Hobhouse
Let me add my voice to those of the many Members of Parliament, professional organisations and members of the public who have grave concerns about clauses 41 to 45, and their implications for the UK’s commitment to international law. The Law Society and the Bar Council have described them as representing a “direct challenge” to the rule of law without precedent. We are a country with a proud history of protecting and promoting the principle that nations should be ruled by a set of agreed rules laid out in law rather than the whims of politicians. That is the foundation of a free and fair society, and it is true about national law, as it is about international law. That this House is even contemplating going against that proud principle is a travesty and a sad moment for this Parliament, which is often called the mother of Parliaments.
It is through international co-operation that we can address the challenges facing our global community, from climate change to human rights to security. The UK has always stood up for international law on the world stage. It is the very foundation on which we deal with other countries. The Prime Minister said it was “fantastic moment” when he signed the withdrawal agreement, but less than a year later this Government are proposing a Bill that would enable Ministers to go away from the UK’s obligation under that treaty. What does that say about our credibility as a trading partner?
I have said before that the withdrawal agreement left the Government with two options. The first is to abide by that agreement and negotiate a deal in good faith with the EU that avoids the need for a significant internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, but it is disappointing that the Government have chosen the second option—to renege on the treaty they signed and break international law. Even a “specific and limited” breach of international law would do immeasurable damage to the UK’s reputation, not only as a trading partner but as a centre of international legal practice and dispute resolution.
All of this comes at a time when we are desperately seeking new arrangements with other countries across the globe. Our application to accede to the Lugano convention is a case in point. That agreement enables civil judicial co-operation with our closest neighbours and it is clearly in our interests to remain a party to it. Our application requires signatures from other countries. Would it not significantly undermine our efforts if we show willingness to negate our international obligations now?
Let me come to amendment 16, which the Liberal Democrats support. Clause 45 has significant implications for judicial review. It is not just about compliance with international law: it has implications for domestic law too. The clause runs the risk that domestic challenges to a potential breach of the international commitments of the UK will end up being litigated at the international level because they can no longer be conducted via judicial review at home. There is not even a precedent for the provision, and the greatest danger is that it will pit our courts against our Government. I urge all Members to support amendment 16 to avoid that damaging consequence.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I rise to speak to clause 45 and the amendments tabled by the Secretary of State. I seek further clarification from the Minister about the circumstances in which the clause will be needed, and I seek reassurance on the motivation behind the amendments. I want to ensure that we are on the same page and to assist the smooth passage of the Bill.
Clarity of language and intent are key here. Our country’s reputation as rule makers, not rule breakers, is at stake, however unintended that may be. The Minister will know that I backed what my constituents call the Neill amendment—before I break any protocol, let me say it is the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—in part to help the Government to undo the damage that was done when five short words were delivered at the Dispatch Box:
“this does break international law”.—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
I know that the amendment we tabled was not perfect, but nor were the circumstances and we did get a huge concession, with the Government accepting a parliamentary lock on the powers they sought to give themselves in circumstances when all else had failed. I welcome the changes the Government have made, but making the law and breaking the law should never be taken lightly. In the last few weeks, yesterday and potentially tomorrow, it feels as though we are dragging Ministers by their tails—not that all Ministers require that—to get them to let us to have a say on legislation. That has not been edifying for any of us.
I support the vast majority of the Bill. It is a Bill that allows us to truly take back control from the European Union and establish, protect and enshrine the internal market of the United Kingdom, the most important market for all four of our nations, and provide us with much needed certainty for businesses across our constituencies. That brings me back to my major concern: we all have a duty across the House to leave a legacy that enhances our country’s reputation and, as Conservatives, to progress our cause with respect for the law and institutions—not leave a reputation that dishonours or diminishes our standing on the world stage. As MPs, we are just bit players in the history of our Parliament, but we can leave unintended consequences in the way we legislate that remain on the statute books long after we have gone.
The United Kingdom has a glowing reputation for democracy and the rule of law, which attracted my parents to migrate here. Reputation takes years to form but seconds to destroy. I support the Government in their quest to get the best possible deal from the European Union, which is why I want to give the Prime Minister the best possible negotiating hand, but when British Ministers give their word on the world stage, they are not only giving the word of the Government but that of the Crown. If the Government propose to break international law in extremis at a future date—I accept that it would only take place if the EU acted in extreme bad faith and undermined the integrity of the Union—that power must only be exercised by our sovereign Parliament, but of course I would prefer for us not to be in that situation at all. I would caution the Government against adopting a machismo, scorched-earth policy, and to remember that, as we emerge next year and continue to challenge countries such as Iran, Russia and China as they flout international law, we will need our international friends to stand tall with us. I look forward to hearing from the Minister his assurances on the amendments tabled to clause 45.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). I wish to speak about progress towards drawing up a shared prosperity fund, because the English regions, and particularly communities such as mine, are in urgent need of investment. I want to focus my remarks on clauses 46 and 47 and on new clause 3, which relates to the replacement of EU structural funds with the UK shared prosperity fund.
The shared prosperity fund is a mechanism by which the Government can deliver their levelling up and building back better agenda. With all due respect to right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, this is not an issue just for the devolved nations and regions, but a huge one for many of us in left-behind former industrial areas, and it is somewhat disappointing that, with three months until the end of the transition period, details of the scheme are still scarce.
Structural funds to promote economic growth and deliver infrastructure have never been more important. The divisions and inequalities that have been highlighted during the covid-19 pandemic are deeper and wider today, but they existed previously. As we have learned from previous crises, such as the global financial crash in 2008, it is the weaker regional economies that are hit first and hardest by any economic shock. We therefore need devolution for not only the nations of the United Kingdom but for the English regions that are, to a large degree, disadvantaged by central Government, and the ideal place to start is the shared prosperity fund.
If the fund is to work properly, effectively and in a timely fashion, it needs to be in the hands of town halls rather than Whitehall. In the little time I have, I want to give a practical example to illustrate the point, and that is housing in Horden, in my constituency. In 2015, the housing association Accent Housing abandoned its responsibilities. With the consent of Ministers and the former Homes and Communities Agency, the properties in Horden were auctioned off in a fire sale, with some going for as little as £10,000. That led to an influx of private absentee landlords, who have blighted the village and many others.
Five years later, the numbered streets in Horden have the highest concentration of crime in County Durham, as well as some of the worst housing conditions in the north-east. Durham County Council has consulted extensively and produced a plan, which has been presented to the Government time and time again. However, there are practical difficulties in discussing regeneration at a national level when the issues encompass several Departments—the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Home Office. I raised the issue again this morning, but it is vital that we have cross-departmental working on these issues. I am confident that, if the resources were made available through the shared prosperity fund, regeneration plans such as the one we have developed for Horden, would be given the green light.
Brexit must mean something different for the left-behind areas of the United Kingdom. It cannot be a continuation of bad policy; otherwise, the slogan “take back control”, used frequently by the Prime Minister, will be nothing more than empty rhetoric and a broken promise, with lost opportunities for communities such as the ones I represent.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Bill is a necessary step to secure the future of our United Kingdom outside the EU. By creating the powers to continue the seamless functioning of the UK’s internal market, we will protect countless businesses across the UK, including many in my constituency, such as Menai Oysters & Mussels, Halen Môn, which produces our famous Anglesey sea salt, and countless producers of beef, lamb and seafood, many of which rely on trade between our home nations for the survival of their businesses.
It is not only a matter of continuity. The new shared prosperity fund, which replaces the EU structural fund, will focus on tackling inequalities within communities by raising productivity. In its written evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in May, the Isle of Anglesey County Council asked that the shared prosperity fund be less complex, more regionally focused and with faster response times than the EU structural funds. The UK Government are responding directly to those demands through the Bill.
Colum Eastwood
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) that it is time to speak on behalf of our constituents. That is why I absolutely and totally reject the Bill.
The Bill is an assault on international law; it is an attack on devolution; and it is a pretty stupid way to negotiate. There are some very valiant attempts to amend the Bill— in particular, new clauses 1 and 6 and amendment 16. They are designed to protect the withdrawal agreement and our human rights obligations and to rail against the blatant desire to break international law. We will play the parliamentary game and support those amendments, but it is my firm view that the responsibility rests with the Government: it is not too late to withdraw the Bill and stop playing such silly games on this critical issue.
Some people in this House think we have just arrived in this Chamber. They need to understand that we have been coming here for centuries. We have seen it all. When we hear hon. Members aghast that the British Government intend to break the law, well, we know better. We are not surprised. From the Peel laws to partition, from Cromwell to collusion, famine and internment, and two Bloody Sundays, we know all about Britain’s adherence to the rule of law. We also know about other outrages. We remember Birmingham and Brighton, Guildford and Warrington, Mullaghmore and Enniskillen, and we are shamed by it all. The reason I mention those events is not that I want to live in the past but that I do not want to go back to it.
It took 20 years to negotiate, but in 1998 our people decided to come together, to look to the future, to decide and vow that never again would we live with violence and destruction. That peace was hard-won, and we are not about to lose it. It has to be minded, protected and nurtured. Brexit itself is an attack on our civility, on our progress. A hard Brexit would be disastrous for us. Of course, that was all recognised and understood by the Prime Minister only a few months ago. That is why he negotiated, signed and lauded the protocol all around the world. Then the Prime Minister sends a man into the television studios to tell us that
“these clauses are a safety net”.
Well, the Chancellor of the Duchy of wherever he is from also said some years ago that the Good Friday agreement was a “moral stain” and a “humiliation”. That gives us some confidence.
How can the European side negotiate with a Government who are pushing through Parliament a Bill that undermines the last deal it did with them? We on these Benches will always be suspicious, but if the Government want to give the people of Northern Ireland any comfort at all that they will be protected, they should withdraw the Bill now and begin negotiating like adults.
If the Bill is not withdrawn, I am absolutely confident that no deal that is done between the Government and the European Commission will pass the European Parliament or even the European Council. That is what our friends across Europe are telling us, so I ask the Government to please stop playing games with something that is far too precious to be messed with.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I rise to speak in opposition to new clause 1, which as with some of the previous amendments tabled by Labour, shows how little Opposition Members have learnt from the election last year and the tortuous events leading up to it. Yet again, they are failing to put the UK first.
In the past few weeks, I have occasionally felt like I must have stepped through a time machine. Again, this country is at a crucial stage of negotiations with the EU. Although I am sure that the people of the EU and their national Governments do not wish us any ill will, parts of the EU bureaucracy inevitably want to be sure that the UK visibly struggles as we stand on our own two feet. Heaven forbid that we should be seen to make a success of Brexit and give other people ideas. Our negotiating team are doing everything they can to secure the best deal for the country—the entire country— and again, they need the full weight of the Government, Parliament and the country behind them. We need to have their back.
That is where we see, once more, what I can only describe as a warped approach by some who take everything the EU briefs out at face value. Barnier says, “Jump,” and the Opposition ask, “How high?” Conversely, everything our team says must be a half truth, a ruse and not to be trusted. We cannot rely on many things in politics, but the EU can always rely on one thing: in this place, there will always be people who give the EU team the benefit of the doubt and find a smoking gun in everything that the Government say and that David Frost and his team are putting forward.
Not once in her remarks did the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) do anything other than fall in wholesale behind the line emanating from Brussels. No wonder the British people decided well and truly to plant their feet on this side of the House last year. I am glad that David Frost was able to come to the Government, explain the unreasonable negotiating tactics being used by the EU and see the Government act quickly and decisively to support him and his negotiating team. The Bill will ensure that we protect the interests of the UK, and by doing that, importantly, it will increase the chance that we can secure a deal in the interests of the UK and the EU.
When we are negotiating, the biggest risk comes from the other side thinking that we do not mean business. To suggest that we might not have third-country status was clearly a hardball negotiating tactic—a misplaced and ill-judged one—but with the readiness of Opposition MPs to jump in behind the EU line, is it any surprise that the EU thought it might work? The Bill makes it clear that it will not. Sadly, by tabling new clause 1, the Opposition are buying into that negotiation tactic, grabbing it with both hands and, yet again, making it harder for the country to secure a good deal.
The arguments about international law have been extensive. I welcome the consensus that we have reached with hon. and learned Friends that the powers in the Bill will be used if, and only if, the EU breaches its legal obligations to act in good faith. New clause 1 is completely unnecessary. The rest of the world will be able to see for itself whether this country remains one with which it can do business. I welcome the remarks of the Australian high commissioner to the UK, George Brandis, who insisted that the UK remains a trusted partner.
As we have done already, for the rest of the negotiations we should listen and compromise. We have left the EU, but we have not left Europe. Fundamentally, the Bill seeks to ensure that businesses across the UK can be supported, can thrive and can help the UK to make a success of Brexit. We are putting the UK first. All hon. Members should welcome that, reject amendments that undermine our negotiating team and, for once, pull together on behalf of the British people in the face of EU intransigence.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Devolution has allowed us in Scotland to carve out a path that is different to that of the rest of the UK wherever necessary for the past 20 years. To understand exactly how this Bill attacks devolution, we need to read only clause 46, which states:
“A Minister of the Crown may…provide financial assistance to any person for…infrastructure”.
Subsection (2) goes on to say that infrastructure includes: health, education, transport, court and prison facilities, housing, water, electricity and the provision of heat. The Bill will allow UK Ministers to dictate and spend money wherever they like and in whatever devolved area they want, as long as it can be justified as they deem it to “directly or indirectly” benefit any area of the UK. We already know that the reality of that is Tory Governments funnelling millions into marginal Tory seats, as opposed to the areas that need it. I wondered why they had specifically included things such as heat and electricity and water, and then I remembered that the only reason why we are able to have publicly owned fresh water in Scotland is that the Scottish Parliament has made it so.
The Bill will explicitly give any Minister of the Crown permission to run riot with the very assets of Scotland that our Scottish Parliament has protected, and nowhere in the Bill—nowhere—does it state that permission must be obtained from the devolved Governments to do so. I have watched this Parliament hand over £40 million for ferries to a company that did not own any ferries. Are we really supposed to expect and rely on this Government to spend money on our behalf? Let us be clear: this would not be some benevolent donation to Scotland from Westminster, because clause 47 says that financial assistance may be subject to conditions, including repayment. We will be expected to pay back money that we never even spent. That is like being asked to take out a car loan even though you cannae drive.
To those who say that we are represented here and that we can change things, I say this: we have tried and we are outvoted at every turn. This gets to the crux of why independence is the only option left for Scotland. Let me give some context: Scotland has 59 MPs and the city of London 73 MPs. This is a Union that England dominates. The only reason why there is not an English Parliament is that the people in Westminster view this place as the English Parliament. We cannot afford to be naive. The only way to protect our Parliament is to become independent.
We regularly hear the Tories brag about how we have the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but I have a new thing for them to brag about: the UK is in the Guinness book of records as the country from which most countries have gained independence. Since 1939, 62 countries have gained independence from Westminster and not a single one has asked to come back. Only one country decided to stay and look where we are. In 2014, the idea of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister was a warning. Now, it is a reality.
The Bill provides a framework to allow Westminster to bypass the Scottish Parliament in the hope that we do not notice it, but we are noticing it. It took us 300 years to get our Scottish Parliament and 20 years for this place to put a bulldozer right through it—
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I rise to oppose new clause 1. The Bill seeks to preserve and protect the internal market of our precious United Kingdom, having taken back control from the EU. Our membership of the EU predates much of the devolution journey on which our Union has been, and as we break free from Europe, we must put in place the protection that is essential to preserving the marketplace in our own internal market and, in turn, protect our Union.
This Parliament was elected to deliver on the will of the British people. The people of Darlington want to see Brexit done. I know, too, that they want us to have a great free trade deal with our European neighbours. They know that trade benefits us all.
The Bill serves to protect our internal trade, and also makes provision for a situation in which the withdrawal agreement’s provisions prevent our internal trade. I welcome the Government’s intention to seek parliamentary approval for the “notwithstanding” clauses. It is right that our European neighbours should negotiate with us in good faith as we seek to protect our internal market, and it is right that Parliament has the opportunity to debate and vote on such measures. It is my hope and wish that negotiations progress and a deal is secured, such that we do not have to invoke these measures. I regret the coverage that these provisions have attracted generating the unfortunate view that the House is intent on breaking the law.
Sammy Wilson
First of all, I make it quite clear that, so far as Democratic Unionist Members are concerned, despite what has been said by the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), the Bill is essential to protect businesses in Northern Ireland. Our worry is that it does not go far enough, because its only reference to keeping Northern Ireland as part of the internal market regards preventing the withdrawal agreement’s requirement that businesses in Northern Ireland make export declarations when exporting to our biggest market, GB. That is the only reference in the Bill. In fact, the Bill also specifically excludes Northern Ireland from protections against EU interference in state aid and support for UK businesses. We are the only part left out of that.
New clause 7 seeks to address some of those things. First of all, it refers to the Government using their “best endeavours” to ensure that trade from GB to Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to GB, is protected within the internal market. Secondly, it would require the Government to monitor the impact of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, because we cannot defend businesses in Northern Ireland if we do not know what impact those are having. It stands to reason that, whether defending Northern Ireland through giving support to businesses and helping them to reduce their costs if unfair impositions are placed on them, whether protecting Northern Ireland through mitigation measures or whether supporting Northern Ireland through taking up these issues at the Joint Committee, we must know the impact of the withdrawal agreement. New clause 7 would require the Government to monitor those impacts so that they have the information to make a defence, as Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box that they want to do for businesses in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, the new clause would require the Government to look at not only the impact of regulations that will be imposed on Northern Ireland by the European Union as part of the protocol, but the impact of any likely regulations, so that they can be anticipated and, again, so that businesses in Northern Ireland do not find that they are affected in a way that I have outlined in this place so many times. In my constituency, at this very moment, a planning application has gone in for a 45,000 square feet, £15 million border post. If we go by what Mr Barnier said yesterday, every lorryload of goods that comes through may have to be stopped, searched and investigated, with the resultant delays, costs and everything else.
It is important that the Government monitor the impact of such impositions. We are trying to ensure that this situation never happens in the first place, but unfortunately the Government already conceded that in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope that the negotiations are successful in pushing the EU away from that draconian interpretation of the protocol. If not, there are some provisions in the Bill that will help to ameliorate the situation, and new clause 7 would push that even further. If Ministers mean what they say about protecting business in Northern Ireland and keeping it as part of the internal market, I hope that they will accept our new clause.
Gary Sambrook
This is one of the most important Bills that we will vote on in this Parliament, because it will create the foundation and fabric for our United Kingdom to prosper for many years to come—hopefully for at least another 300 years, to pick a random number. It is so important for all four of our nations to benefit from the Bill and prosper together.
The provisions in the Bill, especially on subsidy controls, are exactly what the spirit of Brexit was all about. It was about people knowing that they were sending billions of pounds to the EU, and feeling left behind here in the UK. I was shocked and appalled earlier to hear the shadow Minister talk about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying that money should be taken to the places it needs to be. The seats she was talking about used to be held by the Labour party, but are now held by Conservatives across the country, and it is because Labour forgot about those seats that so many of us Conservative Members are here today.
One such example, in my own seat, is the demise of MG Rover, which many people will remember. The factory closed down 15 years ago, but there is still 150 acres of land going completely unused. It is a daily reminder to the people who drive past it of that feeling of being left behind—of the billions of pounds going to the European Union, and the lost opportunities for jobs and skills across the constituency of Birmingham, Northfield. Through the subsidy controls provided in the Bill, we will be able to use Brexit to deliver on those jobs and opportunities. I very much look forward to this legislation being used for a bright, positive future across Northfield and Longbridge, when the empty space at MG Rover is used once again.
The clauses and compromises on parliamentary sovereignty are absolutely right and sound. A couple of Members on the Opposition Benches spoke about the nature of negotiations. Most Opposition Members are a second-hand car salesman’s dream. Half of them would leave the showroom without any windows, doors or tyres left on their car because every time someone said no to them, they would just roll over and accept it. If the European Union says, “No, sorry, we can’t do that”, Opposition Members think we should just say, “That’s alright; we’ll do whatever you like.”
We have heard about devolution, especially from Scottish National party Members. I am not too sure what definition of devolution they are working to. We talk about taking powers from Brussels to the UK and giving them to the devolved Administrations—but, no, their definition of devolution is to send them right back over to Brussels and have no control over them whatever. That is because the European Union is supposedly some kind of beacon and fount of progressive politics against a domineering United Kingdom. Well, they should tell that to the political independence campaigners in Catalonia, many of whom are political prisoners now, and one of whom was barred from public office yesterday, at the will of the European Union.
I have 10 seconds left, so I will finish by saying that I wholeheartedly support the Bill and its provisions to deliver our levelling-up agenda for constituencies across the country.
Karin Smyth
The last time I bought a second-hand car, the first thing I did was make sure it was roadworthy, legal and in line with the legislative provisions of this country.
I have followed this debate very closely, speaking both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I say yet again that we have had more heat than light. We started off—let us not forget that it was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and nobody else, who started off—by saying that the Bill would breach international law. It was not the Labour party that said we would accept everything the EU says; it was from the Dispatch Box that he said the sentence that in fact has put this entire Bill under a cloud.
The Government have got themselves in a terrible mess on devolution. A key pillar of devolution is setting priorities in key areas, but, as the explanatory notes to the Bill say, clauses 46 and 47, which aim to provide financial assistance, fall
“within wholly or partly devolved areas”.
That is clearly an area of disagreement.
In parallel with the Bill, we are waiting for Lord Dunlop to report on the UK Government’s Union capability. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee a few weeks ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that that would come before this Bill hits the statute book. It is clearly, again, putting the cart before the horse.
We have to admit and understand the asymmetry across the Union given the size of England. It is not hard for us to try to do that. I am somebody who thinks that, despite our Union being forged in conflict, with a very difficult history, it is actually precious. It is an exemplar of what is good about politics, democracy, how we can come together with the hard graft of compromise and the ability of us as politicians to evolve our positions and reflect change over time. However, that has to be based on respect.
It is clear that the heavy-handed way in which the Government have introduced this Bill—and, I have to say, many of the speeches given to Conservative Members to read—has not appreciated such respect or the fragility of the Union. We could have had minimum standards included in this Bill, and we could have had the frameworks put on a statutory footing. It could have been done very differently, and that is a source of great regret.
This is not just an economic Bill, as we were sold it in the first place; it is a deadly serious constitutional Bill, and it is deeply problematic. I would like to speak more about Northern Ireland, but I cannot given the time. Again, it was deeply irresponsible of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to herald the Bill in the way he did. We know the situation is fragile and we know that Brexit creates difficult problems on the island of Ireland, and it behoves all of us to dial down the rhetoric and recognise that we are now in for a very long haul on the processes to make this work.
Whether in the Joint Committee, the specialised committee, the joint working group, strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, the British-Irish Council or the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am proud to be a vice-chair, we are not able to meet at the moment as parliamentarians. That is a real problem because we are not able to talk with people with whom we disagree fervently, but with whom we need to make peace across these islands.
With our demise in the EU, the fact that the 25-odd meetings a day we had as British and Irish parliamentarians —we do have many more common interests than with the rest of the EU—are lost and that those relationships are about to fall away is something the Government need to take much more seriously. In 1990, we started forging these agreements as parliamentarians across these islands, and that was when we started to develop the peace that came some eight years later.
The Government must treat not only the regions and parts of the United Kingdom with much more respect, but they must now take much more seriously the implementation of strands 2 and 3 and the relationship with the Irish Government. We know that there are more things to come with tariffs, and so on, and the Government need to take much more heed of that.
Andrew Bowie
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on this vital Bill, as it was when I spoke on Second Reading and in Committee.
Contrary to popular belief, I have a lot of respect for my colleagues on the Scottish National party Benches. Their view about the future of Scotland is very different from mine, but I respect their view. I respect the fact that they come down here to improve the lives of Scots in their particular way, as I hope they respect the fact that, from my perspective, I believe I am doing the same, although with a Conservative bent. That is especially the case with the spokesperson for the SNP today, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), which is maybe why I was so disappointed by the tone he struck in his speech. He did not take very much instruction from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the overuse of hyperbole.
Maybe that is also why I am a little perturbed by SNP Members’ opposition to what is a very good Bill—a Bill that is pro-business, pro-consumer and ultimately pro-Scotland. I know they will not take my word for that—I understand that—but maybe they will take the word of the CBI, which said that protecting the UK internal market is “essential”, and that:
“Preserving the integrity of the internal single market—the economic glue binding our four nations—is essential to guard against any additional costs or barriers to doing business between different parts of the UK.”
Or maybe they will take the words of the Scottish Retail Consortium, which said:
“Scottish consumers and our economy as a whole benefit enormously from the UK’s largely unfettered internal single market.”
And I have already quoted Andrew McCornick, the president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, who said:
“NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority, in the clear interest of Scottish agriculture as well as the food and drinks sector it underpins, is to ensure the UK Internal Market effectively operates as it does now.”
That is what this Bill does: it underpins and cements in statute the existence of our most important market—the internal market of our United Kingdom.
Alan Brown
It is a kind of pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). He strikes a conciliatory tone and he sounds reasonable, but the bottom line is that he talks complete tosh. Nobody in the SNP is arguing against preserving the UK internal market, but this Bill does not preserve the internal market; it actually undermines Scotland’s position, because it means we can be forced to accept conditions imposed on us by Westminster. It undermines devolution for the very same reason.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill allows the UK Government to spend more money in Scotland. That is bypassing the devolution settlement. There is nothing to stop the UK Government working with the Scottish Government at the moment to give the Scottish Government more money to spend on infrastructure and to discuss with them our needs in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman supports a Prime Minister who in the past has said:
“A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
A Prime Minister who wanted the Barnett formula scrapped. A Prime Minister who said:
“I do think it is pretty monstrous that you have free care for the elderly in Scotland and no tuition fees…when you still get considerable subsidies from the rest of the UK”.
Where is the respect for devolution and for the Scottish Government making their own policy decisions in Scotland? It is non-existent.
As we have heard, clause 46 is the biggest power grab ever, allowing the UK Government to impose spending decisions on Scotland, bypassing the elected Government of Scotland. We have heard that it will be additional money, but where is the proof? This allows the Tory Government to cut the Scottish block grant and then spend that money for its own political gain, pretending that it is top-up money when it is not. It is a con trick.
The first sentence of clause 46 includes the provision:
“A Minister of the Crown may….provide financial assistance to any person”.
Given the Tory track record—as we have heard, they have awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries, awarded PPE contracts to their cronies and outsourced the track and trace scheme, for example—how can we trust their spending judgments and their integrity to spend money in Scotland, supposedly for our benefit?
Scotland previously relied on EU structural funds to help to plug shortfalls from Westminster, and now we are supposed to trust the UK prosperity fund, which sits in the Department of English communities and local government, managed by a Secretary of State who ploughed the English towns fund money into Tory marginal seats and who made an unlawful planning decision to save a Tory donor millions of pounds. There is no way we can trust him to look after the needs of Scotland. We cannot trust the Tory Government with clause 46 and, to rub salt in the wounds, clause 47 allows returns and punitive interest to be applied to any spending that comes through clause 46.
Clause 48 allows Westminster to decide what is and is not allowed with state aid. Let us look at farming, for example. The Scottish Government may wish to pay headage figures for lamb and beef production, but the UK Government could overrule that if they do not support English farmers in the same way. If we get to the stage where the free marketeers have their way and UK Government state subsidy is eliminated for certain sectors, by default, the Scottish sectors will also have their rug pulled from under them because of state aid rules. How does that respect devolution? When it comes to farming, the UK Government have form, previously having stolen the common agricultural policy convergence uplift money from the EU.
We know the risk of imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. However, Argentinian beef could come in and undercut the market. Genetically modified crops could be imposed in Scotland. We have more robust climate change targets that could now be overruled by Westminster. The Government might impose this Bill on the Scottish Parliament against its will, but they are going to lose the independence argument.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Government’s Bill and their amendments. This Bill exposes an inherent weakness in the withdrawal agreement—namely, that while the EU and UK Government must use best endeavours and act in good faith to reach an agreement, it does not spell out a clear course of action if either or both of those criteria are not met. We all know that the EU has become accustomed to a United Kingdom that repeatedly comes back to the table asking for an extension, and maybe this is why the EU’s format of negotiation is a sequencing one, meaning that it agrees to move forward only once an agreement has been reached on a previous matter. This has the effect of incurring huge delays, and the EU’s unwillingness to multitask must have a purpose—namely, continuous delays desirable to the EU and damaging to the UK’s prospects of a good deal.
Is the sequencing approach to negotiating a demonstration of using best endeavours or negotiating in good faith? I submit that it is not. It is now clear to most objective observers that the EU’s current interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol is to use it as a lever in the negotiations. How is that a demonstration of negotiating in good faith? This Bill will ensure that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory and that Northern Ireland businesses retain unfettered access to GB markets. I must, however, place on record that more needs to be done in relation to Northern Ireland, having heard very powerful and compelling speeches from Unionist colleagues today and previously.
We know that the withdrawal agreement provided for the Joint Committee to set out heads of terms of a future deal, but the prospect of there being a timely and full agreement now appears unlikely. Why does the EU fail to agree at the Joint Committee on a single exemption from controls and tariffs for any goods flowing between GB and Northern Ireland? Is that behaviour consistent with best endeavours and good faith? Again, I submit that it is not. Why is it failing to agree exemptions at the Joint Committee on food checks for food moving between GB and Northern Ireland when we have been a member of the EU for 40 years and set standards ourselves? However, more fundamentally, what country and what Government in their right mind would devolve such fundamental sovereign powers to a foreign entity so that it would have the right to decide whether we can move our own food around our own Union of nations, as we have done for centuries? If we do not deliver this Bill, the EU will also have jurisdiction over how state aid decisions are made, for example on bail-outs related to covid or any future crisis.
For all those reasons, the Bill is about the delivery of Brexit and about sovereignty. It puts into law the ability for the Government to take action if a deal is not agreed. It delivers on an instruction that the good people of Dudley, and across our Union, gave this place not only in the 2016 referendum but at the last general election. We should, and must, press on with this.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The debates have been robust and challenging, and I have learned so much about Scottish politics. It has been a pleasure to listen to the sibling rivalry across the House. I have learned a great deal—thank you.
This evening we will be asked to vote on a Bill that moves us towards a situation in which the Government will break their own international treaty obligations. That will make negotiating future deals even harder, at a time when the Government should be focusing on tackling covid rather than reopening Brexit battles. However, I am encouraged by the number of amendments and new clauses in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and all those who have worked tirelessly to try to improve the Bill.
New clause 3 would place on the Government a duty to consult, monitor, report on and review parts of the Bill, including the shared prosperity fund. That is incredibly important to my constituency, which is in desperate need of levelling-up opportunities. My constituents have grown weary of glitzy marketing campaigns such as the northern powerhouse or social mobility, which have failed to deliver meaningful and widespread opportunities for them and their families. New clause 3 would militate against the shared prosperity fund going the same way, because Ministers would have to return to the House to update hon. Members. That report would allow us to examine whether the internal market will deliver desperately needed opportunities across our country. Let us not forget that the Centre for Cities called the UK
“the most geographically unequal developed economy in the world”.
The new clause would also require oversight of any cynical attempt to use the shared prosperity fund as a reward for Conservative MPs in red wall seats.
There is an urgent need to bring new jobs and development out of the south-east and into communities that have talent, people, and enthusiasm but are in need of opportunities. If we are to spread growth around the country in a consistent way, the power to do that must be in the hands of local leaders. By the time the Government report back, we should not still be debating whether the Bill strips devolved authorities of power and undermines the Union. Instead, we should be talking about how it places opportunity in the hands of local representatives—the very people who work in those communities, and know them far better than centralised Whitehall Departments ever could.
The shared prosperity fund replaces the EU structural fund, which many parts of our country benefited from. In Yorkshire and Humber, that fund was about €796 million. Currently, when drawing down resources from that fund, priorities for support funding need to be set locally and delivered by those engaged in the projects locally. The Government should deliver the fund by building on that principle of engagement, and by empowering our devolved Administrations, local authorities and elected mayors. The Government must trust our regional leaders to do what is right for their communities.
The Bill is about Britain’s reputation and position in the world. It is also about how we serve our communities better and ensure that our prosperity is shared properly across our country, on the basis of what would have been received had the referendum result been different.
A number of new clauses and amendments would improve the Bill, and I will be supporting them fully today.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and someone with family roots in Ireland, I have taken a key interest in the Government’s manoeuvrings over the Northern Ireland protocol and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I am concerned, not especially for the reputation of Her Majesty’s Government, but for people on both sides of the Irish border, many of whom are very worried about the potential return of a hard border, the erosion of the principles of the Good Friday agreement, and all that that might mean.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Clause 46 has been the subject of much heated debate in this Chamber, yet when I read it, it seems innocuous enough. It provides power for a Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance to promote lots of good things—economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities and sport—yet this has caused such seeming offence to the nationalists in Scotland that they have tabled amendment 18 to do away with the power in its entirety.
The SNP talks of a power grab, and yet it is an incontrovertible fact that not a single power held in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast is being removed. In fact, the opposite is taking place—more than 70 powers currently held in Brussels are being devolved, which the SNP would like to give back to the EU. It is true that not every power currently held in Brussels is passing to the devolved Administrations. The reason is that the Government are properly applying the constitutional devolution settlement between the four nations, and quite right too.
I have heard the Scottish nationalists assert that clause 46 goes against the principles of devolution, but the opposite is true. Devolution in Scotland was devised by the late right hon. Member for Glasgow Anniesland. As the father of devolution, Donald Dewar set out his vision in the 1997 White Paper “Scotland’s Parliament”, which said:
“Westminster will continue to be responsible for those areas of policy best run on a United Kingdom basis.”
It goes on:
“By preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom, the Union secures for its people participation in an economic unit, which benefits business, provides access to wider markets and investment and increases prosperity to all.”
That is the vision that Scots backed in 1997, and it is exactly the approach that the Government are following in clause 46.
To be clear, this is not money repatriated from the EU, nor is it money taken from the devolved Assemblies. This is money granted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be spent across the United Kingdom. This is money that is needed throughout our country. The response to covid-19 is the most recent example of why we all benefit from this power residing at UK level and as the devolution settlements require.
To cushion the profound economic shock of the virus, the UK Government put in place a truly monumental system of business and employment support, in addition to their spending allocations to the four nations. In Scotland alone, nearly 800,000 jobs—almost a third of the entire workforce—were protected by the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support schemes. In addition, a minimum £12.7 billion has been provided, including £6.5 billion to Scotland, on top of the spring Budget—a 25% increase on pre-virus spending levels.
How do we have access to that money? It does not come from our financial reserves as a nation. Sadly, it comes from the UK Government’s ability to raise debt at very low interest rates because the markets have faith in the financial strength of this United Kingdom. It is the strength created by a unity of 68 million people with the financial firepower of the City of London and Charlotte Square combined. To pretend otherwise would be to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There are arguments for independence, but to remove the powers of the UK Government to provide ongoing financial assistance to every part of the United Kingdom would be a huge disservice to the people of Scotland. And for what reason? To promote a nationalist agenda, even at the cost of support for the people of Scotland.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described the breaching of international law as a “safety net”. That breaching of international law is set out clearly as being such in article 5 of the withdrawal agreement that this Government signed up to, put to the British people and passed in legislation. There is no shadow of a doubt that even bringing this legislation to the House means breaching international law, with all the consequences that flow from that.
To call this a safety net is entirely wrong. It is anything but that. There is nothing safe in the breach of international law whatsoever, as the Minister well knows. The breach of international law invites retaliation under the terms of the World Trade Organisation. It invites us being regarded as a pariah. It invites others to say that we are in no position to criticise those who routinely break international law. It undermines this country’s fine reputation, as set out by Margaret Thatcher—revered by all Conservative Members—who said that Britain is nothing if not a country that sets an example to other countries. It undermines the promised negotiations for deals around the world, including the fundamental negotiation right now with the European Union. We were promised by this Government—by their Prime Minister—that 80% of our trade would be covered by international trade agreements after Brexit had been concluded. What is the figure now? It is 8%—that is all they have managed, not the 80% they promised. The safety net has a great big hole in it; it is nothing of the kind. What of the Prime Minister, who described it as a safety net as well—as a means of preventing this fanciful blockade of Great Britain to Northern Ireland trade? If that were true, why is there nothing in the Bill that deals with this alleged shortcoming?
No safety net is needed, either, because the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the withdrawal agreement and in the Northern Ireland protocol provide everything that we could possibly need. If those protections are followed step by step, we stay within international law, so why are the Government so keen to go beyond that? The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) set out what is already provided—I remember; I was here—when he stood at the Dispatch Box and described the process as providing a clear and lawful set of responses, and he was right to do so.
We should not be going down this road. The agreement was signed, it was promised to the British people, and the Prime Minister told us that it was in perfect conformity with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Bill is not needed in its current form. The Government should take out the illegal actions that they are proposing and they should be honest with the British people.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The first duty of any Government is to protect their people from existential threats: it is called defence of the realm. Given that this overrides all other considerations, we need to see this Bill against the backdrop of our negotiations with the EU. It is not only a necessary piece of legislation in its own right but provides an insurance policy against the EU seeking to divide the Union or subjugate our right to exist as a sovereign trading nation.
The central premise of the Bill is to provide clarity over the internal market, to shed regulation, and to apportion powers to the home nations. This is about not just life after Brussels but supporting countless jobs and livelihoods across our whole country. Given that seamless trade between the devolved nations is proven and sacrosanct, there is no question but that we are better off together within the Union and that those who seek to divide us are not working in our nation’s best interests.
I subscribe to the Government’s insistence that the new powers in the Bill seek to protect peace in Northern Ireland, the integrity of the Good Friday agreement, the viability of the internal market, and the importance of the Union. I am also clear that there must not be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that pragmatic measures are needed to reinforce the sanctity of what has been achieved by politicians on all sides. To be frank, the EU does not have a trump card in this regard, and it is for the UK alone to decide what is best for the UK.
New clauses 4 and 5 are pragmatic; clarifying the role and scope of the Competition and Markets Authority within the wider protocols is necessary. Given that, for example, Northern Ireland exports 1.6 times more to the UK than to the EU and imports 2.5 times more from the UK than from the EU, we must maintain Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market and within its customs territory in the same way that we need to maintain a similar level of integrity for England, Scotland and Wales.
On new clauses 1, 2 and 3, the Bill already contains the safeguards that are needed to uphold the independence of the courts, uphold the rule of law and implement the withdrawal agreement—which, of course, the UK will do. I do not believe it is necessary to impose the environmental safeguards required by new clause 6 for the simple reason that the UK is already at the cutting edge of the green agenda, and that financial assistance to any part of our Union should not be dependent on a climate and nature emergency statement. That will prohibit, rather than enable.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I wish to inform the House that I shall call the Minister at 6 pm to respond to this lengthy debate in five minutes, and then the questions will be put.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
This Bill is shameful and the Conservative party is shameless. The Bill is misconceived, ill-advised and designed to wholly override any notion of devolution. The Welsh Government have described it as
“an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”
The Bill seeks to break international law and to break devolution.
One of the many vexing things about this brazen, law-breaking, power-grab Bill is when the UK Government try to suggest it is not so or that there is nothing to be concerned about, as if we should just disregard clear, undisputable facts. Just look at clause 46: it is a mucky muckle power grab. Plainly, the UK Government either know perfectly well what they are doing and they are intent on breaking international law, undermining the Northern Ireland protocol and stripping powers away from the devolved Administrations, or they are utterly and shamefully incompetent. It has to be one of those two things, or perhaps both. What it cannot be, and what is frankly an insult to the intelligence of people watching this charade in Scotland, is the nonsense that some Conservative Members engage in when they suggest that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, their UK Government is somehow exceptionally above international law. That is the dangerous exceptionalism that sits at the heart of the Bill and that is what lies behind their plans to break international law and ride roughshod over the devolved Governments.
We will all suffer for it if the UK Government have their way, because—look at clause 48—these plans open the door to their race to the bottom, to bargain-basement Britain. That is regardless of the many voices calling for them to change tack—the Scottish Government, the Welsh Synod, the Northern Irish Assembly, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the NFUS, the STUC, former Prime Ministers and the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I could go on all night. In the eyes of the UK Government, they are all wrong. I am afraid that is not credible. This Trumpian truth-twisting is all part of their plan to ride roughshod over the law, the Sewel convention and Scotland’s ability to make the decisions that are right for the people of Scotland. Of course, that holds for Wales and it holds for Northern Ireland, as we heard last week when we were discussing part 5.
I have not agreed with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on many occasions, but she hit the nail on the head last week when she called the UK Government out on their disregard for law and good faith. This UK Government cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on Scotland, on devolution, on standards and on upholding international law. In fact, the Bill shows they cannot be trusted at all. It is no wonder that the Scottish Government are unable to recommend legislative consent.
We were told that we should lead, not leave, that we are a partnership of equals. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of this reckless UK Government speak loudly and clearly of the pressing need for Scotland to steer another course as far away from the direction of the UK Government as possible.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), although I fear there is very little common cause between her speech and mine. The internal market is a shared asset, and we all want it to work effectively. As we recover from covid, we must ensure that our economy becomes stronger than ever. That is why the Government have introduced this legislation: to guarantee the continued functioning of that internal market, to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK. That is why I support the Government amendments and the Bill as a whole, and I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments.
It is apparent that we need a clear state aid policy that resides in Westminster, because, as much as the SNP likes to pretend this is the English Parliament, all parts of the UK are represented here, and this place is the only place with the legal and moral authority to act on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. Also, our ability to develop trade relations with other countries depends on our having a co-ordinated approach to state aid across our own country, the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that the Bill, or any of the specific provisions in question, undermine our commitment to the Good Friday agreement. Rest assured that those of us on this side of the House remain fully committed to the provisions of that agreement. We will not allow it to be undermined by any possible failure of negotiations, nor by any bad faith interpretations of clauses in the Northern Ireland protocol, and I pay tribute to the speeches from my hon. Friends earlier in the debate.
I will touch on the controversy over the key clauses in part 5: clauses 42, 43 and 45. I am no lawyer, and there are many Members in this House more learned than I am, but it seems to me that international law is breached all the time. The recent actions of the French navy in the channel breached the UN convention on the law of the sea. Where was the pearl clutching from the Opposition Benches then? The German Constitutional Court ruling in May set aside a ruling of the European Court of Justice and brought that international law into question. The European Union itself was only too happy to set aside its own treaties when the stability of its own union was put at risk during the financial crisis.
It seems, as my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), put it earlier, international law is, in fact, a mixture of law and politics; I think he said it was 40% the former and 60% the latter. That does not mean that we should not be mindful of our international reputation, but our friends and allies around the world would not expect us to accept bad faith interpretations of the Northern Ireland protocol. They would not expect us to impose unreasonable restrictions on our own internal sovereignty.
That is why the clauses are in the Bill. They are, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, a safety net in the event of a failure of negotiations. I believe, too, that they strengthen our hand in those negotiations. The people of Newcastle-Under-Lyme expect their representative to stand up for them, but they also expect him to stand up for Britain, and that is what I am doing by backing the Bill.
I do not believe, therefore, that Government amendment 66, which is now incorporated in clause 54, was strictly speaking necessary, though I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), whose amendment inspired it. However, I believe that incorporating that amendment was wise, because by leaving the final decision about these matters in the hands of this Parliament we are making it clear where sovereignty in these matters, and in this country, truly resides.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Every once in a while, a piece of legislation comes that goes to the very heart of our character as a country. The internal market Bill is one such piece of legislation. It goes to the very heart of our economy, our national identity and our constitution. There is no doubt that the legislation is necessary. We need a strong internal market so that businesses can trade freely across the UK’s four nations, which will be vital for our shared prosperity, and we want the Government to get on and deliver what they promised: an oven-ready Brexit deal in place for 1 January, so that we can get on with tackling the coronavirus crisis.
However, whether seen through the prism of the economy, of our national reputation or of our constitution, the Bill is fundamentally flawed. On the economy, it creates the conditions for a race to the bottom. Mutual recognition of standards without common frameworks in place simply opens the back door to hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken becoming the norm.
Internationally, the Bill will severely damage Britain’s standing in the world. The Government have freely and openly confirmed that the Bill will breach international law by overriding elements of the withdrawal agreement signed only nine months ago by the Prime Minister himself. As the Foreign Secretary himself stated in January:
“global Britain is…about continuing to uphold…our heartfelt commitment to the international rule of law…for which we are respected the world over.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 768.]
Our country’s reputation is on the line. Surely, we want to be seen as a trustworthy nation with which other countries can do business in good faith. Surely, we want to strike good trade deals across the world. Surely, we want to be able to stand up to the world’s authoritarian regimes with credibility. I know many Government Members are extremely concerned about the damage the Government are doing to Britain’s standing in the world. I hope that that concern will be reflected in the Division Lobby this evening.
As a Welsh MP who believes passionately in a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom, I am profoundly concerned that the Bill risks the integrity of our Union. Devolution is based on the principle of informed consent, but the UK Government are hellbent on cutting the devolved Administrations out of the conversation. Surely, one of the lessons of the covid crisis is that the overcentralised control freakery of this Government is simply not working. The days of being able to sit behind a desk in Whitehall, pull a lever and expect it to deliver the desired outcomes in places such as Aberavon are over. Modern Government should be built on consultation and co-operation, not top-down diktat. As chair of the all-party group on post-Brexit funding, I am profoundly concerned that this approach will be applied to the shared prosperity fund. There is a risk that the UK will undertake both a money grab and a power grab from the devolved nations with regard to how that development funding will be spent. Further still, we hear that the Government plan to funnel money directly into Conservative seats in what can only be described as the worst sort of pork-barrel politics.
The Prime Minister loves to present himself as a Churchillian patriot, but is it patriotic to divide our country? Is it patriotic to tarnish our country’s reputation overseas? Is it patriotic to undermine our economy and the standards we hold so dear? Absolutely not. The key elements of the Bill are holding our country back. We need competence and consensus, not bluster and bullying. We need to deliver on this deal and move forward.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate.
This House and all our constituents were promised an oven-ready deal. Now, it seems as though the Government are not only failing on that promise, but increasingly showing that there was nothing in the oven at all. Britain’s greatness is built on our values and the fact that we have long stood up for the rule of law. However, the Bill represents the disregard of an international treaty the Prime Minister himself personally negotiated and signed up to. If the UK Government can break international laws with their former friends and allies, what will they do to others? Is that the basis and dreadful reputation on which we are seeking to negotiate and agree trade deals with others?
The Government promised to get Brexit done and indeed they should: not by any means necessary, but with the strongest protections in place for my constituents in Coventry North West and for constituents across the UK; and not through a no-deal Brexit, which would decimate jobs and businesses across the country, causing untold harm to our own communities. We need a Brexit deal that will protect jobs and safeguard our health and social care sector. Research from the University of Sussex estimates that the failure to secure a Brexit deal would reduce exports in the manufacturing industry by up to 20% and reduce jobs. The Prime Minister promised to protect our manufacturing industries, which are crucial to our economy and any recovery we hope to see in Coventry. Even a former member of his own Government, Margot James, appealed to the Government to support manufacturers in Coventry, which are already strained by the coronavirus pandemic. How can the Prime Minister safeguard jobs and commit to job creation in manufacturing in my constituency if he is committed to selling the UK short on delivering a Brexit that my constituents are proud of?
Coventry North West and the west midlands in general stand to lose the most from the Government playing fast and loose with both UK and international law. A University of Oxford study found that car production could halve by the middle of the next decade if the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal. We are already losing manufacturing jobs in Rolls-Royce Annesley, so what is next? We have so many thriving small businesses in Coventry North West, but the Bill does not serve them and makes a catastrophic no-deal Brexit more likely. Nor does it serve our health and social care sector, and my caseload attests to the fact that the Government do not have their eye on the ball. Breaking international law will severely impact the UK’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with countries that set a higher bar, as well as to protect the health sector and public health in the UK and to enhance health globally.
Despite what the Government would like people to think, Labour wants a Brexit deal negotiated so that we can press ahead with tackling issues such as the coronavirus, securing important trade deals—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am terribly sorry, Taiwo. We have to move on.
Paul Scully
I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and I once again thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill during its stages. This is likely to be my last contribution on this particular Bill—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I know, but I only have five minutes, and I want to pay tribute to my colleagues, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who have played an amazing role and worked so hard. I also pay tribute to my Bill team—Jon Robinson, Jeff Yen, Satchi Mahendran, Dom Entwistle, Henry Hutton, Phoebe Gould, Dominic Bull, James Frisby and, in my private office, Ollie Benbow-Wyke.
Those of us on the Government Benches have heard and participated in the passionate debates on the Bill during the past two weeks, and I pay tribute to all their considered contributions. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made some impassioned speeches about the need for business certainty and about why the Union is so much better together than apart.
The debates have obviously been passionate, because of the importance of the Bill, but some of the other speeches in this Chamber today, and on some of the Committee days, have been somewhat circular. We have heard that there will apparently not be a US trade deal, but that we will get chlorinated chicken. We have heard that we love devolved spending, but that we would rather it be done from Brussels. We have heard people celebrating 62 countries having left the UK at various points in their recent history. Not one of those has the UK pound or wanted to join a bigger political union such as—oh, I don’t know—the EU, for example.
None the less, we want to make sure that we can get on with the Bill, because it is so important to continuing to provide certainty for businesses as we seek to recover from covid-19, prepare for the opportunities after the transition period and protect jobs. The Bill will ensure UK businesses can trade across our four home nations in a way that helps them invest and create jobs, just as they have for hundreds of years. We will do that in a way that supports and enables one of the largest transfers of power in the history of devolution, while maintaining that certainty for businesses. That will be done in a way that preserves our high standards, whether environmental, food or animal welfare, and in any number of other areas. It is therefore crucial that we pass this Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the question, there are likely to be Divisions, so, please, will only Front Benchers go out through the door in front of me? All Back Benchers must leave behind me, go down to Westminster Hall and join the queue. I am going to ask the Doorkeepers and the Whips to enforce that strictly, because we have to have social distancing.
I apologise to the seven MPs who were unable to get in. If anybody wishes to withdraw from Third Reading, please come and see me during the Division.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups
“(1) The CMA may authorise an Office for the Internal Market task group constituted under Schedule 4 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to do anything required or authorised to be done by the CMA under this Part (and such an authorisation may include authorisation to exercise the power conferred on the CMA by this subsection).
(2) Schedule (Constitution etc of Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups) contains provision about the Office for the Internal Market panel and Office for the Internal Market task groups.” —(Paul Scully.)
This new clause enables functions of the Competition and Markets Authority under Part 4 to be carried out on the authority’s behalf by Office for the Internal Market task groups constituted under Schedule 4 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013: see NS1. This new clause would be inserted after Clause 28.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Withdrawal Agreement and Rule of Law Duty
‘(1) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part (Northern Ireland Protocol) applies must—
(a) respect the rule of law;
(b) allow for the possibility of judicial review of an enactment, decision, act or omission by the appropriate authority;
(c) use the provisions of Article 16 of the Protocol to protect the interests of the United Kingdom.
(2) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law.
(3) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with—
(a) the requirement under Article 5 (Good faith) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to assist each other in full mutual respect and good faith to carry out the tasks which flow from the Agreement;
(b) the requirement under Article 167 (Consultations and communications within the Joint Committee) for the EU and the United Kingdom to endeavour to resolve any dispute regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Agreement by entering into consultations in the Joint Committee in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution;
(c) the requirement under Article 184 (Negotiations on the future relationship) of the Withdrawal Agreement for the EU and the United Kingdom to use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period;
(d) the requirements of the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations, which is annexed to the British-Irish Agreement of the same date.
(4) An appropriate authority exercising any function to which this Part applies must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.’ —(Lucy Powell.)
This new clause is intended to replace Clauses 42, 43 and 45 of the Bill, to require Ministers to respect the rule of law and uphold the independence of the courts and the practice of judicial review, and to require UK Ministers to implement the Withdrawal Agreement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we come to new clause 6, I remind Back Benchers to leave behind me and Front Benchers in front.
New Clause 6
Economic development: climate and nature emergency impact statement
“(1) Any financial assistance provided under Part 6 of this Act for the purpose of economic development must take into account the overarching need for a sustainable strategy aimed at long- term national well-being.
(2) Every proposal for financial assistance under this Act must be accompanied by a climate and nature emergency impact statement.
(3) Responsibility for the production of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with the applicant for financial assistance.
(4) Responsibility for assessment of the climate and nature emergency impact statement required in subsection (2) resides with Ministers, who are required to publish this assessment for any successful proposal.
(5) The climate and nature emergency impact statement produced should take account of any carbon budget, climate, nature and environmental goals approved by the relevant Parliament.
(6) In subsection (5), the ‘relevant Parliament’ means—
(a) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in England, the House of Commons and the House of Lords;
(b) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Wales, Senedd Cymru;
(d) where the proposed financial assistance relates to a person in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly.” —(Caroline Lucas.)
The intention of this new clause is to ensure that those seeking financial assistance for economic development, etc under this Act are obliged to undertake a climate and nature emergency impact statement to ensure public money is only granted to development consistent with climate, nature and environmental goals and targets.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of Ian Blackford.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
More than 150 right hon. and hon. Members have spoken during the passage of the Bill so far. We have had around 30 hours of often passionate debate, and I pay tribute to Members across the House for their contributions. The Public Bill Office has been unstinting in its support to all Members and officials across Government, and I am incredibly grateful for all its work. I particularly wish to thank the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) who have ably steered the Bill through Committee and Report.
The UK internal market is the bedrock of our shared economic and social prosperity as a country. Since the Acts of Union, it has been the source of unhindered and open trade, which has supported growth and safeguarded livelihoods and businesses. It demonstrates that, as a Union, our country is greater than the sum of its parts.
Since 1973, EU law has acted as the cohering force for the UK internal market. In 2016, the British people voted to leave the European Union, which the Government delivered in January, and as we leave the transition period at the end of this year, the Government will leave the European Union’s legal jurisdiction once and for all. We need to replace this law to continue the smooth functioning of our centuries-old internal market, while of course also ensuring that the devolved Administrations benefit from a power surge from Brussels.
Mr Vara
The fact is that there is nothing in this Bill that in any way compromises the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeply regrettable that some people, for political purposes, seek to unnecessarily scaremonger, and that they should desist from doing so?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come on to it. As I was saying, we need to replace the law to continue the smooth functioning of our centuries-old internal market, while also ensuring that devolved Administrations benefit from that power surge from Brussels. The Bill will do precisely that.
Our approach will give businesses the regulatory clarity and certainty they want. It will ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible, and it will do so without damaging and costly regulatory barriers emerging between the different parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot overstate the importance of this economic continuity Bill, especially as we seek to recover from covid-19. It is ultimately designed to safeguard jobs and livelihoods, protect businesses, give choice to consumers and continue to showcase the United Kingdom as a beacon for inward investment. That is why this legislation is so vital.
My Department and I, along with colleagues across Government, have spoken to a large number of businesses and business representative organisations across the whole of the United Kingdom about our proposals to safeguard our internal market. Businesses have overwhelmingly backed our approach. The British Chambers of Commerce has stressed that
“A fragmented system would create additional costs, bureaucracy and supply chain challenges that could disrupt operations for firms across the UK.”
NFU Scotland has emphasised the importance of protecting the UK internal market, stating:
“NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority, in the clear interest of Scottish agriculture as well as the food and drinks sector it underpins, is to ensure the UK Internal Market effectively operates as it does now.”
I could go on. Make UK has noted that it is particularly important to manufacturers that they can trade simply and effectively across all parts of the United Kingdom. The business community is clear: we must continue to safeguard the sanctity of the seamless UK internal market.
The Bill also respects and upholds the devolution settlements—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) says it does not. He will get a large number of powers—an unprecedented level of powers—back after the transition period. If he does not want them, he ought to stand up and say that, but the reality is that he is against this Bill because he wants to be shackled to the European Union forever. That is the reason he is against this—
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that I am talking nonsense. He just needs to re-read his Second Reading speech and he will see that it is full of inaccuracies. We have engaged in good faith with the devolved Administrations throughout the passage of the Bill. It was very unfortunate that the Scottish Government decided to walk away from the discussions on the internal market last year and, as I said, we want to continue to work constructively.
Let me turn briefly to the Northern Ireland element of this business Bill, which has attracted a disproportionate amount of interest and commentary. I and every Member on the Government Benches stood on a manifesto commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of United Kingdom, and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal we would maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The Bill delivers on those commitments. We have also been clear that we must protect the gains of the peace process and maintain the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State is absolutely right that the Bill has no impact at all on the Good Friday agreement, and, indeed, is only helpful to the economy in Northern Ireland—but only helpful in a limited way. He talked about access to the UK internal market for Northern Ireland goods going into GB, but will he say something about the opposite direction? Northern Ireland depends so highly on imports from GB, and yet there is no mention of safeguards to stop trade being blocked in that direction.
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman knows that discussions continue. He and I have had those discussions as well. But he makes the point that this is a business Bill, and I hope that every Member, like him, will support it on Third Reading.
We have taken these powers to ensure that, in the event that we do not reach an agreement with our EU friends on how to implement the protocol, we are able to deliver on promises in our manifesto and in the Command Paper. This is a legal safety net that clarifies our position on the Northern Ireland protocol, protecting our Union, businesses and jobs.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Irish Foreign Minister said recently that this Bill undermines the EU withdrawal legislation, has damaged trust between the Irish and UK negotiating teams, and is damaging Britain’s reputation globally. Does that give the Secretary of State any cause for concern?
Alok Sharma
This has been debated over the long passage of the Bill in this House. As the hon. Lady and other Members will know, we introduced an amendment in Committee that provides a break-glass mechanism that ensures that the safety net will come into force only if a motion in this House is passed with a requirement for a take-note debate in the other place. I hope that will allow her to vote for the Bill on Third Reading.
Alok Sharma
I will not; I am now winding up.
This Bill provides the certainty that businesses want and need to invest and create jobs. It helps to maintain high standards and choice for consumers while keeping prices down. It reaffirms our commitment to devolution, supporting one of the biggest transfers of power to the devolved Administrations. It allows the Government to invest further in communities across the United Kingdom. This is about levelling up across the whole of the UK and strengthening our precious Union, which some would want to put at risk. I am a Unionist, as is the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband); neither of us are separatists. Above all, the Bill continues to preserve the UK internal market that has been an engine of growth and prosperity for centuries. In voting for this Bill, we protect our constituents’ jobs, businesses and livelihoods. I commend it to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Business Secretary in paying tribute to the Public Bill Office for the work that it has done. I also profoundly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for the incredible hard work they did during the Bill’s Committee and Report stages. I am pleased to see the Business Secretary back in his place for the Third Reading of the Bill. I am afraid to have to report that the person deputising for him on Second Reading did not do a great job. Next time the Prime Minister asks to fill in for him, I suggest that he tells him to go elsewhere and he will do a very fine job, thank you.
Let me go to the heart of the debates around this Bill. We support the principle of the internal market, but there are two profound flaws at the heart of the Bill, and that is why we will vote against it tonight. On devolution, Labour Members believe deeply in our Union, but the strength of our Union lies in sharing power, not centralising it, and this Bill does not learn that lesson. It makes a choice to impose the rule that the lowest regulatory standard in one Parliament must be the standard for all without a proper voice for the devolved Administrations. I have read carefully the debate in Committee and on Report, and there has been no proper answer forthcoming from the Government about why they did not seek to legislate for the common frameworks, as they could easily have done. Nor can they explain why they are taking such broad powers over public spending in specific devolved areas of competence.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the great scheme of devolution of the illustrious former leader of the Labour party in Scotland and Scotland’s first First Minister under devolution, Donald Dewar, was that every power would be devolved unless specifically reserved? What is wrong with the Bill is that it gives the British Government the power to override devolved powers. That is the heart of the matter.
Edward Miliband
There is an important point here. To take the example of animal welfare or food safety, those powers remain devolved, but they are devolved in name only, because by imposing the minimum standard as the lowest standard for all legislatures, those powers are seriously undermined. I have to say to the Business Secretary that I fear that the Bill will only strengthen the hand of those who want to break up the UK.
On international law, nobody should be in any doubt about the damage already done by the Bill. I do not blame the Business Secretary, but this law-breaking Bill has been noticed around the world by not just the Irish Government, not just our EU negotiating partners, and not just Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who the Government can dismiss. Even President Trump’s Northern Ireland envoy Mick Mulvaney visited the Republic of Ireland yesterday and said:
“I think anyone who looks at the situation”—
with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—
“understands there could be a series of events that could put the Good Friday Agreement at risk.”
When the Trump Administration start expressing concern about your adherence to international agreements and the rule of law, you know you are in trouble. That is how bad this Bill is.
Edward Miliband
I am going to carry on.
It is important to hear the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her coruscating and brilliant speech in Committee. Government Members are rolling their eyes about the former Prime Minister. She said that,
“the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.]
That is what a former Prime Minister—the previous Prime Minister—of this country said.
Sir William Cash
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in fact, in the past, there have been substantial breaches of international law by Labour Governments as well as by other ones? Furthermore, does he believe that the Iraq war was lawful?
Edward Miliband
This is unprecedented in the following sense: the Government are coming along and breaking an international agreement they signed less than a year ago. I have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I have read the debates on the issue, and he certainly has not produced an example in any way remotely similar to what is happening in the Bill.
I want to develop my argument, because an important point has been understated in the debate since Second Reading. The clauses are not simply wrong, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise; they are not simply unnecessary, because the protocol has mechanisms to deal with the issues at hand; but there has been a notable event since Second Reading that has exposed the Government’s strategy even further, which is the cancellation of the Budget.
Let us recall the Government’s fig leaf designed to hide their embarrassment. The issue was at-risk goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The whole case made by the Prime Minister was that the Bill was necessary to prevent the blockade of goods from GB into NI. The threat was described as “extraordinary” and the very reason to break international law, but the measures, as we now know, to break the law in this Bill, do not, as he had to admit at Second Reading, deal with the issue of GB to NI trade.
The excuse was that GB to NI issues would be dealt with in the Finance Bill, as was explicit in the statement put out on 17 September by the Government, which said:
“Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill, relating to tariffs on GB-NI movements, including the same Parliamentary process that the Government has committed to for the UKIM Bill.”
In case it escaped the House’s attention, the Budget has been cancelled and so has the Finance Bill. So where now is the mechanism to deal with the extraordinary threat that we face as a country? Can anyone on the Government side tell me where it is? The country faces an extraordinary threat that has to be dealt with, but the legislation we are considering does not cover it, nor does any legislation even in view.
I will give way to the Business Secretary if he would like to tell me how this will be dealt with. There is no answer—he would prefer not to. I do not blame the Business Secretary, because let us be clear what has happened here: the legislative hooligans in Downing Street who dreamed this up have moved on to something else, but the Bill is still with us, and so we are going through all this pain, all this grief, all this damage to our international reputation, and the central argument on which it is based is not even covered by any legislation.
What are we to conclude? Was this all a charade—a “dead cat” strategy, as I think it is known—to distract attention? Was it a trap designed to pretend that we were rerunning remain versus leave? Was it perhaps a Government strategy to pretend to their Back Benchers that the Government are willing to break the law in order to soften them up on accepting concessions in the endgame of the negotiations with the EU. Whatever the excuse, all of them reflect so badly on the Government.
We are at a grave national moment—our gravest for a generation, because of coronavirus. We are trying to conclude a Brexit deal, which is vital for our country. We need new trade deals, in which our word is our bond. Yet the Government play these appalling games, thinking so little of their Back Benchers that they think they can pull the wool over their eyes; willing to resile from a treaty that they signed, for a day’s headlines; playing fast and loose with the law for short-term gain.
The Bill will get its majority and go to the other place, but their lordships should know that, across this House, there is deep concern about it. That has been shown again and again by good people on both sides of the House in the last few weeks. I urge the other place to bring the Bill into compliance with the rule of law and salvage our reputation. But we in the House of Commons have a chance tonight to show our concern again. It is an indefensible Bill. It damages our country. It is wrong and self-defeating. I urge Members on all sides to oppose it tonight.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman spoke, as always, with great energy and passion. I sometimes regret that his successor as leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), did not show half as much energy and passion in making the case during the referendum; if he had, we would not need to be debating this Bill at all, but there it is.
The reality is that we must make sure that, as we leave the transition period, we have a working internal market, and I therefore support the Bill in principle. I am delighted to see the Business Secretary. I hope he takes on board a point that I know his junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) has noted: as we build a working internal market, I hope we can find ways in which to expand it to other close parts of the British family that are aligned with and have great synergy with us. For example, the Crown dependencies—the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands—which are linked closely already to financial services and many other parts of our economy.
In particular—I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—we should make sure that the overseas territory of Gibraltar has clear, free and unfettered access to the UK internal market. They stood with Britain, despite the fact that, like me, they did not want to be in this situation. We owe it to them to make sure that they are not allowed to become collateral damage, economically or in other respects, as a result of the decision that we took. I hope the Business Secretary is actively engaged with the Government of Gibraltar to find ways in which we can make sure that they are able to participate fully in that market and benefit from it.
It is well enough known that the provisions relating to Northern Ireland cause me and many others great concern in their original form. I am grateful for the approach that the Government have adopted, and for the clarifications of their approach and on the changes that they have been willing to make. I will not pretend that we have solved every problem there. I will not rerun the discussion we had on Report, but I gently say this: sovereignty power and reserved powers are generally best used sparingly, lightly and with great deliberation. I hope that, having taken certain powers, we will make sure through our negotiations: first, that we never have need to use them, because the damage would be real were we to do so; and, secondly, that we exercise them with restraint. Like it or not, and whether necessary or not, even accepting the Secretary of State’s proposition that we need a “break glass in emergency” provision, we do have to reflect that this legislation has, for whatever reason, created concern among many of our closest allies and neighbours—people with whom we need to engage.
I want to be in a position where we can, for example, advance the excellent Judge Joanna Korner’s candidature for the International Criminal Court with a clear hand, and say that we are genuinely committed to the rule of international law. I want us genuinely to be able to say in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and other places that we remain committed to the rule of law internationally.
Sir Robert Neill
I normally try to give way, but time is short; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I hope that we will be able to say, as a number of hon. Friends of mine have been able to do in the Council of Europe, that we are—despite, for example, the difference over prisoner voting rights—committed to the rule of law. We must make sure that we do not allow anything to undermine that, because reputations take time to build. Ours is an excellent one in international legal circles, and we do not want that to be lost.
The Secretary of State made a fair point about the desire for business continuity and for the UK to remain a beacon for inward investment. As well as benign tax and regulatory regimes, the other—perhaps the most important—reason that people invest here is the fact that we are regarded as a safe jurisdiction in legal terms and a safe polity in which to invest, because we do not behave in an arbitrary manner. I therefore hope that we will be very clear that we will stick rigidly to the clarifications and caveats that we gave in relation to the use of any emergency powers, and that such powers will be used carefully, proportionately and without ousting the other obligations that we entered into through the withdrawal agreement and the protocol.
Let me turn to the other matter relating to business continuity. It is important that we rebuild and strengthen our international links for the practical reason that was mentioned by an Opposition Member on Report, and that is the need to go forward. Once we have left the provisions of the EU arrangements at the end of the transition period, businesses will need and want to have a ready, efficient and swift means of enforcing contracts and judgments upon contracts across the EU and with our neighbours. To do that, at the very least we have to join, as a matter of urgency, the Lugano convention. To achieve membership of the Lugano convention, we must have the consent of the European Union members of that convention. At the moment, the Commission is recommending withholding that consent. The European Free Trade Association members have consented.
It would be profoundly dangerous and damaging for British business were we not able to access Lugano, because of all the difficulties for any international contract that I have pointed out. It would be a huge disadvantage and would affect individuals: the woman seeking to get maintenance payments from the absent father, who is now in an EU country; or the person seeking to pursue a personal injury claim, where the driver of the vehicle that went into them is in a different jurisdiction. Rebuilding the bridges to ensure that we can get back into Lugano may sound prosaic, but it is actually profoundly important for the good operation of our legal system once we have left. Sometimes a little less of the poetry—and a bit more of the prosaic—is required in government. I hope that we can now move forward into that stage.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill because it contains provisions which allow the Government to break commitments it has made under international law, and because it does not have the agreed consent to legislate within the competencies of the devolved legislatures which is contrary to the established devolution settlement.
May I thank the Public Bill Office for the consideration that it has given to the SNP as we have sought to table amendments to the Bill? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for the work that he has done in Committee.
This legislation has been rushed through by the UK Government over the course of the last two weeks, after a rushed consultation and a total failure to engage with the devolved Governments. The United Kingdom shows no respect for the devolved institutions in this Bill, and it does not have their consent. We are told that this legislation seeks to secure the Union, so it is telling that it has failed to gain the consent of even a single part of that Union.
With limited time in this House, parliamentarians have spent hours debating and dissecting this Bill. We have attempted to scrutinise every clause and every schedule to it. Members from all parts of the House have made significant speeches and a raft of Opposition amendments have been brought forward, yet here we are tonight and nothing has changed. This Bill still does exactly what it set out to do two weeks ago. It still breaks international law and it still breaks devolution. For the absence of doubt, let me make it clear: it breaks devolution.
It is the same auld with this Tory Government. They have not listened, they have not taken the chance to change course and they have not seen the need to compromise. This Government have typically and arrogantly ploughed on. Throughout the passage of the Bill, they have voted down and ignored anyone and everyone who has sought to defend devolution and uphold international law. The character of this Government is crystal clear: they are consistent in their contempt.
As always, we accept and respect decisions with regard to the selection of motions and amendments, but if Members refer to today’s Order Paper, they will see that the Government had options available to them that would have perhaps demonstrated they did have some remaining respect for the devolution settlement and the national legislatures of these islands. They could have held over Third Reading until each of the devolved institutions had considered legislative consent motions. That would have been respectful to the devolved institutions. They could have referred the Bill for further scrutiny to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Instead, they insist on using their majority to force the Bill through without even pretending they care what the devolved nations think.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I thank—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are getting very agitated about some of this, but is this not the point—the real power grab here and the real undermining of the devolution settlement is the callous disregard for the Sewel convention, which this Government put on a statutory footing and are now completely ignoring? That is one of the fundamental acts that has undermined devolution across these islands.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct. You know, we were told after the referendum in Scotland in 2014 that Scotland’s place would be respected and that we were to lead the United Kingdom, and here we find not just our Parliament in Edinburgh but the Administrations in Cardiff and in Northern Ireland being ignored. We can refuse to give consent, as we are doing, to this Bill, but the Government carry on regardless. Where is that respect for devolution? Where is the respect for the people of Scotland? In a referendum in 1997, 75% of the people of Scotland voted for a Parliament. It is not the SNP’s Parliament. it is not the Scottish Government’s Parliament; it is the Parliament of the people of Scotland—the Parliament of the people of Scotland when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed that gave powers over devolved matters. What those on the Government Benches refuse to see—what the rest of us can see—is that this Parliament is giving itself the power to override the Scottish Parliament in health, in education, in transport and in housing.
Ian Blackford
I can hear the Secretary of State shouting, but it is his Bill and I suggest he reads it, because clauses 46 and 47 are very clear: powers over infrastructure, including
“water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage or other services… railway facilities (including rolling stock), roads or other transport facilities… health, educational, cultural or sports facilities”.
The Secretary of State can sit and tell us that it does not override devolution. Well, the facts are in the Bill. What the Government have done is overridden devolution and, quite frankly, I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in Scotland will be having absolutely none of it.
So tonight, just as—[Interruption.] You can chunter and shout all you like, but at the end of the day, the people in Scotland have been watching what has been going on over the past few months, with Scotland being disregarded. The fact is that we won the election in Scotland last December on the right of Scotland to choose its own future. We had no desire to be taken out of the European Union against our will. In England, you can choose to do what you want as far as Brexit is concerned, but we do not—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman meant that hon. Members can choose, because when he says “you”, he means me, and he knows that I have no such choice.
Ian Blackford
I am making it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the people in England can choose what they like in this regard, but that we do not consent to Scotland being taken out of the European Union. We have a mandate from the people of Scotland that says we have the right to determine our future, yet we have the callous disregard of this Government, who have so far refused to grant a section 30 licence so that we can have a choice over our own future. Not only are they frustrating the will of the Scottish people to have that referendum on our future, but we now find that they are seeking to take powers back from our Parliament—[Interruption.] I can hear a Conservative Member saying that we have had our referendum, but the point is that when we had our referendum in 2014, we were promised that we would stay as members of the European Union, that we would be respected within this Union and that we were going to get a powerhouse Parliament that would be the strongest Parliament in the world. The opposite has happened, however, and when the facts change, people in Scotland have the right to change their mind.
What the Government do not seem to recognise is that support for the SNP and for independence is gathering momentum in Scotland—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can chortle, but the reality is that many people who did not support Scottish independence in 2014 have rightly changed their minds. They have the choice of a future with Scotland being a member of the European Union and a law-abiding, independent country that accepts its responsibilities in a global world. They have a choice of creating a fairer society and of coming out of the covid crisis and building our economy. It is that choice and that clear vision that we offer, against what has been done to Scotland by this Conservative Government. I can tell this Government that what they are doing with this Bill is absolutely determining that the people of Scotland will make that choice and, yes, we will become an independent country, because we want no future with the disrespect that we see day in, day out from the Conservative Government to our Parliament in Edinburgh.
Pete Wishart
The more Conservative Members chortle, the more the support for Scottish independence will rise, and they know that. I heard the Minister say that this Parliament is Scotland’s Parliament too, but, as my right hon. Friend will know, an opinion poll came out today. Does the Minister want to know what is in that opinion poll? Four times as many Scots now support the Scottish Parliament over this Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s aggressive Unionism and undermining of our Parliament has failed, and that all it is doing is raising support for independence?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that when he goes back to his constituency and speaks to people, he is finding, as I am, that we are being encouraged to get on with it. People have seen enough. They have seen what is happening to Scotland under this Conservative Government and, as I said earlier, we are having none of it.
So tonight, just as there was during Second Reading, there is a fundamental choice for every Member across the House. This is now the last chance to salvage some dignity and respect for democracy in this place. Leaving it to the other place would be a complete dereliction of duty. This is the democratically elected House, and it is our job to oppose this undemocratic piece of law.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Bill. It is a nonsense and a rogues’ charter, as I said in a previous debate, but would he also encourage Members of the House of Lords, who have historically played a role in defending the rule of law, to ensure that they do their best to improve this legislation if that is possible?
Ian Blackford
I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that call, but we should not be relying on the Members of the House of Lords; they are unelected. The fact is that this place has not done its job to defend the rule of law, or to protect devolution. I feel for Labour Members who were responsible, under Blair’s Government, for bringing devolution in, because everything that was established under that programme has been undermined. There is a real call to everyone in Scotland, regardless of whether they voted for the SNP in the past, to recognise the maxim that power devolved is power retained.
People in the past have said to me, “Could Westminster shut down the Scottish Parliament?” I have argued in the past that that would be fanciful. Nobody could believe that our Parliament could be attacked in such a way, but what is happening with this Bill is that our Parliament, which has had the support of the people of Scotland—
Ian Blackford
It is being usurped. It is not getting more power—read the Bill. Read clauses 46 and 47, and read clause 48, which takes away from Scotland the powers that we have over state aid. When I look at the Government Benches, it really is Trumpesque—twisting the truth beyond reality.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most harmful aspects of the Bill is set out in the explanatory notes? They state:
“The Bill will be a protected enactment under the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. It will be an entrenched enactment under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This means that it cannot be modified by the Devolved Legislatures, and so it will not be open to those legislatures to disapply the provisions of the Bill, or modify their effect.”
We are stuck with it, and this Government can continue to make things worse if they choose to do so. It is taking it out of the Scottish Parliament’s hands.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct. It is perhaps worth reminding the House, in this context, that we have the joint ministerial committees, which recognise their responsibility to put frameworks in place.
Ian Blackford
I hear the hon. Lady saying that they have done, and she is quite right about that, because the Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast recognised the need to work together, where it was appropriate, in creating the circumstances to ensure that there was continuation of a market across these islands. The commitment that I make, and that my party and my Government make, is that we will work constructively with the Government in London to ensure that that happens, but the rug has been pulled from under that by a UK Government who have introduced this Bill, who legislate for the market that they want to create and who attack the fact that we have provisions in Scotland in areas such as the environment, food standards and building standards, which we can no longer defend.
There will be a race to the bottom in accepting the lowest standards, and there is not a single thing that we can do about it. There is not a single thing that we can do to protect our food standards once this takes place. The Secretary of State is shaking his head, but we already have differences in, for example, pasteurised milk. What will happen post this? We will not have the ability to keep the uniqueness of our regulations. What happens to support for our crofters and farmers, for example?
The responsibility falls tonight on this House to do the right thing. I obviously understand if those on the Government Benches are unwilling to take advice from me and my party, but they would do well to listen to the strength of the arguments emanating from some on their own Benches. During Committee, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), gave a powerful and insightful analysis of the dangers of this legislation. Her words are worth repeating for those left on the Conservative Benches who are not yet card-carrying members of Cummings and the Prime Minister’s ideological cabal. She concluded her remarks by warning:
“I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world. 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.]
Those are stark words from the former Prime Minister on what the Government are doing to trash the reputation of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead and I may not agree on much, but few could deny that not only were those words powerful, but they are very likely to be proven prophetic.—[Interruption.] I hear a comment, “Too long. It is not fair on everyone else.” I will tell Labour Front Benchers what is not fair. It is what has been done to Scotland tonight. I have the right, as the leader of the Scottish National party at Westminster, to make sure our voices are heard, and I tell the House that the SNP voices will be heard and will be heard without apology.
Despite the bluff and bluster we have repeatedly heard, none of us are fooled that this is some kind of benign business Bill. We know the real intent of this legislation: after 21 years of devolution, the Tories are stripping powers from our Scottish Parliament. The Tories did not support devolution and now they see the popularity of the Scottish Government and they do not like it. It is little wonder why, because that support for the Scottish Government stands in direct contrast to the unpopularity of Tory Governments from Westminster.
Earlier today, the Scottish social attitudes survey showed that public trust in the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s best interest was at more than four times the trust shown in the UK Government. The survey, conducted in 2019-20, before lockdown, shows that people were nearly five times more likely to say that the Scottish Government should have more influence on how the country is run than that the UK Government should. Some 61% of people trusted the Scottish Government to work in Scotland’s best interest, which compares with a record low of 15% for the UK Government—and you can bet your boots that after what has happened tonight it will be a lot lower now than the 15% that was recorded.
Gary Sambrook
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to filibuster so much in order to prevent other people from being able to input into this debate? Surely it is not fair on so many people who want to contribute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That is a reasonable question for the hon. Gentleman to ask, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to filibuster, it would not be in order and I would not allow him to do it. He is not filibustering; he is making a very powerful argument. I do note the hon. Gentleman’s point that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for twice as long as the other Front Benchers, and he will appreciate that a great many other people would like to make a contribution to this important debate tonight. However, that is not a matter for me. If the right hon. Gentleman has the floor, he can speak for as long as he wishes, but I know that he is both honourable and a gentleman, and that he will bear in mind that while he has the floor other people do not have the opportunity to speak.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we had a demonstration there from the Conservative Benches that Members from Scotland should sit down and shut up, and that we should not be heard in this House. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) that there is a very easy fix to that: let’s have the section 30 order, let’s have the referendum on Scottish independence and we can say goodbye to you—thank you and good night.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not care for the polling numbers I referenced, and he does not care for devolution. After all, he is the architect of this Bill. [Interruption.] “Parliamentary etiquette”—my goodness! Devolution has been butchered and I hear Conservative Members talking about etiquette—what a load of keech. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has set out his agenda: Scotland is to be dealt with, the Scottish Parliament is to have its wings clipped, and Westminster is to take back control and wants to give itself spending powers over our devolved matters.
Pete Wishart
I am interested in my right hon. Friend’s view on the subject of keech. Does he agree that if Government Members want us to go, there is a very elegant and convenient solution, and it is right in front of them: Scottish independence? Support for it is on the rise, and then we will be quite happily out of this place.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is right. Those on the Government Benches know that a referendum is coming; we should just get on with it.
This Bill gives Westminster direct spending control in devolved areas in Scotland—in health, education, housing and transport—and the people of Scotland know from long and bitter experience that the Tories cannot be trusted to spend money in Scotland. The Tories will look after their own interests. They will never support Scotland’s interests, as tonight demonstrates. The passing of this Bill gives the Tories free rein to bypass Scotland’s Parliament and the democratic priorities of the Scottish people.
The democratic principle of the right to choose our own form of governance is at the heart of what is at stake if the Tories force this legislation through tonight. They can try to deny it all they like, but it is the Tories themselves who are breaking the constitutional settlements that have been democratically supported across these islands. This legislation rips apart Scotland’s claim of right, which enshrined the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. That claim of right was debated on an SNP motion in the last Parliament, which was passed without objection.
It is a long-held principle that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people of Scotland, not with Westminster. That historic right has its roots in the declaration of Arbroath and formed the basis of the determination in the case of MacCormick v. the Crown by Lord Cooper, when, as Lord President of the Court of Session, he gave his opinion that
“the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”.
The principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland is under attack in this Bill.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are plenty of reasons to oppose this legislation that do not necessarily involve the case for Scottish independence?
Ian Blackford
The fact is that, as a consequence of the attack on the powers of Scotland’s Parliament, people in Scotland are making the determination that they wish our country to become independent as soon as possible.
This Bill undermines the settled will of the people of Scotland, who voted in a referendum on the basis of our Parliament having control over spending in devolved matters. It is that fundamental—it is that serious. This is a defining moment. The UK Government are attempting to block the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide Scotland’s future.
Joanna Cherry
It is great to hear my right hon. Friend remind the House that the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament is a purely English doctrine. Does he agree that, in seeking to interfere with the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, the Bill also potentially breaches article 19 of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England?
Ian Blackford
That may well be right. My hon. and learned Friend has much experience of these matters. I would simply say that if the House passes this Bill tonight, it really does not seem to care about law and treaties.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I feel like a Pez dispenser of clarification on the Good Friday agreement. In discussing sovereignty, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not an ornament on the shelf? The Good Friday agreement, being endorsed by the people of Ireland north and south, is in fact sovereign as regards Northern Ireland. Does he further agree that this Bill not only does not protect the Good Friday agreement but offends each of its strands and its principles of democratic process, respect for differences and the rule of law?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely—I fundamentally agree with the hon. Lady. We all look on with alarm at what could happen if the Good Friday agreement is disrespected. We give every good wish to our friends on the island of Ireland that the peace is maintained, but there is no question that the Government are playing with fire.
Madam Deputy Speaker, time is short so I must now move on. It is pretty ironic that at the very same moment the Tories are robbing the Scottish people of their sovereign rights, those behind this power grab are using the very same arguments on sovereignty to impose their extreme Brexit agenda. In February, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) lectured us:
“the experience of history tells us that the countries with the maximum amount of control over their own destinies are the best equipped to succeed economically and, indeed, to secure a greater degree of equity for all their citizens.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 478.]
If the Minister holds that to be true, then it ought to be true for Scotland. Yet, through this very Bill, the UK Government are trying to rob those rights and those powers from Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament. The best that can be said for this UK Government is that they at least wear their hypocrisy on their sleeves. When it comes to sovereignty, I have been looking back at what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said over the years. He said on 14 October 2012, when talking about the EU:
“give us back our sovereignty or we will walk out”.
If he thinks this matter is so crucial, why is he leading his Government to attack the Scottish Parliament? Why is he disregarding our sovereignty in Scotland?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will push our amendment tonight to defend democracy, to defend Scotland’s interests, to defend against this bare-faced attack on our Parliament’s powers. We know that the vast majority of Scotland’s MPs and the Scottish public will be with us. What of the six Scottish Tories, though? Will they stand up for Scotland? Will they stand up for our Parliament? Tonight is their chance to join with us, to reject this power grab, to reject Westminster’s trampling over the devolution settlement, to respect that the Scottish Parliament should determine spending on devolved matters. A failure to join with us will show that the so-called Scottish Tories have reverted to type and reverted to what they have traditionally been: hostile to devolution.
Let me conclude by putting this in context. Over the past number of years, Scotland’s people have watched on as Westminster ignored their views on Brexit, launched power grab after power grab, and undermined our democratic rights. This legislation is the last straw. It leaves us with only one option and only one choice. A growing and consistent majority of our people have now come to the same conclusion. They know that the only way to defend Scotland’s Parliament and powers is through independence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the words of Charles Stewart Parnell, who used to sit on these Benches just two rows back, still ring true. Tonight, I direct these words to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I will do this with two lines in Gaelic and then give an English translation:
“Chan eil còir aig duine crìochan a chur air adhartas dùthcha. Chan eil còir aig duine innse do dhùthaich, ‘Gheibh sibh cho fada ri seo agus chan fhaigh na b’fhaide.’”
“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) who has just spoken said he was going to push his amendment. I think he pushed the patience of this House to breaking point.
In the very few seconds I have left I will simply say, with regard to the speech by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), that he completely failed to answer my question. The Labour party has, in fact, on a number of occasions broken international law. He knows it. He could not answer, and did not attempt to answer, whether he thought the Iraq war was lawful.
The bottom line is that the completely irrelevant questions raised in relation to breaches of international law are completely unfounded. The reality is that this country has on occasion in the past, in its own national interest for the sake of preserving its sovereignty and its economic sovereignty, had to occasionally break international obligations. There is no doubt about that, but equally and by the same token this Bill is about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and preserving the economic sovereignty of the internal market and doing what it can to preserve the Union in all its character and territoriality. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North shakes his head, but the bottom line is that we have now got this Bill through. It has gone through with 100 votes time and again. That proves the point. This is the endorsement of the referendum. This is the endorsement of the manner in which the British people voted in the general election and that is the truth. We have won, and we will continue to pursue the independence of this country and to maintain its sovereignty.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. All Members must be as accurate as possible when they speak in the House, and none more so than Cabinet Ministers. Today, in response to my questions following his statement, the Education Secretary twice made statements that were incorrect. First, he said that
“we have made £100 million available for universities…to ensure that youngsters have digital access”.
That was not accurate. The £100 million funding is for devices for schools and some further education providers, not for universities. The Secretary of State was wrong in what he said. He also said that individual students could seek additional maintenance support from the Student Loans Company, and as far as I can tell that is not right either.
When I asked the Secretary of State about digital access this afternoon, he said that he was sorry I had missed the announcement. Well, I am sorry that he is apparently wrong about the detail of his portfolio. Have you had any indication, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he will return to the House to correct the record on these matters?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making, but it is not a point of order for the Chair; it is rather a continuation of the debate that took place this afternoon. But she has taken the opportunity to make the point that she wishes to draw to the attention of the House, and no doubt to Ministers, and she has succeeding in so doing.
Business without Debate
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Flexible Rail Ticketing
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The covid pandemic, unknown to the world nine months ago, has required businesses, people and the Government to make huge and rapid changes to the way we live our lives with a speed that was unthinkable before coronavirus struck. Nightingale hospitals were constructed within days and quickly made capable of accommodating hundreds of ventilated patients. Supermarkets doubled their capacity for online deliveries.
The Government introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme and, within days, were paying the wages of 4 million employees. Advice was given that those who could should work from home, which gave rise to an instant leap in the take-up of video conferencing through services such as Zoom, and introduced millions of people to the previously unexperienced sensation of being exhausted by staring at a screen all day.
For all the tragedies and privations of the last few months, it has been a time of agility and innovation in the way that we do things. Yet through this period of the most tumultuous change that any of us has experienced during our lifetimes, one thing that has proved impervious to alteration—a monument to inflexibility—is the railway season ticket.
If my constituents in Tunbridge Wells, High Brooms and Paddock Wood take a Southeastern train to work in London, they face the same bill of fare that they have had since the 1950s. They have to buy either a seven-day-a-week season ticket from Southeastern or daily tickets at the highest fare for the journey, with no discount for frequent and regular travellers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I bring to his attention something that has been coming to me. For many students, especially in my constituency and his constituency, but in other constituencies as well, the commute to university is essential. If they are put in lockdown, they lose weeks on their railcard. As airlines have been flexible, so must rail and other transport providers be.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that it is not only workers who commute. Many students commute into the capital and, indeed, other cities around the country—and, I dare say, in Northern Ireland—so I am grateful for his point.
To turn to the economics of the situation, a standard class season ticket from Tunbridge Wells costs £4,928 a year, which is a large amount of money. The price of a daily standard peak return ticket is £39.90. That means that someone travelling three days a week to London for 47 weeks of the year must pay £5,626. In other words, it costs over £700 more to travel three days a week than five or even seven days a week. It is a ludicrous anachronism and an outrageous injustice that we have the same fare structure for workers in 2020 as we did in 1950.
There are many reasons why that is no longer tolerable. First, even before covid, the pattern of working life had changed since the 1950s. Many people work fewer than five days a week from a workplace in a city centre. Either they work part time or they do not need to travel every day. How can our railways not have noticed a change that has been happening for decades?
Secondly, people who work part time usually earn less money than people who work full time. To penalise the poorest workers is a regressive policy that adds to poverty and is a barrier to work.
Thirdly, more women than men work, or wish to work, part time. The standard fare policy means that it costs them more to do so. As pay is still not equal, a further obstacle to accessing good jobs and careers is thrown up in front of women by a fare system that can make it too costly to take up opportunities. The same is true, but worse, for disabled people and people as they get older.
Fourthly, the fare structure flies in the face of the advice that the Government are currently giving to curb the spread of covid, which says, “Work from home if you can”. For many people, that means going into the office less, perhaps for important meetings or to train newer and younger colleagues, and working from home more. That pattern is not supported if it is cheaper to travel five days a week than three days.
Fifthly, the fare system hampers our recovery from the economic consequences of covid. Our businesses and their staff need to be flexible and adaptive. Instead, working patterns will be formed not by what is ideal for the business and the worker, but to conform to an antiquated fare system.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that rail operators must act responsibly during the pandemic to ensure that passengers do not have to choose between a journey on an overcrowded train and paying the top rates for anytime travel tickets? On the west coast line, for example, travel between London and Stoke-on-Trent rises from £53 to £129 after 3 pm, and only returns to £53 at 7 pm, when the trains are packed. Surely a temporary suspension of peak fares while the country is in a national health emergency is the right thing to do to protect rail travellers.
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a time in which we must display the same flexibility, innovation and responsiveness that we have—and have had to—in so many other areas of life, and that we should not be bound by the structures that we inherited.
It is time now to make this change. It does not have to be this way. If we can bring in a job retention scheme within days of the need being identified, if we can invent a scheme in July to help thousands of restaurants attract back millions of customers in August, and if businesses can switch to conducting meetings online virtually overnight, surely we are more than capable of introducing without further procrastination a train ticket to meet the needs of part-time and flexible workers. There is no shortage of models available: a ticket that allows any three days in seven, for example; a ticket that permits travel only 12 days in a month; or, at the most basic, a carnet system that gives a discount on the purchase of multiple peak-time tickets to be used within a limited period.
At the end of July, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) wrote, along with all Kent MPs, to the managing director of Southeastern, Mr Statham. He replied that Southeastern has submitted proposals for flexible ticketing to the Department for Transport and is waiting for the Department’s authorisation under the emergency measures agreement. I say to the Minister: please act now. As the Transport Secretary said last week, we are in a different era. The Government are—which is to say, we are—paying for the railway. With these covid-changed circumstances, very few people are going to be paying for an annual seven-day-a-week ticket at any time soon. That money is simply not coming in.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
For years I have been hearing from constituents who are desperate for part-time season tickets. The right hon. Gentleman is making some brilliant points on this issue. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi)—our shadow Rail Minister—and he is in agreement with me. With the job market about to be reeling for years in a post-covid environment, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do everything and anything they can, such as allowing part-time season tickets, or at least thinking about doing so, to allow businesses to create new jobs and accommodate flexible, part-time working?
Greg Clark
As I have said, this problem has persisted for too long and we need to catch up with the 21st century, but now is a particular moment to make that reform, so that people can go back to work according to the needs of their employer while also respecting the advice to stay and work at home where possible.
In contrast to a full season ticket for five or seven days a week, a flexible commuting ticket is likely to be bought by commuters here and now, and could actually increase revenue to the railway and the taxpayer while fighting covid by supporting people not going into the office every day. It would also provide a long-overdue journey of the railway fare system to a rendezvous with working life in the 21st century.
I suspect that the Minister, whose talents I admire, will be briefed to buy time and say that these things must be examined in greater detail, but my admiration of him extends to the knowledge that he has embraced his portfolio with enthusiasm and ambition. He does not need to be a captive of the standard advice on this subject that has been given out for years; he can make a difference during the next few weeks ahead. He will go down in railway history as one of the reformers if he is the Minister who brings railway ticketing into modern times—and I urge him to do it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is very kind but compliments sometimes, as I think a Canadian said, doth butter no parsnips.
I shall do my best to explain the Government’s position on this, but I first congratulate him on securing this debate on the plans for future flexible season tickets and rail ticketing, and I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), who have made contributions this evening.
Transport affects most, if not all, of the people in the Chamber today, and it is an area that the Government are committed to improving. Members present are all well aware that improving our rail network is at the heart of the Government’s plans to build back better and to boost Britain’s economy coming out of the pandemic. The Government are investing record levels in rail funding to deliver the biggest rail modernisation programme for over a century. In fact, we are spending £48 billion—a statistic I repeat ad nauseam to everybody I meet—between 2019 and 2024 to improve rail services for passengers and freight customers, while maintaining current high levels of safety and reliability.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells will also know that in the Prime Minister’s address of 22 September, he emphasised the importance of taking steps to stop the spread of the coronavirus. The Government encourage those who can work from home to do so, and we continue to advise passengers to consider active travel alternatives such as walking and cycling.
To ensure the safety of those who need to use public transport, we have issued comprehensive guidance on the steps that operators should take to access and address the risks of coronavirus in the transport sector across England. The rail industry has implemented measures to give passengers confidence in travelling by rail, from enhanced cleaning to redesigned station flows that facilitate social distancing wherever possible; and from the provision of additional staff and the installation of face covering vending machines at key stations to volunteers welcoming people to stations to remind them to wear their face coverings.
The Government also announced on 21 September that we have extended support to keep trains running through the pandemic and ended rail franchising. Emergency recovery measures agreements—or ERMAs, as they are more commonly known—place operators on far more demanding management agreements, with tougher performance targets and lower fees than the previous emergency measures agreements. Those fees are a maximum of 1.5% of the cost base of the franchise before the pandemic began. To help comply with current and changing public health guidance, we have also asked operators to run an almost full capacity service to ensure that there is space to help passengers travel safely, and socially distanced where possible, to continue to combat the threat of covid-19.
Looking forward to the post-covid recovery, we need to build a rail network that is fit for the future. To deliver this, we are placing some focus on punctuality and performance, investing massively in infrastructure to level up the country, and indeed considering how we can provide simpler, more flexible ticketing to deliver a better deal for passengers and one that works in the new environment that they will be travelling in.
Southeastern continues to deliver for passengers, recording 93.2% in the latest public performance measure of punctuality, with 83% of journeys rated as satisfactory or good in the national rail passenger survey in spring this year. It also offers a range of products that passengers can choose to buy to suit their own requirements. As my right hon. Friend said, Southeastern has a Key smartcard, which allows tickets to be downloaded from home through an app, but it does not offer, at this point, a flexible season ticket.
For the commuter, season tickets are still a great way to save on travel and they are available on the smartcard, as I said. It is worth someone buying a season ticket if they make the same journey three times a week or more. Early bird discounted season tickets are also available for early morning commuters travelling into London from some areas in Kent, providing even greater value for money.
My right hon. Friend will know that flexible season ticketing has long been an ambition of this Government. Progress has been made, with many train operators around the country having launched flexible products that can provide passengers who work or commute part time with a better deal, which is obviously important to this Government. The operators c2c, Chiltern Railways, East Midlands Railway, Gatwick Express, Greater Anglia, Northern, South Western Railway, Govia Thameslink Railway and West Midlands Railway are all offering some form of flexible season ticket or carnet on at least some of their services. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, flexible season tickets are not yet available across all train services, and the level of discount and terms and conditions of these tickets can vary between operators. I appreciate that the lack of availability of flexible season tickets might be frustrating for some passengers.
The pandemic has, of course, led to a lot fewer rail journeys being made. The Office for National Statistics reported that 32% of Great Britain’s working population are working at home for at least some of the time. The Government recognise, as everyone does, that the pandemic is likely to cause a fundamental change in commuting patterns in the future, and that is likely to have long-term effects on commuter behaviour.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend read out a tantalising list of rail operators offering some form of flexible ticketing to commuters, but as he said, that is not available to Southeastern customers. Can he explain why?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will happily explain why in a moment.
Fares and ticketing need to evolve to meet the needs of modern-day passengers, to support those people who want to work from home more often in the future and to provide a flexible and affordable ticket to allow commuters and others the freedom to travel into work when it suits them to discuss ideas in the office, grab a coffee with colleagues or socialise in our towns and cities.
To deliver that, we have been working proactively with the rail industry, including train operators and the Rail Delivery Group, to try to ensure better value and convenience for part-time and flexible commuters. In June, we sought proposals from the train operating companies, such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend, and those were received by the Department over the summer. My officials are in the process of carefully considering the proposals, ensuring that they will offer value for money, give passengers what they want, be deliverable and work for the future. We will continue to consider these proposals, balancing better deals for passengers with the cost to taxpayers.
We obviously have to get the approval of Her Majesty’s Treasury for such a scheme. As a former Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend will understand that the taxpayer is spending a tremendous sum of money on maintaining a rail service that is clean, reliable, resilient and allows people to travel, where possible, in a socially distanced manner. As Government guidance changes to reflect the situation we find ourselves in, the rail industry also has to change its plans.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister, and the bill for the industry and for all the support being provided will have to be met. He gave a list—described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells as “tantalising”—of rail franchises operating a flexible system. The Harrogate line operates such a system through a carnet, where passengers can buy 10 tickets and pay for nine. The pattern of commuting will be fundamentally different after we recover from the coronavirus, so in planning for the long term, will this be built into franchises or whatever model we see when we return to a more normal mode of operation?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As a former rail Minister, my hon. Friend knows the lovely conversations that are had between Departments about these sorts of things. We are keen to introduce flexible ticketing throughout the system where possible, but it is quite difficult to judge what would be the right product to tempt commuters back to our railways before we know how we will extract ourselves from a second peak of the pandemic.
We know that there is much interest among passengers in these products, including from the representations that Members have made directly to the Department, but we need to look in detail at important and complex issues such as pricing, impacts on revenue and whether these proposals are properly future-proofed before launching them. We cannot say at this stage what the longer-term impact of the covid-19 pandemic will be on commuter behaviours, and we need to ensure that any steps we take now can flex and adapt to changing circumstances.
Of course, these are unusual and unprecedented circumstances and timing is extremely important. As I have said, we are currently advising office workers who can work effectively from home to do so. However, we also need to ensure that our rail network is ready to adapt and able to provide good value and convenient options for those now wishing to travel, and especially for those who wish to come back to our network in the future when they can, to help support the recovery of our town and city economies. We also know that there are still many people, such as our key workers, who rely on the trains to get to their place of work right now. That is why our immediate focus is ensuring that we keep the railway available and safe for those who require it, within the covid measures that I set out earlier.
We are talking to Southeastern in many ways, and I completely understand, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells does, how important the railway is for so many people in his constituency. He has highlighted the need for more flexible rail ticketing to cater to changed commuting patterns, and I reassure him and the House that we are actively working with the rail industry to develop proposals to meet that need and ensure that the railway is fit for the future. We want to ensure that we enable operators to offer the right range of tickets to improve the lives of commuters around the country, including those in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope that I will be able to come to the House at some point in the near future to update it on our progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(4 years, 1 month 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 |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) | Katherine Fletcher |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Colleen Fletcher (South Ribble) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) | Stuart Andrew |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Mohammad Yasin |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) | Stuart Andrew |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) | Stuart Andrew |
Toby Perkins | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) | Stuart Andrew |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Ian Byrne |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Bolton) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I need to remind hon. Members about social distancing, so thank you all for sitting in appropriately marked spaces or at the back of the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
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) (Bolton) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 974).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The regulations came into force on 10 September. On that date, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that the latest epidemiological data showed a dramatic increase in the incidence rates of covid-19 in the Bolton area, leaping from 18.6 per 100,000 people to more than 100 per 100,000 people within a week. Test positivity was also higher than the national average.
Given the rapid increases in cases, the local authority understood the seriousness of the situation and was proactive and willing to take more stringent action. It increased testing by bringing in mobile testing units and distributed 2,000 home testing kits throughout the community. The University of Bolton carried out a comprehensive risk assessment and made plans for the imminent start of term. The council engaged with the university and local businesses to discourage them from promoting large events to coincide with the start of term.
Learning from the outbreak in Leicester earlier in the summer, Bolton was one of the first areas to roll out its own locally supported contact tracing. The start date was brought forward by two days in response to the spike in cases. At that time, there was no clear understanding of what was driving transmission. The council, Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre analysed the available NHS Test and Trace data and other data to try to identify what was driving transmission.
The results were interesting. It was found that 93% of cases were among 18 to 49-year-olds, two thirds of cases were in the 20 to 39-year-old age group, the main ethnic group testing positive for the virus was white British, and the cases were understood not to come from the most deprived parts of the population. The cases were also geographically dispersed across the Bolton area, rather than being clustered in hotspots, as was the familiar pattern in other parts of the north of England at the time. There was anecdotal—I stress “anecdotal”—evidence that an outbreak was linked to a local pub and started from a visitor who had recently returned from overseas. There were also concerns that transmission was happening in workplaces, but that was not thought to be the main driver of the spike in cases.
It is important to remember that at this point Bolton was already subject to interventions as part of the protected area defined in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020. That meant that households in Bolton could not meet up with each other in private homes or gardens, and certain businesses remained closed despite being able to reopen elsewhere in England.
Given the urgency of the situation in Bolton, we used the emergency procedure to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They gave effect to the decision set out by the Secretary of State, responding to the latest epidemiological evidence and local insights. These regulations went further than just repeating the restriction on different households mixing in each other’s homes by requiring certain businesses to remain closed. They seek to address the increased risk of transmission associated with people’s reduced compliance with social distancing guidance when they are out socialising in and around hospitality venues. The new restrictions prohibit food and drink businesses from opening, other than to sell items to be collected or delivered and consumed away from the premises. They cannot operate at all between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am. Other non-essential businesses and services are also required to close between 10 pm and 5 am.
The restrictions are enforced by the same regime as the other health protection regulations, although there is the creation of new offences punishable by fixed penalty notices or fines following conviction.
We published guidance to help people living in Bolton understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions, and it was updated every time there was a change. The local authority’s guidance went even further, given the exceptionally quick increase in the incidence rates. It advised residents to use public transport only for essential purposes and not to mix with other households, even when they were outside their homes. The local authority also decided to reissue previous national guidance on shielding for the clinically extremely vulnerable.
The concern about the outbreak in Bolton has been significant, and engagement with local leaders throughout this period has been extensive and productive. I thank the local authority, the local resilience forum, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the local director of public health, Helen Lowey, for their engagement.
Action had already been taken to protect people in Bolton, including increases in testing and public health capacity. We had hoped that those interventions and the work of local public health teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action, but that was not to be. As is required by the regulations, we have reviewed the situation at least once every 14 days and the incidence rates have dropped in the last few days to 205 per 100,000 people for the period of 12 September to 18 September, although I understand that they have risen again.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks. These regulations have demonstrated our willingness and ability to take action where we need to. Of course, we will use the experience of these measures in Bolton to inform and help us develop our responses to any future outbreaks. As I said earlier, there have been ongoing reviews of the Bolton regulations; the next review is due today and of course we will make public the outcome of that review shortly.
I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in the scrutiny of the regulations. In particular, I thank all those people in the protected area in Bolton who have responded so well to the measures that have been put in place. None of this is easy.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister and her colleague, the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and I are in a sort of Monday-Tuesday rotation for these statutory instruments. The SIs are broadly similar, but each one is exceptionally important to the local communities that they affect. There may therefore be some repetition in my speech, as I dare say there was in the Minister’s. Nevertheless, it is important that we discuss these matters fully, and that is what I will seek to do.
I always start these debates with a homily about the nature of opposition in coronavirus times; we are always a bit in the Goldilocks hot seat. I think it was last Wednesday night that I was on Talk Radio getting beaten up because we were too supportive of the Government and the lockdown regulations. On Sunday, I was then on Sky News being beaten up for playing party politics with our opposition to some elements of the restrictive measures. Such is life.
I say that to show that we genuinely treat these things on their merits. We want the Government to succeed; we want to get out of this coronavirus era, however long it lasts. We want to get back to the football—frankly, it is not a night out if it finishes at 10 pm. We do want the Government to succeed, but there are times when our good will and support are stretched, especially when it seems that the Government are losing control of the virus.
Over the weekend, there was another foreseeable but not particularly well-managed situation around universities in policy terms, but there was also chaotic communication, with successive Ministers unable to say the same thing in succession. Similarly, even this morning Ministers on national media were unable to stand up the messages given out yesterday in the Chamber. That makes things really hard, as do the regulations before us.
I will say a lot of the things that I have said before. Debating regulations 19 days after they came into force is a fool’s errand and a waste of all our time, other than the fact that it is really important that we do debate them. We cannot change anything; we will not divide over them. Of course we cannot—the horse is multiple fields down by now.
We appreciate the need for efficient action, particularly at the beginning of a crisis, but it is absurd that this far into the crisis we have still not managed to debate one of these statutory instruments prior to its coming into force. When we do reach an opportunity to debate them, it is not even days but weeks or months later— 19 days in this case. That is a regular pattern that has been raised many times by Members of all parties and many times in the other place.
The rubber will perhaps hit the road on this discussion tomorrow, because Parliament is not here to rubber-stamp Government decisions. Executive decisions are not meant to be rubber-stamped by the legislature many weeks later, but, as I say, we are here and there is not much choice. We have a responsibility to make sure that the Government do the best by the country and that our constituents have maximum confidence in what is done. We must be able to demonstrate that we properly scrutinise the decisions that are being taken, but we cannot say that at the moment.
When I raised the matter last week, the Minister asked whether I would be willing to work seven days a week in order to scrutinise legislation. That made me think of an American revolutionary, Nathan Hale, who, just before he was executed for spying, said,
“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
I can probably bastardise that to say, “My only regret is that I have only seven days to give for my community.” Whatever the day, whatever the hour, if it is important enough for us to discuss and it means we can get upstream, I would be willing to meet—even on a Sunday. We are discussing regulations from 19 days ago and new ones were announced yesterday. If meeting on a Sunday is what it takes to discuss yesterday’s new regulations in a timely manner, I absolutely would be willing to do that.
Nevertheless, I recognise that last week we were talking about statutory instruments that were nine and a half weeks old, and the instrument we are discussing today is only two and a half weeks old. Perhaps the Minister can give us her thoughts on that, but I hope it demonstrates that we are catching up, in which case I recognise that and am grateful to the Minister and her team for it.
Similarly last week, the Minister mentioned that the statutory instruments were in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020. I do not dispute that that is the case with today’s instrument, but I gently say that that is not a particularly high bar. When the instruments are so badly out of date, the Act is weakened. Ahead of tomorrow’s discussions we will all have received emails. There is a lot of bad information out there about coronavirus. Some of the emails we get are perhaps less based in fact, but the emails we are getting at the moment about the Act are very well meant. They are evidence based, with serious discussions about civil liberties in the UK. Concern is growing because there is a sense that Parliament has not got a grip, which is very much the point that I am making this morning. Again, we will support the renewal of the Act tomorrow—what else could we do?—but we will seek to amend it to give a greater sense of transparency.
I know that there are other high profile suggestions centred on giving Parliament an automatic proactive say. I am attracted to that, but I have no confidence that it will be delivered, even if the Government are bounced into it. Yesterday the Secretary of State said,
“I strongly agree with the need for us in this House to have the appropriate level of scrutiny… The aim is to provide the House with the opportunity to scrutinise in advance through regular statements and debates, questioning the Government’s scientific advisers more regularly—that has already started—gaining access to local data”.—[Official Report, 28 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 22.]
Even for the Secretary of State, that is a classic of the genre: suggesting agreement, but not actually agreeing; suggesting something new, but offering the status quo. I do not know if that will wash with Government Back Benchers—I would be amazed if it did—because that is what we have at the moment.
What we are talking about is significant restrictions on people’s liberties that are discussed in the past tense. I recognise that the Government have frequently made themselves available through statements, and Mr Speaker has facilitated urgent questions or general debates such as the one we had yesterday. However, it is not the chance to talk about coronavirus that has colleagues concerned, but the chance to discuss significant and important restrictions on people’s liberties, which we do not have at the moment.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. As my hon. Friend said, we have debated the points in hindsight over many weeks now.
What is frustrating for the public and those of us representing the public is the fact that this legislation is being debated retrospectively. There is so much inconsistency and incoherence in so much of the Government policy, and that is the frustrating thing. That is why we need to get on the front foot and lay such legislation in advance.
Alex Norris
I agree with that. It is good for all of us—good for parliamentary democracy, but good for the Government too—to have the regulations and inconsistencies aired. We would hope that that is the way in which things will be improved. My hon. Friend’s point also reflects on the consistent and regular use of the negative procedure for these statutory instruments. Obviously, that is now very pertinent in the light of what we will discuss tomorrow—renewing the Act or not—but it is hard not to notice that the whole suite of Brexit-related legislation is wired in exactly the same way. The Government rely on these powers, and on secondary legislation approved via the negative procedure. Many of those who are opposing this method today and tomorrow have championed it for four years, so it is a little late to take it slowly. That is not Nathan Hale; it is Girls Aloud. We should have real concern that this is the nature of government in Britain for at least the next 12 to 18 months; decisions by the Executive are subsequently looked at by Parliament when it is a bit late. That should discomfort all of us.
Again, I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on this situation. As I say, it would be hard to get in front of every single decision, but we should be trying to get in front of as many as possible. We would not want to bog down the process so that effective interventions happened in a less timely manner, but we could at least get away from introducing them 15 minutes before they are implemented. Again, that reflects a sense of chaos rather than order and organisation. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
It goes without saying that the situation is now becoming more challenging. The regulations work, and our approach to tackling the virus works, for as long as people are willing to comply with them. In the beginning phases, people did incredible work and made personal sacrifices during lockdown. I fundamentally believe that that is a mark of the character of British people. That is the way in which people will continue to attack these challenging circumstances for as long as they have confidence in the measures that are being taken and they have a sense that other people—both their neighbours and at a national level—are complying too. Things like grouse shooting or Barnard Castle chip away at public opinion and make people think, “You know what? Forget about this. I’m just going to do it and see what happens.” That we cannot have, because our approach will fall apart.
Like the Government, the Opposition have said before that when infection rates rise, restrictions should increase. That is particularly pertinent in this case. We have all seen the significant and rapid rise in infection rates in Bolton, which is a concern for everybody, so of course these restrictions were necessary. There is an interesting nugget at regulation 3.1 that might be helpful for us: the closure of bars and restaurants at 10 o’clock. Of course, that is now our national reality. Again, we did not dispute this last week. We know that this is not something that has been built on SAGE advice or guidance; it is something that is not really based on evidence. I know the Government have relied on evidence from Antwerp in Belgium—that was certainly the line last Wednesday—which stretches credulity a bit, but Bolton might actually be a better example. I would be keen to know, because regulation 2.2 says that the reviews must be fortnightly and start on 24 September, which was last week. The Minister said that a review had already taken place, so it would be interesting to know what the impact of the closure at 10 o’clock was. Again, the picture that was painted by the Minister was one of younger people from diverse geographical parts of the borough, so it is probably fair to say that it is linked to the night-time economy. What has been the impact of the 10 o’clock closure? It might actually be the best evidence that we have for the national curfew.
Finally, I am really pleased hear that the local consultation was good in the case of Bolton, particularly given how rapidly things changed there. In relation to the new regulations announced for the north-east from the Dispatch Box last night—that is the right way to do it—given that we seem to have this conversation every time, it is hard not to be struck that the leader of Newcastle City Council, Councillor Nick Forbes, said, “We have been having conversations, but this is the first we have heard of it.” I know him well and he is a very sensible, practical and not particularly dogmatic or partisan individual. I am glad to hear it is not the case in Bolton, but such a lack of consultation will not do for public confidence. Perhaps the Minister could reiterate that there is a genuine commitment to working in partnership and that local authorities will not find out about new regulations in the news rather than through conversations, even if the Government, of course, need the final say. Again, the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee, but there are many elements that could be done better.
Jo Churchill
I understand and recognise how, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said and the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Warwick and Leamington have said on many occasions, there is a willingness to work together. They want us to get ahead of the curve, as it were. I understand why that is, but we introduce such regulations under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 because we need to move at speed. These are public health emergencies rather than anything to do with the broader setting.
We recognise the impact of localised restrictions on local businesses. That is why we provided Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council with £57,980,000 of business support grant funding. Businesses have access to a large number of support schemes including discretionary grants and tax breaks because there is a need to protect both people and the economy. The measures we are taking in Bolton seek to find balance on that difficult tightrope. No one wants to put restrictions on people’s lives.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to yesterday’s debate. One thing I took from it is how the power of many of the speeches came from the impact on people’s lives from a human capital point of view and how that spins out. As I said on the Floor of the House yesterday, we are working hard to move things forward and have more dialogue. I appreciate the articulation of his willingness to work with us.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am sure hon. Members do not need their attention drawn to the fact that the Minister was on her feet in the Chamber 12 hours ago. It is astonishing to see her here doing a great job of presenting the regulations to the Committee.
I want to press the Minister on working together. The hon. Member for Nottingham North raised an important point about the timeliness of consideration of legislation. There is obviously a huge amount of secondary legislation at the moment. Could the House of Commons and Parliament be doing more to support the Government to that end? Should we press the authorities to do more?
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, which I am sure the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, will take away through the usual channels. Everyone wants to see these things succeed so that we get out of this covid-tinged world and into something more akin to what we are used to.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked me about the restrictions. It is too early to know whether they have bedded through. One of the challenges is that if we leave things as they are when we see the spike rising, the argument is that we are too late, but if we go too early, the argument is that we are impinging on people’s lives. One of the big problems with the disease is that, when we see the prevalence rise, there is a 10-day lag before we see the number of people entering hospital rise and then a further 10-day lag before we see the number of deaths rise.
I can report that, unfortunately, from this week, the positivity rate is 241.8 per 100,000. The next review is on 9 October.
These are challenging times. The information I read out was based on local intelligence from the University of Bolton, which knows its own community. In many debates I have been challenged about getting granular and getting local. This is a fine example of where the director of public health and other local bodies are helping us drive the right solutions locally. For my money, that is the right way to proceed.
We recognise that, for many, self-isolating for 10 to 14 days to avoid passing on the virus is a challenge. The Prime Minister announced that, from 28 September, we will be supporting those on low incomes by paying them £500 if they cannot work from home or have lost income as a result of the requirement to self-isolate. That needs to be fed through to see if it also has an effect. The requirement to self-isolate became law yesterday and there are penalties for those who breach the rules. There will also be penalties for employers who fail to support the requirement, for example, by threatening self-isolating staff with redundancy if they do not come to work. We hope that will send a clear message about the importance of self-isolating.
We take Public Health England’s report on BAME communities extremely seriously. However, there is still work to do in understanding how the disease affects different groups, including BAME communities, as well as the broader communities we are working with. Expecting a reliable result within a week or 10 days is difficult in this situation. Other factors, such as comorbidities and occupational risk, mean that every situation is more complex than it might seem at face value. We are investing a large amount in medical and clinical research to get a better understanding. In the meantime, we are making it a priority to safeguard BAME workers in the NHS who might be at risk and in need of specific treatment, while making sure that all workplaces have been risk-assessed.
The decision to impose even more stringent restrictions in Bolton is based on a number of factors and local intelligence. They include not just the positivity and incidence rates but the extent of high-risk behaviours. The next review will take place on 9 October.
I conclude by thanking the people of Bolton and particularly its NHS and care workers and all the city’s key workers for their ongoing hard work to keep our vital services running and save lives through this difficult time. I urge everyone to get behind hands, face and space, so we can eradicate the virus from our country as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the enormous package of measures outlined by the Chancellor. This morning, I spoke to Energy Generator Hire in Kimble Wick in my constituency, which has lost most of its order book and is uncertain about the future. Can he confirm whether event hire companies are included in the envelope of leisure and hospitality?
Rishi Sunak
Those that have business properties will be eligible both for the relief and the grant, which will cover a significant number of events companies that have premises. Obviously, if they do not have premises, they will not qualify for business rates relief, but should be eligible for some of the other measures that I have outlined today.
[Official Report, 17 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 964.]
Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith).
The correct answer should have been:
Rishi Sunak
Those that occupy certain business properties, as described in forthcoming guidance, will be eligible both for the relief and the grant, which will cover a significant number of events companies that have premises. Obviously, if they do not have premises, they will not qualify for business rates relief, but should be eligible for some of the other measures that I have outlined today.
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee Meeting
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The withdrawal agreement Joint Committee met on 28 September 2020 in Brussels, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.
The meeting was co-chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive and EU member states.
The Committee undertook a stocktake of Specialised Committee activity since the second meeting in June and was updated on implementation of the withdrawal agreement more generally, including the Northern Ireland protocol.
The UK reiterated the importance of commitment by both sides to upholding obligations under the withdrawal agreement and protecting the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement in all respects.
The UK underlined the need for timely and proper implementation of citizens’ rights commitments by the EU and member states. The UK reiterated its commitment to supporting EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU.
The UK reiterated that the measures set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are designed to create a “safety net” to ensure the communities of Northern Ireland are protected. The UK was clear that those measures would not be withdrawn.
The UK affirmed its commitment to ongoing constructive engagement with the EU through further Joint Committee meetings and making progress on all issues.
[HCWS476]
Online Right to Rent Checks
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The Right to Rent Scheme was launched to ensure only those lawfully in the country can access the private rental sector, and to tackle unscrupulous landlords who exploit vulnerable migrants, sometimes in very poor conditions. Right to rent checks are straightforward and apply equally to everyone seeking accommodation in the private rental sector, including British citizens. In April, the Court of Appeal ruling confirmed the Right to Rent Scheme to be lawful. Following this judgment, we committed to work with landlords and letting agents to make it easier for lawful residents to demonstrate their right to rent, and to strengthen the support we provide to landlords when complying with the requirements of the Right to Rent Scheme.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) said in this House, we have accepted the important findings in the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, including those in relation to the compliant environment. Urgent and extensive work is taking place across the Home Office, including a full evaluation of the Right to Rent Scheme. In parallel, we are working on improvements to the scheme.
In November, the Home Office will be launching a new online right to rent checking service. This service builds on the successful introduction of the online checking services, for employers conducting right to work checks, holders of a biometric residence permit and those granted status under the EU settlement scheme.
We have worked closely with landlords and letting agents in designing the service, but we need to change right to rent legislation to enable them to rely on the new online service to discharge their legal responsibilities under the scheme.
Today, I have laid before Parliament the Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Order 2020.
Landlords will be able to undertake a right to rent check in real time for non-EEA citizens with a valid biometric resident permit or card, or an EEA citizen with status granted under the EU settlement scheme. In addition, the order makes sure that landlords will be able to undertake online checks on those whose leave will be granted under the new points-based system.
The online service makes it simpler for landlords to carry out the checks and protects them. It allows checks to be carried out by video call, and landlords will not need to see documents as the right to rent information is provided in real time directly from Home Office systems.
The service works on the basis of the individual first viewing their own Home Office profile. They may then share this information with a landlord if they wish, by providing the landlord with a “share code”, which can be used to access the prospective tenant’s record. This authorisation represents an important safeguard and means landlords will only be able to view an individual’s right to rent information, and no other unrelated personal information.
Landlords will be able to undertake either the online check or the existing document-based check; online checks will, therefore, be a voluntary option while migrants and landlords develop familiarity with the new service and take-up becomes more widespread. EEA citizens will continue to be able to demonstrate their entitlement to rent to landlords by showing a valid passport or national ID card until 30 June 2021.
The Immigration (Residential Accommodation) (Prescribed Requirements and Codes of Practice) (Amendment) Order 2020 also makes a number of other important changes to improve the operation of the scheme for landlords and tenants and to simplify the presentation of the list of prescribed documents.
It amends the document list for non-visa national visitors from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA who enter the UK using an ePassport gate.
The order enables new documents issued to third-country-national family members granted status under the EU settlement scheme to be accepted by landlords and letting agents as evidence of a right to rent.
It also amends the list of documents that are deemed acceptable under the existing manual “right to rent” check to include a short UK birth and adoption certificate as well as the long versions of these documents, making it easier for British citizens who do not hold a passport to demonstrate their right to rent.
Finally, the order amends and updates the existing statutory code of practice to reflect these important changes which will improve the operation of the Right to Rent Scheme. A draft of the revised code of practice has also been laid before Parliament.
[HCWS475]
International Maritime Instruments: Ambulatory Reference Amendments
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I am making this statement to fulfil obligations relating to the implementation of amendments to internationally agreed merchant shipping requirements into UK domestic law. These requirements will be implemented into UK law by way of ambulatory reference provisions in secondary legislation. The ambulatory reference provisions give direct effect in the UK to these amendments and, in advance of those amendments taking effect in the UK, the Secretary of State has agreed to publish them by way of a parliamentary statement to both Houses of Parliament.
This statement relates specifically to amendments agreed in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, 1973 (MARPOL) and the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (IBC Code).
IMO resolution MEPC.314(74) amends regulations 1 and 10 of annex V to MARPOL (which relates to the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships) to allow the use of electronic record keeping. The requirements for the format and content of a ship’s record books under annex V are unchanged but operators may now choose whether these records are made and kept in electronic or hard copy form. The amendment to regulation 10 is implemented by updating the reference to regulation 10.3 of annex V in regulation 12(2)(a) of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020 (S.I. No. 2020/621). This is achieved by way of the ambulatory reference provision in regulation 4 of those regulations. The amendment to regulation 1 (definition of “electronic record book”) applies by virtue of the reference to it in regulation 10. The amendments come into force on 1 October 2020.
IMO resolution MEPC.315(74) amends regulations 1 and 13, and appendices 4 and 6 of annex II to MARPOL. The amendments insert requirements in relation to high viscosity products which, in certain specified areas, will require a cargo tank prewash at the port of unloading until the tank is empty, the residue of which must be discharged to a port reception facility. The amendments to regulations 13 and appendix 4 are implemented by updating the respective references to these provisions in regulations 24(2)(d) and 28(2) of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 2018/68) (the NLS
regulations) pursuant to the ambulatory reference provision in regulation 4 of those regulations. The amendments to regulation 1 (definition of “persistent floater”) and to appendix 6 apply by virtue of the references to them in regulation 13 (paragraph 7). The amendments come into force on 1 January 2021.
IMO resolutions MSC.460(101) and MEPC.318(74) amend chapters 1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying dangerous chemicals in bulk (the IBC code). Chapters 17 and 18 of the IBC code are referenced in regulations 3(1) and 24(8) of the NLS regulations and these references are updated pursuant to the ambulatory reference provision in regulation 4 of the regulations. As a result, ships carrying dangerous chemicals or noxious liquid substances in bulk will need to amend the list of products that they may carry and will require new certificates of fitness and noxious liquid substances certificates. The amendments come into force on 1 January 2021.
The amendments referred to in this statement will be published, with explanatory information, in a marine guidance note and will be available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS474]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Annual Report and Accounts 2019-2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (The Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement.
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Annual Report and Accounts 2019-2020. These documents will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with Schedule 7, Section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS473]
Grand Committee
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Bill
Tuesday 29th September 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (29 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously. The Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted. During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding; it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only, and I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment that is expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 1: Implementation of the Agreement on Government Procurement
Amendment 1
Lord Lennie
“(1A) No regulations under subsection (1) may be made until the Secretary of State has entered into negotiations with other parties to the GPA with the objective of enabling greater labour market interventions and compliance with ILO standards in any UK procurement contract to which the GPA applies, and(a) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has been achieved either in full or in part, or (b) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has not been achieved.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations to secure greater labour rights in procurement contracts that the GPA applies to, and to report back on the outcome of these negotiations.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like others, I regret that the Committee stage of the Trade Bill has to take place in a Covid-secure manner—our new normal—and I look forward to when we can all return to the Chamber. Until then, we must make the best of what we have. I am extremely grateful to all the staff who have worked so hard to make this all possible.
Trade is an essential component of the UK’s future economic recovery from Covid-19 and to our continuing future prosperity. Labour’s overarching concern is to ensure that the necessary protections and measures that have been developed over more than a century of rising standards are not put at risk by this or any other future Government. We cannot have a series of trade deals that open the door to reduced workers’ rights or living standards or to higher carbon emissions. To ensure that this is not the case, Labour supports acceding to the GPA after Brexit as an independent member, while safeguarding the capacity for public bodies to make procurement decisions in keeping with public policy objectives.
The Government have said that it is their objective to join the GPA as an independent member, with substantially the same arrangements that we currently have with the EU. If we are to have this, there is the significant matter of retained EU law. For that statement to hold true, surely the EU law must continue to apply beyond 31 December 2020. As an example, the public contract regulations will end at the end of next year. It remains essential that the UK maintains the strongest procurement systems for companies in the UK. Labour is about having the strongest possible procurement system. This would instruct the Government to pursue with GPA partners the inclusion of labour standards, environmental standards, support for small and medium-sized enterprises and the consideration of the public health consequences in our annexes to the GPA.
Amendment 1 refers to
“labour market interventions and compliance with ILO standards”.
We want to ensure that companies that fulfil their obligations to the workforce and meet their commitments to working with trade unions in a constructive manner are not undercut by companies that do not. This would reward businesses while supporting their workforce. ILO standards seek to support and protect workers in supply chains, especially those exposed to modern slavery, which are a vital component of procurement.
Amendment 2 refers to environmental exceptions with carbon considerations. Public procurement through the GPA must help in the fight against climate change. Current UK minimum standards take into consideration energy and water usage, carbon footprint, resource efficiency and life-cycle costs in order to set minimum standards of sustainability for government purchases. Our standards need to be protected, both to maintain these procurement standards and to ensure that our schedules at the GPA remain up to date, with action to meet the climate crisis.
Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that SMEs have access to procurement contracts, which can often be a real problem. Now, more than ever, this is essential if this recession is to turn into recovery. Amendment 4 seeks to improve the way in which public procurement operates by addressing public health. The public health value of a provider should be a factor in awarding contracts, not just price. Public health medicine is part of the greater enterprise of improving the public self and that is why procurement matters in this respect.
The TUC has a range of concerns about the provisions of the GPA being more limited than the current measures within the EU procurement directive of 2014, which were transposed into UK domestic law through the public contract regulations 2015. The TUC says that there is no condition in the GPA that obliges member states to ensure that, when performing public contracts, contractors comply fully with the applicable environmental law and with the social and labour standards set out in the EU and national laws in collective agreements. The TUC believes that provisions must be made in the Bill to enable contracting authorities in the UK to include wider definitions of social value and price-quality ratio as well as obligations set out in respect of social, environmental, labour law and collective agreements within their tender specification, contract evaluation and award criteria. These should be incorporated into the regulations that replace the public contract regulations when they expire in December 2020.
Amendments 100, 101 and 102 seek to ensure that any secondary legislation needed to implement commitments under the GPA following our accession should be affirmative. Labour believes that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise the all-important “coverage schedules” that the Government will lay before the WTO in respect of our accession to the GPA.
We are minded to support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which would ensure that the UK could not implement the GPA if it would prevent public authorities from insisting that public procurement tenders and contracts conform to the UK’s ILO commitments.
I hope that the Minister considers the long-term economic, social, environmental and labour values to be gained from this approach. Unless we are prepared to use this moment, it is hard to see how we will maintain the standards of procurement that we currently have, let alone enhance them. I beg to move.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 3 on small businesses, to which I have added my name. As we enter the post-transition and post-Covid world of international trade, we must ensure that the role of SMEs in procurement is fully protected so that it can help strengthen the UK’s economic playing card as we navigate the current turbulence and beyond.
At Second Reading, I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, whether, given our new freedom from the EU, we should adopt the policy of the US, Canada, South Korea and Japan to put an annexe in our GPA schedules to allow them to set aside and disapply regulations on behalf of small businesses and other organisations to help bring parity of support for small businesses in accessing markets against larger firms. After all, is that not why the UK decided to leave the EU in the first place? The noble Lord informed me that non-discrimination is the core principle of procurement in the UK and we do not have set-asides for SMEs in international agreements. Okay—I hear him. But whether or not it is intended, it can be more difficult for small businesses to compete against larger firms by virtue of their size and the complexity and requirements of the procurement process.
I will not detain the Committee by going through them all, but when pitching for public contracts, I suggest that few small businesses would feel that the playing field was equal. Take late payment, the scourge of small businesses, particularly because of the relative power of the organisation doing the procuring. The Federation of Small Businesses has long been calling for bad payers to be barred from applying for government contracts. I know that this is something that the Government acknowledge, and this amendment would effectively help the Government to defend themselves against late payers on the trading stage. Why does the Minister feel confident that, when we are competing against the likes of the US, South Korea and Japan, UK small businesses will get fair access to public contracts? Nobody wants to see poor payment practices on the trading stage; this is about fairness and parliamentary accountability, so I would appreciate some commitments from the Minister today.
That brings me to the point of the amendment. It lays a duty on the Government to ensure that small businesses can compete fairly to get greater access to procurement contracts in countries to which the GPA applies. It makes sure that the Government fulfil this obligation by laying a Statement before Parliament reporting that this has been done, and the outcome. If the Minister is committed to a level playing field for small businesses, why not agree to put it into law?
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Lennie. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Blower and Lady Bryan. Why? One year ago, on the same day—24 September 2019—that the UK Supreme Court ruled the Government to have unlawfully sought to prorogue Parliament, the Prime Minister was in New York presenting his vision of a post-Brexit Britain to an audience of American business leaders. It involved undercutting European tax rates and adopting lower standards of environmental protection, consumer safety and labour rights than those set by the European Union. It foresaw a low-tax, lightly regulated haven on the European Union’s doorstep, not interested in competing on a level playing field but intent on winning any race to the bottom.
This Trade Bill seeks to take us one step closer to fulfilling the Prime Minister’s dream. It does so more by omission than by commission. As in Lena Horne’s “New Fangled Tango”,
“It’s not what you do do, it’s more what you don’t do”.
It does nothing to promote labour standards. It does not stop signatories to trade agreements seeking unfair competitive advantage by failing to comply with International Labour Organization conventions. It provides no powers for government bodies in the UK to impose public procurement conditions on contractors requiring them to abide by UK labour law or by ILO conventions ratified by the UK. Instead of levelling up labour standards, the Bill encourages shady employers who want to undercut their more responsible rivals by shafting their workforce. It does so by turning a blind eye to bad employment practice and pretending that unfair exploitation does not exist, despite ample evidence that it is widespread from employment tribunal cases and from the daily experience of trade union representatives in workplaces nationwide.
This amendment would put a stop to any regulations implementing the Agreement on Government Procurement if that agreement could in any way hinder the ability of UK state authorities—be they central Government or the devolved Governments—to set conditions on anyone tendering for a public contract. The power of the public purse should be used to raise labour standards and to encourage compliance with global standards such as those set in ILO conventions.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which complements one aspect of my noble friend Lord Lennie’s Amendment 1, as explained in his excellent speech just now. As my noble friend Lord Hain has set out with his customary clarity, the purpose of Amendment 5 is to prevent the GPA undermining or limiting the capacity of public bodies to impose conditions in public contracts that require respect for the rights and protections of the workers engaged to carry out those contracts. The rights and protections identified are limited to those specified by those conventions of the ILO that have been ratified by the UK.
Public procurement is a key tool in the protection of workers’ rights, and has been at least since the fair wages resolution of 1891, which was expanded in 1909 and again in 1946. The resolution required a “fair wages clause” in government contracts which obliged government contractors to pay the wage rates and abide by the terms and conditions that were set by collective agreements or arbitration in the relevant sector. From 1909 to 1979, collective bargaining was the policy of Governments of all political parties, with the consequence that collective agreements covered well over 80% of the UK workforce for the 40 years leading up to 1979. Since then, there has been a change in government policy and law that has resulted in collective agreements now covering only about 25% of British workers.
However, public procurement requirements can be based on other standards than those of collective agreements, desirable as that would be. Another means of achieving the levelling up, which the Government claim is an objective, is by reference to the minimum standards set by the ILO. There can be no rational objection to reliance on these standards, since they have long been ratified by the United Kingdom. Indeed, under EU law for many years, states have been required to ensure the observance of ILO standards by public contractors. Article 18, paragraph 2 of the EU directive on public procurement of 2014 requires states to take measures to ensure
“that in the performance of public contracts economic operators comply with applicable obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law”
including the provisions listed in Annex X to that directive. In that list are the core ILO conventions, all of which have been ratified by the United Kingdom. That is not inconsistent with the revised GPA.
Amendment 5 is modest indeed, and requires no more than that the envisaged regulations should not undermine what the current law requires. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lord Hain and in particular Lord Hendy, whose erudition in this area of law is well known. I have lent my name to Amendment 5, because, as I said at Second Reading, the Bill is lacking in positive reference to workers’ rights. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, it is more about a race to the bottom. It is therefore important to remedy this deficiency.
The deficiency can be remedied in part by Amendment 5. The UK already has commitments as a signatory to the ILO. These are currently protected by EU directives on public procurement, but this amendment is an opportunity to insist on conformity to them in relevant domestic legislation. The much-vaunted “levelling-up” agenda of the Government may be thrown into doubt by any number of decisions they may take. Not to accept the need to protect workers’ rights would be one such decision.
There is ample evidence that workplaces organised by trade unions are generally healthier and safer places to work, so the right to organise as in Convention 87 is a core principle. The right to collective bargaining and to achieve collective agreements, as set out in Convention 98, is central to providing an appropriate forum to determine wages.
This amendment is about creating conditions to ensure the provision of employment rights by insisting that no provision of the GPA should undermine the rights of and protections for workers in relation to or under a tender or contract. If, as I am sure we would all wish, we are to see public procurement in which relevant authorities have proper regard to the rights of workers and in which we as a country are seen to honour the obligations up to which we have signed in the ILO, our course is for your Lordships to agree the amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 6 in my name, but before that I want to speak more generally on Amendments 1 to 5. These all refer to Clause 1 and the UK’s future participation in the Agreement on Government Procurement. It should be noted that the GPA has been an important form of market access that has come with our membership of the European Union. As the Minister and others have said, it opens up the possibility of access for UK companies to about £1.3 trillion of government contracts. One would expect Her Majesty’s Government to talk up this side of the equation.
The expectation is that the UK will enter the GPA at the end of the year, and I understand that the Government are seeking more or less to reproduce the access that we have enjoyed thanks to our European Union membership. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on the timetable and whether there may be any changes to the terms that we might expect of the GPA at the turn of the year.
As I said, the external element of GPA is extremely important, but the flipside of that external access is that international businesses have access to about £67 billion of public service contracts in the UK every year. As we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Lennie, Lord Hain and Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and my noble friend Lady Burt, these amendments seek to establish comfort on the nature of those services in terms of their impact on society and how publicly procured contracts affect people. We are sympathetic to these aims. Of course, we will debate later further amendments with similar objectives covering the whole trade environment and not just GPA, because workers’ rights, the environment, food standards, protecting the NHS, the needs of small businesses and other vital issues are central to the trade agenda. There is no point in having international trade if it erodes standards for people who live in this country.
In his maiden speech at Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that there was no intention to water down terms and conditions, yet the Government seem reluctant to put any of those terms and conditions into the legislation. This makes people suspicious—it makes me suspicious. These amendments, or amendments that come later, would help alleviate our suspicions.
Amendment 6 would require the Government within six months of acceding to the GPA to lay before Parliament a report on what help they are providing to businesses in the UK so that they can secure the advantages of this market access. The Government paint a picture of “global Britain”, a nation sailing the high seas of international trade with swagger and elan. I am not sure that I wholly sign up to this particular view of the world, but the GPA is an opportunity for UK companies, and has been since 1996. The Minister also said at Second Reading:
“I should like to make it clear that this Government and I are committed to transparency”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 675.]
All the evidence points to his sincerity in this regard. In the interests of the transparency that the Minister espouses, Amendment 6, proposed by my noble friend Lord Purvis and I, simply asks for a report within six months on how the global Britain project is going with respect to the GPA. It would set out how Her Majesty’s Government are facilitating UK business taking advantage of the GPA. What actions have backed up the Secretary of State’s brio? For example, how have Her Majesty’s Government helped small businesses in the way just advised by my noble friend Lady Burt?
This level of transparency will have the benefit of reassuring people like me who fear that much of the language around international trade is just that: words. We want action; we want success. Human nature being what it is, our proposed six-monthly report would also help ensure that someone was actually doing something during that period.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 5. The Institute for Government puts UK government spending on procuring goods, works and services from external suppliers in 2018-19 at around £292 billion, which is more than a third of all public spending. This huge spending capacity should be used as leverage to ensure the highest standards of labour rights here in the UK and in countries with which we do business. The Trade Bill gives the Government the opportunity to advance this process.
This amendment and the later Amendment 18 ask the Government to permit public bodies to consider more than short-term concerns such as lowest price and to take into account the welfare of the workers who will carry out the contract, ensuring that acceptable standards of employment are applied by any successful bidder. The conditions suggested in the amendment are in no way onerous; they are the basic minimum standards as set out in the conventions of the International Labour Organization which have been ratified by the UK. As we are a founding member of the ILO and a country that has ratified the eight fundamental conventions, this would not be asking too much. The amendment simply expects that any trade deal should not undermine or restrict the ability of a public body to include in its tender that bidders should abide by these basic employment rights, covering: freedom of association; the right to organise and to free collective bargaining; following basic rules against forced labour and child labour; and outlawing discrimination.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will address the provisions of Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and use this opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of questions.
One clear advantage of leaving the European Union was that we would leave behind the European procurement programme, which is very similar to this one. That would open up possibilities for our home producers of meat, cheese, dairy products and other products, particularly foodstuffs, to win contracts in our hospitals, schools, prisons and so on. The threshold that I remember was €135,000, but that may of course have changed with the passage of time.
Does the Bill limit the opportunities for small businesses and others to bid for contracts, particularly with public bodies such as schools, hospitals, prisons and others, or will the opportunities be exactly the same as we currently enjoy under the EU? Further, will my noble friend explain what the threshold will be? Will the threshold that we adhered to under the European Union be followed by the GPA, as we are already deemed to be members through our membership of the EU? Who will be party to setting the threshold and the conditions of procurement? I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest that, as we transition out of the EU, there will be more and greater opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses to bid for these opportunities, not fewer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I offer the Green group’s agreement with the legal aims of all noble Lords who have spoken so far. Amendments 1 to 5 seek to keep environmental and public health protections, and in particular workers’ rights protections. I note that there has been very strong support for Amendment 5. I offer support, too, for Amendments 100 to 102, because of the need for democratic control of this House—something that we seem to spend a lot of time talking about these days. I also agree very much with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, about how they would keep basic minimum standards here, so it is very hard to see why the Government would disagree with any of them.
However, I can perhaps offer different sentiments to some of the ones expressed in the debate thus far. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said that we had seen a century of rising standards. That is broadly true if you start from the beginning and go to the end, but in recent decades there have been real falls in standards, and when we look at the state of the world, whether we consider the natural environment or the climate emergency, we see that there has been a massive degradation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that there is no point having trade that reduces our standards. I very much agree with that, but we have a real problem in that so much trade has done just that. On Friday, I was at the launch of a report by the Green House Think Tank and the Green European Foundation on trade and investment requirements for zero carbon, which set out how much damage trade has done historically. However, what we are debating are the amendments, and however much we might want to shape towards a trade world that has less trade in it but far better trade that does not build in environmental destruction and exploitation of workers, we do not want to go backwards. These modest amendments, as other noble Lords have said, seek modestly to ensure that we do not go backwards. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with the speech of my noble friend Lord Hain. We have moved a long way from when public contracts and the wages thereof were governed by the 1946 House of Commons fair wages resolution. We do not want to go back to those days, but we will if we are not careful.
Before making my main point, I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her question about small traders. I agree with the sentiment behind her questions to the Minister, but in relation to schools, hospitals and prisons, there is an real ongoing problem: it is not possible to create a situation where someone can bid—or feel that they have a chance of bidding—for a particular prison or school, or for a group of prisons or schools, simply because we have devolved the administration and awarding of contracts to the lowest possible level; there is no central control. Small firms will miss out unless something is put into the process that allows them to benefit. On the other hand, I do not want to leave the EU, so I do not want small firms to benefit either way; there is a better way of reorganising the EU.
The only reason I asked to speak on this group is Amendment 100. It is another example of how this Government are constantly trying to make sure that this House does not get a voice. The Bill talks about scrutiny as a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is not good enough. The amendment would correct it: it should be each House of Parliament. The contempt shown by Ministers for the parliamentary scrutiny process is abysmal and on a massive scale, and it has to be pulled back constantly. The House of Commons will try to make that provision tomorrow, and we have to do it in this Bill. I therefore offer 100% support for Amendment 100.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, listening to noble Lords who have contributed so far, it seems to me that they are losing sight of the fact that Clause 1 is really about enabling the UK to take advantage of the GPA, and they seem to be trying to make that much more difficult. Several noble Lords talked about a reduction in standards, and a race to the bottom was mentioned twice. Government policy is not to race to the bottom; it is not to diminish standards. We constantly hear that noble Lords in other parts of the House do not trust the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that we need amendments to allay his suspicions. I have to say to him that we do not legislate just to allay the suspicions of Liberal Democrat Peers; we legislate for effective legislation.
Many of the amendments are just telling the Government how and when they have to go and negotiate on certain things. If they were passed, they would be quite burdensome on the Government, who have quite a lot to do to try to get us ready for a post-EU trading world for the benefit of the UK. Nothing really happens if there is no outcome from most of the amendments, which seems to me a flaw in them.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said about SMEs. There is an issue about SMEs having access to public procurement opportunities in the UK, as well as the rest of the world, which is what we are talking about getting access to through the GPA. The answer is not to go and negotiate with other signatories to the GPA. The issue of SMEs not having the access that they think they could have would be better dealt with by more specific and targeted government action to remove any barriers to SMEs taking part in government procurement, wherever they are. I hope that my noble friend can say something about what can be done to enable those SMEs which wish to take part in government procurement—not all do, especially not international government procurement —to do so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Do we have Lord Judd?
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
I am sorry about that; I did not have the unmute signal on my laptop; it came rather belatedly.
I want to say how much I support the speeches of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Hendy and Lord Rooker —and, yes, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. When we are looking at legislation of this kind, it is very important to see what the purpose behind it really is. We know that there are strategists at work who are determined to change the British constitution and the British economy into a completely different constitution and economy from that which we have known for most of our lives. They want a free-for-all, with as few inhibitions as possible about what is done. They want to have a free hand. That is why the amendments in this group are so important.
At the age of 13—a long time ago—I had the privilege of being taken by my father to a conference in which he had very much a leading part. It was taking place in the ILO building in Geneva. I remember how impressed I was then by that post-war international consensus, which was determined to ensure that we had not only prosperous economies—which of course we wanted—but standards and work conditions worthy of a civilised society. We must not let that become eroded. It is essential to be vigilant, and we therefore need these safeguards in the Bill. How glad I am that we have this grouping before us.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My concerns are rather general. I have been associated with the European Union for a very long time, as many people know: since 1979. I was at the TUC when Jacques Delors came and won the TUC over to the fact that the European Union could lay down standards which would benefit working people all over Europe, not just in Britain. I am very concerned that the Bill should not weaken any of those standards.
I am not going to point a finger at the Government and say, “Oh, that's what they are trying to”, but I would welcome a clear statement from the Minister that the Bill does not aim to give British working people lower standards or enable people to work around the standards that have been laid down and enjoyed for a long period. That is a fundamental matter.
When we look at where those standards come from—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in this—we see that the International Labour Organization has played an historic and noble role in working people’s standards for the past 100 years. It is the only part of the League of Nations that is still in being in its original state. The ILO and its conventions must be at the centre of any trade agreement negotiated by the British Government. If we are to have trade agreements, we cannot ignore the ILO’s standards or the basic standards of human and workers’ rights, and this is one way in which we can do it.
We heard a lot in the referendum, after the referendum and in the election about taking back control, but I hope that we are not going to be taking back control in order to weaken standards which have been hard won over the years. One of those standards is the democratic participation of Parliament in lawmaking and the making of trade agreements. This is highlighted in Amendment 100, and I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who said how important it is that each House of Parliament has a say. We cannot delegate democracy. If we are a two-part Parliament, this House must also have an input.
What concerns me about the whole approach is that we are not taking back control to Parliament; we are taking back control from a Parliament, the European Parliament, and seem to be putting it quite firmly into Whitehall—largely, it would seem, in an unaccountable manner. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there will be a central role for both Houses of Parliament in how the trade agreements to be negotiated under the many clauses of this Bill are implemented.
The final point I want to make is this. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, mentioned the TUC. I have not heard a word from the TUC so I put it to its representatives, who I presume will be monitoring this debate, that if they want to protect workers’ rights, they should remember that a third of all workers do not vote for the Labour Party, they vote for the Conservative Party, a good number of them vote for Plaid Cymru and a fair number vote for the Green Party, the SNP or the parties in the north of Ireland. I would say to the TUC, “If you are issuing briefs, please issue them to everyone. If you’re not, please wake up”, because this Bill has enormous import for the future of workers in Britain and they deserve the TUC to be a little more proactive than it has been up to now.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I wish to address Amendment 6, referred to my noble friend Lord Fox, and to support Amendment 3, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Birt and to which she has put her name. In so doing, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for supporting in principle the idea that we are asking the Government to outline how they will be supporting British business to take advantage of the GPA agreement of which we are now a member in our own right as agreed by the other members. I reassure her that this Bill will never be long enough to address all the fears that me and my colleagues may have of this Government, but the amendment is practical, sensible and simply asks the Government to be clear. We will not rely on the Minister’s winding-up speech in this short debate in Grand Committee; rather, as my noble friend Lord Fox has indicated, we are asking for a proper report from the Government setting out how they will support our businesses.
We want the UK to prosper and our businesses to benefit from any new opportunities while also not being burdened if trading relations with our biggest market in Europe are harder. Procurement is one area where our businesses can seek contracting opportunities across all the GPA members, but there are practical barriers to those, whether it is language, knowledge of that country’s government procurement system, having local partners or legal protections. These are just some of the factors among many and it is a complex area in which to do business.
According to the OECD, taxpayers’ money that is spent by the Government on goods, services and infrastructure such as roads, hospitals and schools accounts for over 13% of gross domestic product, so there is a huge market. I can reference Amendment 51 in a later group, but let me refer to the NHS here at home. My noble friend Lord Fox gave the figure of £67 billion of UK procurement. NHS England spends around £27 billion on goods and services every year. Ward consumables are delivered through the American-founded and German-owned DHL. Mental health beds are operated by American companies providing about 13% of in-patient beds in England. In some areas, the proportion of US-owned mental healthcare facilities is much higher. In Manchester, patients have a 50:50 chance of being admitted to a privately owned hospital and a one in four chance of that bed being provided by an American-owned company. Patients think that the NHS is purely British from beginning to end, but services are being provided by an American-owned company. There is thus no question about the need for the British Government to provide more support for British companies to take up opportunities abroad. The Government strategy is for the NHS supply chain to be expanded and to make it easier for companies around the world both to bid for and to secure NHS services within this country. Of course, they will assist British businesses in doing the same but—I am not necessarily critical of this—the Government operate a level playing field.
The US sees this market as a valuable one because it is colossal, so it is no surprise that it has within its negotiating mandate with the United Kingdom to ease barriers so that its companies can benefit from greater market access to provide over £30 billion-worth of basics and consumables in addition to £7 billion in deals for capital contracts. It has been interesting to note that procurement opportunities within the UK have expanded and that that is positive. It opens up the UK to more international co-operation, but as my noble friend Lady Birt, has said, we want to see greater support for British businesses to enable them to take up some of these opportunities too.
It is interesting to note that the European Union has emphasised that the final market access offer presented by the UK for membership of the GPA was
“commercially credible and viable, replicating the UK’s current coverage under the EU schedule with minor technical adjustments.”
The EU was a fairly enthusiastic supporter of the UK application, and why would it not be? It replicates the same basis as it has at the moment.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked the Minister about the thresholds. She referred to $130,000 being the threshold. That is the threshold of every single GPA member other than Japan and Aruba, which have it set at $100,000. Can the Minister say, if we are to have opportunities in our own right, why that threshold is the same as what we had within the European Union?
The reason the WTO and the EU were enthusiastic about replicating what we have at the moment is because the WTO said when it approved our GPA membership in our own right
“It was underlined that the United Kingdom accounts for over a quarter of the EU’s total procurements covered by the GPA and that, when taking into account just central government entities, the UK accounts for nearly half of the EU’s covered procurements.”
There is no doubt that the EU is happy because it has retained market access to nearly half of all of that covered within the EU.
We were led to believe that the Government would negotiate nothing without using British leverage to get a better deal for Britain. Can the Minister explain what we have done with that? The Government did not include procurement in their mandate for a future relationship with the EU, while the EU’s mandate did. It wanted to go beyond the GPA, including utilities and supplementing the GPA with additional areas of coverage which would have opened up the European market for British businesses under procurement. But, no, the Government wish to go on the GPA model, which means that the European Union has in effect preferential access to UK procurement where we have not sought to open up some of the barriers to the European market.
I have a final question to ask the Minister regarding what is happening here at home. The 1998 devolution settlement means that public procurement is an area of responsibility for devolved government in Scotland and Wales. The Government have indicated that they wish to seek divergence in our current approach to procurement. How would this be seen in the devolved areas? I know this as a former constituency Member in the Scottish borders who fought many campaigns on the issue of being against centralisation and the Government centralising procurement policy and bundling up contracts, which makes it harder for smaller, local businesses, as my noble friend Lady Birt has indicated. The White Paper states
“For both goods and services, these provisions will be supplemented by the non-discrimination principle. For goods, non-discrimination will apply within certain excluded areas such as procurement.”
Paragraph 145 goes on to say that the Government are considering
“whether and to what extent it should apply to public procurement, in particular for above-threshold procurements.”
That means that, in effect, the UK Government for England can decide what the threshold levels and the policies for procurement would be for the devolved Administrations. No reference is made to procurement in the Bill, so can the Minister clarify the position on procurement within the internal market?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for only the second time in a debate and my first time in Committee, but as with my maiden speech, it is on matters of great importance to the businesses and consumers of the United Kingdom as we prepare to take our first steps as an independent trading nation for the first time in over half a century. I look forward to working with your Lordships to bring this Bill on to the statute book. I listened to the vast experience of Members of the House when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, an experience which I have already heard repeated in this Committee, and I know that noble Lords will take great care to scrutinise the provisions of the Bill thoroughly.
As I said at Second Reading, the intention of the Bill is to ensure continuity and certainty for the UK and our trading partners once the transition period ends. It will establish an independent body to protect UK producers from injury caused by unfair trading practices. It will enable better use of data to facilitate and improve trade. It will also ensure—the subject of this group of amendments—that UK businesses continue to have access to £1.3 trillion a year of government procurement contracts globally through our independent membership of the WTO’s Agreement on Government Procurement, or GPA. What the Bill will not do is lower our standards in any area.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sitting here looking at the small surface wipes, which profess to kill 99.9% of all viruses. In his speech, the Minister used broadly the same terms twice, and substantially the same terms once, when describing the follow-on GPA agreement. That is equivalent to the 0.1%, which is important these days. Could the Minister tell us what is not the same, because “broadly” and “substantially” is not “identical”? Therefore, there is a difference. In what areas are we seeing variation?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for listening so intently to my speech to make those calculations. It is of great benefit to me that he did so. The changes are technical. I do not have them in front of me, although I know what they are. However, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord and recount them for him.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Hendy and Lady Blower for their contributions on Amendment 5, my noble friend Lord Rooker on Amendment 100, and my noble friend Lord Judd for his childhood memories from the age of 13 about maintaining standards.
We are about trying to avoid any possibility of lowering standards or racing to the bottom. Maintaining current standards and including provisions in current EU law in the crossover to post-EU exit would be the greatest reassurance that we could all receive about the Government’s intentions. I am not in any way doubting the Minister’s well-intentioned summary of his intention and the Government’s provisions. However, if it is not carried over, it leaves the possibility of escaping from one or other provision at some time in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, remembers Jacques Delors coming to the TUC and talking about the EU’s intentions to provide standards across the whole of the continent. At the time, part of the TUC felt conflicted with those who believed that collective bargaining was the only way forward. A long time has passed since then, and we recognise the importance of legislation in supporting workers and standards, and other provisions that are subject to public procurement.
Therefore, there is no clear-cut decision to be made on these amendments, and the affirmative process brings things into the open. It is not just about the minimum decisions about changing departments’ names; it is about matters, from that, right the way through the procurement process that can be brought out into the open and debated in both Houses as and when it is necessary. It provides the Government with the opportunity to avoid the charge that they are not subjecting themselves to proper scrutiny. That said, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments, but we may well return to this at a future stage of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements
Amendment 7
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall also speak to the others in this group, which it is difficult to argue about knowing what is to come further down the agenda and on the list of amendments. I mean this in the sense that it talks about and effectively looks to amend what I will call the status quo ante. I say this because we very much hope that the Government will accept later amendments about scrutiny and other issues; this would, of course, considerably change what would be said in Clause 2, which is about the implementation of international trade agreements.
In some senses, this debate will largely be conducted in a vacuum. I hope I will be able, as I go through, to argue the points that I want to make and that there are points here that we need to focus on quite hard. This is particularly because the opening subsection here—Clause 2(1)—is drafted very broadly, and I will make a particular point about it. I will read it out:
“An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.”
This seems such a wide power that is being given to Ministers, and it needs to be questioned in its own right. However, obviously, it plays back into what I have just been saying regarding future amendments that we will discuss in relation to the power of Parliament and where and how its various committees have a role in this process.
Amendment 7 is very narrowly drawn; it suggests that, before “appropriate” we put in “necessary and”, which would make it read “considers necessary and appropriate” in relation to the power being given to Ministers. There may well be an argument against what I am saying along the lines of, “This is splitting hairs and is a legal definition that we do not need to worry about; it is common in many parts of the statute book and we should not be concerned about it.”
However, I thought it would be worth raising this as an earlier point on the agenda because a similar amendment was moved in the Commons by the Member for Dundee East. Regarding the powers in Clause 2, he pointed out:
“The effect of the amendment would be to limit the scope of the powers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/20; col. 130.]
He described those powers as “vague and subjective”. I cannot possibly comment on that, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it. I want to quote, very briefly, what the Minister in the other place said when faced with this amendment:
“The power is needed to implement obligations arising from continuity trade agreements into domestic law over time and in all circumstances.”
He went on:
“Without such an ability to make changes, the UK would be at risk of being in breach of our international obligations.”
I pause, perhaps for hollow laughter. He then said:
“I can assure colleagues that the powers in the Bill will be used in a proportionate way ... The Government view ‘appropriate’ and ‘necessary’ as synonymous”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/20; col. 131.]
That made me think a little, and I went to check the dictionary for my own satisfaction. It defines “appropriate” as:
“Suitable or proper in the circumstances”.
However, it defines “necessary” as “essential” and “needing to be done”. I really do not think that these are synonyms; I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to throw a little more light on to this.
However, I pause only to set the scene for discussions picked up in later amendments—on which I am very pleased to be joined by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—and one in my name that I will speak to shortly. As I said, Amendment 9 deals with a situation that we hope will change, but it is basically about the use of the powers that are in the Bill and would be used should it be necessary to change or adjust the terms of a free trade agreement currently organised through the EU but that will become a matter for the UK once the interim period is finished.
We think that Clause 2(1) is important and the whole of the clause deals with the way these powers are implemented but also constrained. The point was made in the other place that, although the primary drafting of Clause 2(1)—which gives the power to
“make such provision as the authority considers appropriate”—
is very wide, there are constraints further on, particularly in relation to limits on such matters as not allowing the rule to be used to change tariffs, for instance. In fact, this is because there are powers in other parts of the statute book that would deal with that. Nevertheless, it is an example of the Government’s argument—which I am sure we will hear from the Minister when he responds—which is that, although this is a very broad-based power, it is necessary because of the uncertain way in which these things might change over time.
However, I wonder whether the Minister, when he comes to respond, might look in particular at some of the issues raised in the Explanatory Notes, paragraph 36 of which states:
“Not all obligations in EU-partner country trade agreements will have been fully implemented by the EU in EU law … by the end of the transition period.”
Therefore, the power in Clause 2 will be necessary to pick this up going forward. Could he give examples of areas where this applies? The Explanatory Notes talk about “procurement” and
“mutual recognition … in respect of enforcement or compensation provisions.”
They may well be the limits, but it would be helpful for the Committee to know a little more about that, and, when the Minister responds, I would be very grateful for this. If he wants to write to me, I will understand.
Paragraph 37 of the Explanatory Notes says:
“It is also possible that adjustments may be required to ensure that the new UK-partner country trade agreements work outside the original EU context.”
It states that this might require a “change to UK law”. We are now talking about changes to primary legislation so, again, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some examples in relation this. The third point is that paragraph 38 says that it is important that we have continuity over time and that regulations must be “up to date”. Again, I think we accept that this is necessary, but it would be useful to have examples.
I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this, but I point out that the power in Clause 2 is very widely drawn. Constraints are implied in the way the Explanatory Notes are drafted but, as we know, these are not part of the statute book and are not able to be prayed in aid. We need statements from the Government to make sure that those arrangements are clear and available for us as we go forward. I think that deals with Amendment 7.
Amendment 10 would apply the provisions in the Bill to trade agreements other than the EU rollover trade agreements and allow the Bill to act as a framework for future trade policy. I suppose that, in tabling this amendment at this time, we are anticipating debates to come, as I have mentioned.
However, it is important that we get the context for this right. It is a complete mystery to me—despite the extensive discussions that we had the last time the Bill was in your Lordships’ House and despite our subsequent meetings with the current Minister and officials about this—why the Government cannot see their way towards an accommodation with those of us who believe very strongly that there is a role for Parliament to play that is not constrained by the negative resolution procedure under CRaG and that the Government would benefit from having more engagement with Parliament during the process of setting up trade deals and in relation to what they are doing, and would benefit in their negotiations with third parties on deals. This is because there would always be the constraint under which Governments would be able to say that they were not able to get such-and-such through Parliament and therefore they could not take it further. However, these issues will be rehearsed on future days, so I will not go into them in any detail, but I wanted to get a bit of the sense of that into the debate that we shall have on this group of amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, does not seem to be available at the moment, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall address Amendments 9 and 10. I do not have anything as profound to say as my noble friend Lord Stevenson about Walter Bagehot, but I have something to say about the importance of our parliamentary democracy. There has been considerable recent debate, both publicly and in the House, about the role of Parliament, its input as well as its scrutiny, consideration and decision-making processes, and the importance that is attached to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was saying on the previous group of amendments. In fact, I thought what the noble Lord said about taking back control was so obviously on point that I can make my observations extremely brief.
If Parliament is to work at all, it is not simply to give carte blanche to the Executive. My noble friend Lord Stevenson quite rightly made the point that, were amendments to be agreed and changes made that secured the framework on which trade agreements in future are ratified, Parliament would in part have done that job. If the amendments are not agreed, of course Parliament’s ultimate sanction is to consider and vote on the agreements themselves. Given the profound nature of our withdrawal from the European Union, the change in trade policy and the terms on which other subsequent trade agreements will be reached, it is absolutely critical that that is secured.
The reason that I intended to intervene this afternoon is purely on the basis that our Executive exist within Parliament. There is no presidency appointing an Executive, nor an assembly bringing forward its own separate policy requirements. Governments are embedded in Parliament, and as such Parliament has an obligation as well as a democratic duty to ensure that it does not give away those powers unless it has secured the requirements in the framework that avoid having to do it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank noble Lords for my first opportunity to speak in Committee. Since Second Reading, an all-party parliamentary group has been established on the subject of trade and export promotion, of which I am vice-chair. I raise that in order to signal that I have that additional interest which has not yet been entered in the register.
On this group, I thoroughly agree with what I took to be the import of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—that is, that he intends to have a substantive debate about the process for agreeing future trade agreements at a later stage. I agree with him about that; the group led by Amendment 35 seems to be more appropriate for that purpose, bringing, as it does, an amendment similar to that raised on Report in the other place by my former parliamentary neighbour, Jonathan Djanogly. So I will not go on at length about that.
At this stage we need to understand to what extent the Bill is purely for the purposes of securing continuity agreements following our exit from the European Union. Those who were with us on the debates on this subject on the Trade Bill in 2019 will recall that many amendments, just as they are this time, were put forward on the proposition that we are trying to establish what the future structure of trade agreements should look like, rather than seeking to establish what the continuity agreements after we leave the EU, carried forward, should look like.
Later amendments will look at how we might modify the constitutional reform and governance process. I think that is a better way of proceeding. I have my own amendment later for this purpose, and I think that CRaG is the basis for how we will look at future trade agreements. We can amend CRaG, and we will debate later how we might do that. I have my own proposal, but I will not go on about it now. I think it is important for us to distinguish between, on the one hand, the process of parliamentary approval of trade agreements and, on the other, separately from that, the implementation into domestic legislation of the obligations we enter into through international trade agreements and treaties.
A treaty entered into by the Government cannot itself change domestic law. Therefore, legislation is required to implement it, so will the Minister tell us two things in response to this early debate? First, will he repeat at this stage what our noble friend Lady Fairhead said on 21 January 2019 in the first day in Committee on the then Trade Bill? She said:
“We have already been clear that we will introduce bespoke legislation as necessary to implement those future free trade agreements. The Secretary of State for International Trade has already launched four consultations on prospective future trade agreements and announced that the Government will introduce bespoke primary legislation as necessary to implement these.”—[Official Report, 21/1/19; col. 613.]
I am hoping that my noble friend the Minister will say that, whether the number is four or more, the same process will apply in future. Of course, from my point of view that means that we do not need to specify what should be in future trade agreements and, by extension, change the law in this country, because, when the time comes, if the Government seek such a thing they would have to secure the consent of Parliament in primary legislation to do whatever they wish to do under those trade agreements. We do not need to have all those debates now.
The second thing is that I am hoping, as my noble friend the Minister knows, that he will reiterate the Government’s commitments, given early in the passage of the previous Trade Bill, to the processes for the future scrutiny and parliamentary approval of free trade agreements, published in the early part of 2019. If he can do that, it would help a great deal from the point of view of simplifying scrutiny of these and future amendments.
As for this group, Amendment 7 is a matter, strictly speaking, of semantics. To Ministers, if certain regulations are necessary to implement an agreement, then, in their view, they would be appropriate. If Ministers think something is appropriate, they always think it is also necessary. That is why, although the dictionary may not regard these two terms as meaning the same, in the mind of a Minister, they are the same.
Amendment 9 deals with the question of ratification. It says that the agreements that have to be implemented should not simply have been signed but should be ratified. It relates this, of course, to exit day for these agreements. I remind the Committee that we have passed exit day. After exit day it was the case, for example—I do not know how many examples there are, but it is a rather compelling one—that all member states of the European Union that were required to ratify the comprehensive agreement with Canada, CETA, had not so ratified. So, for example, the Dutch parliament ratified that agreement in July of this year: it was after exit day. The example I would draw, which I think is a compelling reason not to accept Amendment 9, is that it would have the consequence that the Canada-EU agreement would not satisfy the requirements of the legislation.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, apart from any rollover deals which we entered into when we were part of the European Union, these amendments deal with the ratification of future trade deals. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I support these amendments, for many reasons. First, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson explained, they give Parliament on opportunity, a chance, to improve treaties by flagging up ambiguities, loopholes or unintended consequences which may have been missed.
When we were members of the EU, these trade agreements were scrutinised for this purpose, on our behalf, by the European Parliament. It had considerable say in these negotiations and actually voted on the final text. This scrutiny is particularly important because international treaties are binding on future Governments. Indeed, full parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals was a commitment in Labour’s 2017 general election manifesto. Now that we have left the EU, we find that instead of Parliament having a say in these agreements, it is largely an executive power, and ratification becomes a formality.
When we debated the previous Trade Bill, Amendment 12 on Report proposed a similar process for ratification. It was approved by a strong majority in this House. Indeed, the House’s concern is demonstrated by the setting up of our International Agreements Committee to look at progress on trade negotiations—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to this.
These amendments also bring the management of our trade agreements into the 21st century, as my noble friend explained. This is because trade deals have become much more than simple matters of business. They are strategic; they are geopolitical; they affect our standard of living. This is why ratification has to be so much more than a simple executive process. Amendment 10 acknowledges this by setting a framework for future trade policy. This is so Parliament can ensure that our social and environmental values and standards are maintained. Amendment 10 assumes that these matters were taken into consideration when the EU negotiated a trade agreement, so this arrangement does not apply to rollover trade agreements, which I think is reasonable.
In supporting these amendments, I was influenced by a paper published by the Global Economic Governance Programme. It compared our ratification process with that of other countries in the EU. They involve their Parliaments extensively with the ratification process. Here, the extent of our Parliament’s power is to delay ratification by 21 days, which is the only way it can hold the Government to account. This is clearly inadequate, and these amendments set about putting it right. That is why I support them.
Another reason why I support these very timely amendments is that, in recent weeks, public trust in the Government’s executive powers has declined because of the way they are using their emergency powers to control the Covid-19 epidemic. This decline in trust is likely to be demonstrated in the other place tomorrow. If we are not careful, the same lack of trust will happen with the Government’s power to ratify trade deals with little parliamentary input. Again, this is why these amendments are timely and important, and they have my support.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, this Bill is supposed to be about continuity agreements. I accept that Amendments 10 and 103 are within the Long Title, but I do not understand why whoever drafted the Bill gave it a Long Title which allowed amendments dealing with non-continuity agreements, non-free trade agreements, to come within its scope. However, we are where we are.
I put my name down to speak on this group of amendments mainly because of Amendments 10 and 103, which seem to be another back-door attempt to override the CRaG process, which is based on the much more long-standing process of the Ponsonby rule. It is part of a long-standing tradition that that is how we handle treaties in our Parliament. I accept that we will have a longer debate on that when we get to the group including Amendment 35. We ought to recognise that this is not simply a question of Parliament not being involved. In February 2019, the Government announced their approach to involving Parliament in international treaties, which supplements the formal CRaG processes. The current Administration have confirmed that they broadly stand by that earlier announcement of policy. It would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could reaffirm that today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, again and hope that she is able to join us this time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful. I was muted, so I apologise for any inconvenience.
I support Amendment 7 and would like to explain to my noble friend Lord Lansley that this is more than just semantics. “Necessary” has a specific meaning in law, as has been identified by the Law Society of Scotland. Perhaps I should state for the record that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate. Against the background expressed by the Constitution Committee of the House on numerous occasions, in particular on this Bill but also on others, we are seeing an extensive scope of delegated ministerial powers, so it is incumbent on my noble friend the Minister to explain why they are required. By adding “necessary” as well as “appropriate”, we are flagging up to the Government that, in scrutinising the Bill and subsequent regulations, the objective of this legislation will go only so far as is necessary to implement the agreement in question. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this amendment.
I also wonder whether there has been an oversight in Clause 2(2)(b). The Explanatory Notes define international agreements as follows:
“International trade agreements are agreements between two or more countries aimed at reducing the barriers to trade in goods or services between them.”
For the sake of trade agreements relating to services, not least the right of people to trade services such as legal services, I wonder whether that was an oversight and whether it should be amended to read “free trade agreements and services”.
I also support Amendment 9, which I have signed, because, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, a trade agreement would need to be ratified before regulations could be made to implement it. In most other jurisdictions it is certainly the case that Parliament, and the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, would ratify the agreement. Would my noble friend put my mind at rest that this amendment is not required because that is the legal situation? If it is not, I would see some argument for the need for Amendment 9.
Amendment 10 seeks to apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements, allowing it to act as a framework for future trade policy. If the Bill is not to be the framework, it would be helpful if my noble friend took the chance to explain to the Committee what framework the Government intend to use.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will primarily address Amendment 10, to which I have put my name, and then Amendment 7. In doing so, I will reflect on a couple of very good points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and other noble Lords during this short but useful debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this debate frames the context for many of the later groups.
There is now no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition that trade agreements are now, by definition, deeper and more comprehensive than they were before we joined the European Union. The transformation of trade agreements from the mid-1970s to now has been significant. They touch on wide domestic policy, far beyond simply tariff rates or quotas for goods. Many will now include provisions on the service-sector economy, which trade agreements never touched on in the past. Therefore, seemingly innocuous technicalities in a trade agreement can sometimes have far-reaching consequences for domestic policy. Later on, the Committee will address additional chapters on climate, development and human rights that never used to exist in trade agreements. In the last group, the Minister referred to impacts on modern slavery and supply chains. These are now all within wider, deeper and more comprehensive trade agreements. It is also the case—admitted by the Government—that trade agreements in the UK in the 21st century impact on the devolution settlements that did not even exist before we joined the European Union. Therefore, there are wider consequences, and the Committee will be discussing those later.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I acknowledge the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the wide-ranging nature of modern FTAs. We will no doubt return to that point in our future debate.
On Amendments 7, 9, 10 and 103, I shall turn first to Amendment 9, which stipulates that Clause 2 would apply only to agreements that the EU has ratified with third countries, as opposed to simply having signed them. Unfortunately, this amendment would mean that important agreements with key strategic partners would be excluded from the scope of the clause and so, once signed, would be left without an implementing power. My noble friend Lord Lansley has picked up this point in relation to Canada. This would include an agreement with Canada, because CETA has not been fully ratified by each member state of the EU, despite being in effect for some time now. We have heard from businesses large and small that providing continuity in this particular trading relationship is essential; unfortunately, this amendment would threaten these vital trade flows and commercial relationships.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that a number of international development-focused agreements between the EU and third countries have not been fully ratified, despite being in force for some time. One example is the economic partnership agreement with the CARIFORUM states. Developing countries are sometimes unable to ratify agreements in full before entry into effect. Sometimes this is for procedural reasons; sometimes it is due to issues of domestic governance. Whatever the reason, this amendment would deny the UK’s trade for development assistance to these countries, simply because the predecessor trade agreement was not fully ratified.
I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the agreements that this amendment seeks to exclude have been subject to comprehensive EU scrutiny processes at mandate, negotiation and concluding stages. We were fully involved in those processes. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the delay to ratification relates to individual country or state processes, as opposed to those carried out at the level of the European Union.
On Amendment 10, just as the previous amendment sought to exclude a number of key trading partners from the scope of the Bill, this amendment seeks to bring a number of new FTA partners into scope, including the USA, Australia and New Zealand. As I explained to the House at Second Reading, this Bill is a vehicle for the implementation of continuity agreements only. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for picking up this point. Scrutiny and implementation of new free trade agreements is an important conversation but one that must be had separately from the Bill. No doubt we will be having that conversation at various points in the future.
However, I recognise that many colleagues would like some indication of and clarity about how this process will work. As noble Lords are aware, when negotiating new free trade agreements we have gone above and beyond the baseline CRaG process, providing extensive information to Parliament, including publishing our objectives and economic scoping assessments prior to the start of talks. We also hold regular open briefings for MPs and Peers throughout the negotiations. We will continue to keep Parliament updated on negotiations as they progress, including close engagement with the International Trade Committee in the House of Commons and the international agreements committee in the House of Lords. I give full recognition to the valuable work of these committees.
At the end of negotiations, we will produce an impact assessment of the final treaty prior to it being laid before Parliament for scrutiny under CRaG, alongside an Explanatory Memorandum. In addition, we will seek to allow time between finalising a new FTA and laying it before Parliament under the CRaG procedure, so that the relevant scrutiny committees in Parliament may produce an independent report on the agreement.
I am sure we will return later in Committee to the whole question of scrutiny and the important role of Parliament. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Purvis, Lord Blunkett and Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lord Lansley will not feel short-changed if I keep some of my power dry until that later debate.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about legislation for implementing future free trade agreements. As we have said on a number of occasions before, the Government will bring forward specific implementing legislation—the primary legislation necessary—for new free trade agreements, providing Parliament with plenty of opportunities to scrutinise and vote on these agreements. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I look forward, no doubt, to our debating the matters that we have debated on this Bill on future Bills which would implement future free trade agreements.
In a nutshell, I do not believe that the established and well-functioning process for scrutinising continuity agreements needs to be changed at this point. This House has held three debates covering six continuity agreements, following reports published by the European Union Committee. As your Lordships will be aware, none of these debates has resulted in a Motion to Regret. This process has been fair, open and, most importantly, proportionate to the nature of the continuity agreements.
On Amendment 7, like other noble Lords I enjoyed the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, parsing the meaning of “appropriate” and “necessary”, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh has given us the benefit of her Scottish expertise on this matter. I can speak quite plainly and say that all regulations made under the Clause 2 power to implement international trade agreements will be necessary. The Clause 2 power is needed to implement legislative obligations arising from trade continuity agreements into our domestic statute. Our expectation is that this power will be mainly used for obligations relating to procurement or recognition of product conformity assessments. To clarify, tariff-related provisions will be implemented using powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act.
Without the ability to make such changes, we would be at risk of breaching our international obligations. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. However, this proposed amendment could prevent that by constraining the vires or scope of the regulations that can be made under Clause 2, in particular when using the concurrent powers to legislate in areas of devolved competence. We will be debating that topic later in Committee.
I can assure the House that, despite the suspicions that some noble Lords have, the powers in this Bill will only be used in a proportionate way and that consultation with all stakeholders is a fundamental part of our approach and will remain so going forward.
On Amendment 103, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his amendment. However, I fear I may be beginning to sound like a broken record, as I am going to say yet again that this is a continuity Bill. The Government have no desire to seek sweeping powers to be able to use this Bill to implement all our future free trade agreements, with the likes of the US, Australia and New Zealand. I dare say that, if we had tried to do that, our knuckles would have been very sharply rapped by this House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, first.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the assurances, although I note his powder is as yet dry in relation to some of the subjects we will discuss later.
If I may make a point about what I am looking for from my noble friend, it is very clear that if future trade agreements—not continuity agreements—give rise to a requirement for changes in domestic legislation that are of significance, that must be achieved by bespoke primary legislation. I am sure that is what he intended by what he said. That is why, I am afraid, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said about Amendments 10 and 103 is wrong, because they would, in effect, create a super-affirmative procedure for the implementation into domestic legislation of future trade agreements. We do not want that. We want it to be done by primary legislation because then it is capable of being amended.
We have to keep in mind, as we go through this, that there is a clear difference: ratification of a trade agreement is not the same as changing our domestic law, as my noble friend just said. Therefore, the CRaG process does not change UK law; what it does is enable the Government to ratify, or not to ratify, a trade agreement or an agreement into which it has entered. That is the distinction that we have to continuously keep in mind: the CRaG process is not changing UK law; it is determining on what basis we have agreed with another country. If we then need to change our law, we must do it ourselves, and Parliament will have the ability to decide in what terms we do so.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for giving me the chance to clarify my comments. We have already said, and I am happy to say again, that we will bring forward primary legislation as necessary for future FTAs with new trade partners. As my noble friend quite appropriately spotted, we could not implement those free trade agreements without bringing forward primary legislation. The CRaG process does not do that—it ratifies the treaty but cannot, in itself, alter domestic legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. He said two things, one with regard to the scope of this Bill. We have heard Ministers many times state their desire for this Bill to be very limited in scope and look only at continuity of trade. The Government have brought amendments to this Bill to widen the scope quite significantly, for example on data sharing. The debates we will be having fall squarely within the spirit of what the Government have done to open up the scope.
We will be returning to this valid debate area, but I want to ask the Minister a specific question. I listened carefully to what he said. In objecting to some of the amendments, he referred to the fact that some of the agreements did not require scrutiny within this Parliament because, he said, they had already undergone the EU scrutiny process, mandate, negotiation and ratification stages. That was by the European Parliament, where British MEPs sat and were able to take part. For new agreements, we will have no equivalent. To be clear, is the Government’s position that the EU scrutiny process—when it comes to the agreements that have been approved by the European Union and gone through it but not yet been put into domestic legislation—is equivalent to the CRaG process the Government are asking to use going forward?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments. The continuity agreements were those that were in force before 1 January or had been agreed to by the EU, even if not fully ratified, before then. We were fully participating members of the European Union then. The committees of this House and the other place that scrutinise European legislation—the noble Lord knows much more about that than I do, being a new boy—scrutinised these agreements and did that satisfactorily.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. It has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. I have felt optimistic at some moments and deeply depressed at others. I am going to end up being optimistic because I am that sort of chap. I will take the good that I have heard from my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Haskel, in particular. I was grateful on this occasion not to be attacked by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is always a good day when that happens—I am only joking.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some good points about keeping in mind the difference between ratification and implementation as we go forward. He is right to stress that point and I am sure we will come back to it. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of questions that had a bearing on that. I started to get slightly worried about where he was heading —for example, on the issue about the implementation of agreements made under the royal prerogative being ratified under the CRaG arrangements. This is an obvious consequence of where we stand with our current procedures. It leaves the question open as to why we need primary legislation. If the Minister is saying that all future deals are to be made in relation to existing standards that will never be lowered, in view of not changing or disadvantaging our labour and environmental standards and our future arrangements on climate change—on the agenda later today—what is this primary legislation of which he speaks? This is something we will need to come back to and I will be thinking about it.
Finally, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which I thought was a good one. Can I join her in asking the Minister whether he could write to us about it? Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Explanatory Notes refer to varieties of trade agreements and the Minister did not deal with that in his response to the noble Baroness. The types of agreement within the definition of “international trade agreements” include memorandums of understanding and he will know that this matter has been raised with him by the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House. It is a topical point and I would be grateful if he could give us some further information when he is able to do so. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Berkeley
“( ) an international treaty or private international law convention (including any amendment or protocol thereto) which facilitates trade or the financing of trade.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another amendment in the name of Lord Berkeley, is intended to enable the Government to ratify the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to the Cape Town Convention to make it easier for the private sector to finance trade in railway rolling stock, from locomotives to passenger and freight wagons to metro trains and trams.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to move Amendment 8. I will also speak to Amendment 19 to save the Committee time. This is a small issue compared with many of the ones the Committee will discuss today and in future days, but it is important for the rail sector and the financial sector that is linked to it. The amendment, which is a small addition to Clause 2(2), would enable the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to the Cape Town convention to be ratified.
I will try to explain what this is as quickly as I can. The Cape Town convention is a global treaty which, with the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, will make it easier and cheaper for the private sector to finance all types of railway rolling stock—locomotives, passenger and freight wagons, metro trains and trams, et cetera. It creates a new global system for protecting and prioritising creditor rights in relation to secured financing or leasing of all types of rolling stock. It includes a facility to register security interests in an international registry. It is the first common worldwide system for uniquely identifying rail equipment.
This is nothing particularly new because it has been around in the air sector for many years and there is already a protocol in the Cape Town convention to benefit aircraft. The rail sector protocol has been signed but not yet ratified. I will give the Committee some examples. Aeroplanes obviously move around the globe. Occasionally, they get stolen or people take them to places where creditors cannot get at them. Members may wonder what this has got to do with the railways. When I was first chairman of the Rail Freight Group, about 20 years ago, and getting interested in international rail freight across to the continent through the Channel Tunnel, we came across a number of examples where rail freight wagons went to Italy and but did not come back. Nobody could seem to find them. Italy was different in those days. I do not think it is the case today at all. It was a worry because the people who had financed those wagons lost their assets. I am sure this can happen today in other parts of the world, but I am not going to start giving examples. This protocol is designed to prevent that happening without creditors knowing what has gone on.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in the brave new world of Grand Committee. We have lost Moses, and instead we have something that looks like the translation booths that I remember from my time as the UK Minister at the European Council in Brussels—the numbers were about the same, given the number of EU languages, although of course everyone spoke English informally.
As my noble friend knows well, I welcome the Bill and the Government’s global ambitions. Again, I declare my interest as chairman of the UK-ASEAN Business Council. Today, it is with particular pleasure that I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for whom I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will speak. Although we sit on opposite sides of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I share a practical bent when it comes to infrastructure, and especially to railways. Our Amendments 8 and 19 would make it easier for the private sector to finance trade in railway rolling stock, as he explained, and would allow the UK to implement the Luxembourg rail protocol to the Cape Town convention, bringing rail into line with aviation, which is important in the current climate. That would help to build a more dynamic rail sector, harking back to our heritage as a pioneer of rail technology. As someone descended from an engineer who helped Stephenson build the “Rocket”, I find this extremely attractive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has indicated, another way forward that would achieve these aims may have been found. If so, I welcome that. I thank my noble friend Lord Grimstone for his assurances and work on this issue, and I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the way ahead.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and bow to their expertise. I am stepping in in the place of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who is, unfortunately, not able to speak today. I know that the three of them have had sufficient conversation to enable me to be sure that I can support everything that has been said up to this point.
Many of us are utterly frustrated that, in this era when we are so concerned with climate change, the advancement of rail is frequently constrained by the concerns of rail equipment companies about the security of their rolling stock. This protocol addresses that issue. It provides a public registry for rolling stock, which would hugely facilitate cross-border operations of freight and passenger trains, and the certainty that a registry offers. It would free up financing for rail stock, because it provides mechanisms for repossession of collateral in cases of insolvency.
Stimulating private investment in this arena is absolutely critical. This is not a burden that most countries around the world can carry at government level, so ensuring private participation is crucial. We move now into an era where our concern about climate change means that rail options, in contrast to aviation or road options, are increasingly attractive because of the environmental benefits, and very often it is far more cost-effective for exporters and importers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, the UK has increasingly become a player once again in the manufacture of rail equipment and it needs international markets. It would of course be of benefit if those markets had much greater certainty and confidence in those who are selling.
I am somewhat concerned because, when I last looked—and perhaps the Minister might correct me—only Luxembourg had actually ratified this treaty, although many countries have signed it, as the UK did in 2016. We really want to make sure that there is no obstacle to UK ratification, which would undoubtedly give others the confidence to go ahead and ratify, lifting the whole platform of rail as part of the ongoing future, so that it has much more significant international consequences than even domestic consequences.
I hope very much that we can use this opportunity to bring the issue once again to the Government’s attention. I am very comforted: it sounds as though the Government have found a route for ratification to be achieved. I do not think any of us particularly care what the route is, provided that it is secure and effective. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this issue.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing this amendment. I am afraid that it is outside my normal expertise area, and I listened with interest to what he had to say. We should support his argument that if it is possible through this Bill to facilitate the rail sector and its development, we should do so. I am happy to back up the points made by other speakers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have a change of rider as I leap into the saddle. I turn to Amendments 8 and 19 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, eloquently explained to this Committee the nature of and reasoning behind these amendments. Taken together, they would expand the scope of the Trade Bill, incorporating the implementation of private international law conventions to which the EU was signatory before exit day.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his constructive engagement with my noble friend Lord Grimstone and our departmental team of officials over recent weeks. As the noble Lord has outlined, this amendment would allow the UK to implement the provisions of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol.
Let me say at the outset that the Government are supportive of ratifying the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. We recognise the competitive advantages which this could bring to the UK rail sector and UK financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, outlined so convincingly in his speech today and at Second Reading. I also took note of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who pointed out the economic advantages.
However, I do not believe the Trade Bill is an appropriate vehicle to provide the powers necessary for the implementation of this agreement. As has been explained to your Lordships, the powers conferred by the Bill are limited and narrow in scope, yet wholly essential for the delivery of the UK’s independent trade policy. It is our view that the contents of the Bill should not expand beyond essential readiness for life outside the European Union.
However, I can advise the noble Lord that the delegated power that was originally part of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill would have allowed the Government to implement domestically private international law agreements, including the private international law elements of a convention such as the one to which he refers.
The Government intend to reintroduce this in Committee in the other place, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I understand is to be as early as next week—I think 6 October. I therefore urge the noble Lord to encourage your Lordships in this Committee and beyond to support the reintroduction of the delegated power when the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill returns to this House for Lords consideration of Commons amendments in coming weeks.
The Department for International Trade has engaged on an official level with the Department for Transport, which supports the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. The Department for Transport believes that the protocol has potential economic benefits for the UK, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said.
I would be very pleased to facilitate a further conversation on this in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Grimstone in my capacity as a Whip with responsibility for transport and trade policy, and perhaps as an interdepartmental broker—I hope a very honest one. On that basis, I ask that these amendments are withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate and for the support they have shown. They all have expertise in this field and it is heartening that we have cross-party support, if I can put it that way. I am also grateful to the Minister for his helpful comments. If it is the Government’s view that they do not want to widen the scope of this Trade Bill, I fully understand that, especially as the Minister appears to have found another solution to take this forward. Clearly we have further work to do when the other Bill comes to your Lordships, assuming there will be some ping-pong involved. We will have to try to convince various legal experts in this House that this is a particularly important thing to allow through in whatever state the Government are proposing when it comes from the other place. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for his very helpful reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 11
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with and are consistent with—(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;(c) the primacy of human rights law;(d) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;(e) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to—(i) the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and(ii) the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;(f) women’s rights and the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;(g) children’s rights and the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and(h) the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s international commitments with specific reference to human rights and related treaties, and must respect the sovereignty of parliament.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her support for this amendment.
This group deals with high-level considerations—whether we should have constraints and, if so, whether they should be introduced through primary legislation should the Government wish to depart from international agreements or standards which are subject to international treaties such as UN conventions.
We are of course party to a large number of international agreements. The amendment deals in particular with provisions of international treaties that have been ratified—for example, those on the sustainable development goals, international human rights law, international humanitarian laws, the obligations relating to workers’ rights and labour standards, which we have already discussed under the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and various others relating to matters such as women’s rights and the rights of children, although of course they are not limited to just the conventions that we have, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So the list is very long and very important, and I am sure that no Government would wish to see us depart from any or all of them, should we be in a position to do so, simply for particular trade reasons.
Later groups will deal with our self-generated standards, and there are considerable overlaps. So in a sense this is perhaps a two-part debate, and this one will focus on the outward arrangements that we make with external agencies. But it should not constrain us, and I hope that the Minister will not keep his powder dry, as he said he would in an earlier debate on another issue.
Having said that, I suspect that the Minister’s line will be that the Government will always adhere to the rule of law and treaty obligations, but I think it is fair to point out that trust has already been broken through the Government’s own actions. Even so, it raises the question of why, if there is never to be an occasion on which we would wish to depart from our existing treaty obligations, we are talking about any constraints on the activities that the Government might wish to engage with in terms of their primary legislation agenda related to trade. However, that is for further discussion.
Also in this group is Amendment 18, led by my noble friend Lord Hendy, and that will lead to an interesting debate. In addition, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and his powerful Cross-Bench supporters on Amendment 33 will be worth hearing and discussing. We also have an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about reporting arrangements in relation to trade agreements, which I think will also be of value. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. No? I think the noble Baroness is unable to join us at this point, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I rise to speak primarily to Amendment 11, to which I attached my name, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the noble Lord for his very clear introduction.
We are well aware that compliance with international law is something of a sore point now, so on the basis of that sensitivity, one would hope that the Government would adopt this amendment as a matter of course. They have the opportunity, by agreeing with this amendment, to demonstrate their belief in the rule of law. However, it has to be said that we have, as the amendment includes, signed up to the sustainable development goals, but we are not on track to deliver a single one of them, even in our own country. UK trade and UK actions are damaging the push towards sustainable development goals all around the world. We need accountability and leadership, and we need a legal framework, which Amendment 11 would supply.
I will also speak briefly in support of Amendment 18, which seeks to guarantee the ILO conventions and the European Social Charter. Many years ago, I prepared a report for the ILO on child labour in Thailand. If I had needed a reminder of the importance of regulation, the rule of law and the risk of exploitation, I certainly had it with that. Given the reports that we have had from the garment sector in Leicester, those experiences are not as foreign as we might once have thought. Protecting workers’ standards around the world has impacts on workers’ standards in our own country.
I will also speak briefly in support of Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In doing so, I will quote another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, in a meeting this morning of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, of which I am a co-chair. He spoke of a sense of moral values being a bigger part of our foreign policy. I very much agree. I suggest that we also need to see that in trade policy, particularly in the purchasing practices of our Government. This amendment allows democratic oversight of key government procurement.
Finally, I will speak to Amendment 45 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reflecting the need to undertake human rights and equalities impact assessments of all trade deals before and after implementation. I am very aware that noble Lords have not yet spoken to all these amendments—I am reflecting the written material —but the same argument applies as in Amendment 33, and also the comments I made in my first contribution to this Committee. “First do no harm” is a medical phrase that, if applied to trade over recent decades, would have produced far less trade and a far healthier, less poverty-stricken, more rights-respecting, less damaged world. Given the fragile state of this planet and its people, we have no alternative but to apply that principle in our future trade policies, and the amendments I have named take us some steps in that direction.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 18, which develops one aspect of Amendment 11, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
It is usual in free trade agreements to have a chapter which contains provisions on labour standards. Chapter 23 of the much-discussed EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement is typical. It requires each state party to ensure that its labour law and practices embody and provide protection for the fundamental principles and rights at work, which it lists as
“freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced labour; abolition of child labour; elimination of discrimination”.
In that free trade agreement, the parties affirmed their commitment to respect, promote and realise those principles and rights, in accordance with the obligations of the members of the ILO and the commitments under the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and its follow-up. They undertook that their labour law and practices would promote
“health and safety at work; minimum employment standards for wage earners, and non-discrimination in respect of working conditions, including for migrant workers.”
That is all very well, but it is not enough. The United Kingdom has ratified many ILO conventions, including the core conventions. Indeed, 70 years ago this summer it was the first nation on the planet to ratify fundamental ILO convention 98 on collective bargaining. However, its potential trading partners may not have such a fine record. The USA is sadly lacking in this respect. Any free trade agreement should require a prospective partner to ratify those conventions which the UK has ratified—otherwise, there will be asymmetry in labour standards.
Ratification by partners is not enough. We should insist that our prospective trading partners customarily observe standards we have ratified. That is an obligation in CETA too, which states:
“Each Party reaffirms its commitment to effectively implement in its law and practices in its whole territory the fundamental ILO Conventions that Canada and the Member States of the European Union have ratified respectively.”
That principle should apply to all the international treaty provisions that the UK has ratified, not just those of the ILO. We should therefore include those of the Council of Europe, its convention on human rights and the articles of the European Social Charter 1961, which we have ratified. Non-European states cannot ratify those provisions but they can certainly undertake to implement them. The effect, I hope, will be to uplift the labour standards of some potential trading partners to those we purport to uphold. It will also prevent the creation of an unbalanced playing field on labour rights, contrary to the level playing field that the Government claim to advance. Likewise, the free trade agreement should be compatible in all respects with the ILO conventions that this country has chosen to ratify; otherwise, standards can be watered down.
The amendment is surely uncontroversial in requiring that prospective FTA partners must uphold the sovereignty of Parliament, the authority of our courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law. It is hard to conceive of a rational objection to the proposal that the minimum standards referred to in the amendment are required of any prospective trading partner, whatever may be said about our own Government’s record on these points. I ask the Government to ensure that these requirements are embodied in the Trade Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, explained, the amendments in this group cluster around the importance of issues such as human rights and other rights in trade agreements. I will focus on Amendment 45 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. It would require human and equalities rights assessments of all trade deals before and after implementation. The linking of trade agreements and human rights has become normal practice in recent years and is evident in almost every trade agreement signed by the EU.
I take heart from the fact that Liam Fox, when Secretary of State for International Trade, made it clear in some of his comments that the UK was fighting to ensure that human rights provisions in continuity trade agreements stayed in place as we transitioned out of the EU. I hope the Government continue to have that deep commitment and understand the importance of those clauses within the trade agreements. However, we had some disturbing comments in the same year. The then Minister for the Middle East, Andrew Murrison, discussed whether or not any future trade agreement with China would include human rights clauses. The question has been raised and I think, it needs to be answered in this legislation.
It is concerning the UK has indicated it does not want to apply the European Convention on Human Rights to its FTA with the EU in any way that is legally binding. This could be an unfortunate and concerning precedent and the Government need to provide an adequate response. There are huge implications if the ECHR is not included in trade agreements. If we take the trade agreement with the EU as an example, it has serious implications for data protection and for the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope we do not see this Government take heart from Dominic Cummings, who has an ideological hostility to the ECHR. The only country in Europe not a party to the ECHR is Belarus. As we all say, the convention was initially a British project to put in place a genuine defence for ordinary people following the horrors of the Second World War.
It is therefore key that appropriate clauses are embedded in the Trade Bill; otherwise, the message will be that the United Kingdom is showing flexibility around these key issues. That is not a position that I would like to see us negotiating.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who spoke very eloquently; I endorse what she said.
I will speak to Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble friends, which I have signed. I very much endorse the speeches of my noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lady Bennett. On Amendment 18 in particular, I welcome and endorse the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who adds enormous authority on these issues.
My noble friend mentioned that the Canada-European Union agreement—CETA—includes the very kinds of provisions that we are asking for in Amendment 18. I note that leading Conservatives—Brexiteers—have spoken of “Canada-plus” as a future basis for a trade agreement with the European Union. Does Canada-plus mean labour rights-minus? A failure to adopt Amendment 18 would imply that that is the case, and that that is the real agenda of the Brexiteers.
Amendment 18 would preclude the UK from agreeing any international trade agreement if its regulations contravened the UK’s international labour law commitments. The UK is a member of the International Labour Organization and has been so since 28 June 1919. Under the auspices of the ILO, fully 88 conventions and two protocols have already been ratified by the United Kingdom. I cannot see why the Minister could not agree to this amendment and why the Government would not endorse it since, in effect, it reinforces the status quo to which we have already signed up in all future trade agreements.
Of course, that is unless the Government’s real agenda is a kind of Singapore-upon-Thames, with a deregulated structure of labour rights, environmental rights and all sorts of other rights that we have come to expect as representing the standards that we want in Britain; an offshore haven of low labour regulations, low standards and low tax. That is what leading Conservatives, particularly the Prime Minister and his henchman Dominic Cummings, have been talking about. Surely we should not be racing to the bottom in every respect for British citizens and workers but seeking to match the best, such as the Scandinavian countries, which have high standards in these matters—high levels of public services and the public expenditure to sustain that. They have also had, by the way, much higher levels of productivity and economic success than Britain has had under this Government for the last 10 years, prior to Covid.
What sort of “taking back control” will it mean if we do not adopt Amendment 18, or at least a version of it that the Government might favour for technical reasons? What does “taking back control” mean for Brexiteers? Instead of high-quality, high-skilled standards it would mean low-quality, low-skilled standards, particularly on labour rights.
I should point out that the ILO standards that this amendment seeks to reinforce and insist on for any future trade agreements that the UK might strike with other countries are a minimum, not a maximum. They have been achieved by agreement across the world and therefore, inevitably, are not the maximum we should be aiming for. Surely we should, in a high-quality Britain that aims to be the best for its citizens, aim for the maximum. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said so poignantly, the amendment is surely uncontroversial because it asks the Government to adopt in future trade agreements what they have already signed up to in ILO conventions and protocols. I hope that the Minister will accept it or explain why not and what sort of agenda is really on offer for the British people from his Government.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 18. As has been said by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Hain, it is an uncontroversial amendment. I too look forward to the Minister’s response, in which I am sure he will welcome it.
I consider it fundamental that the rule of law should be enshrined in the Bill, as should the legal authority of the United Kingdom courts and the principle of equality before the law. It should go without saying that respect for the rule of law can be relied on in the United Kingdom. However, as doubts may have been cast thereon in recent weeks, this amendment is necessary to ensure that international trade agreements observe both the conventions of the ILO—mentioned frequently in this debate and up to which Britain has already signed—and the ratified articles of the 1961 European Social Charter.
My noble friend Lord Hendy has provided a full rationale for this amendment and, as amply demonstrated by reference to CETA, precisely how it can and should work. I fully endorse and concur with his remarks and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Blower and to have added my name to Amendment 18, drafted by certainly the foremost labour lawyer in your Lordships’ House, if not the country. I will try to be plain and succinct in support of Amendments 18 and 11 by logical correlation, and I need not read out my remarks; this is simple stuff.
In an ideal world, I would have loved a Bill that clipped the wings of the Executive and ensured that it entered into only trade agreements that comply with international human rights and other international obligations, but this Bill is not that. I accept that because it is very clear that its Long Title and scope are about implementing trade agreements, some of which might be of concern to me and to others on the basis of who those trade agreements are made with. Notwithstanding the assurances that this Government—and no doubt future Governments—care about the rule of law, so we cannot clip the wings of the Executive in relation to the royal prerogative on what agreements they enter into, we can say, without being creative or mischievous and without diverting by one iota from the Long Title of the Bill, that when regulations are made under its provisions, they must comply with the international rule of law, the domestic rule of law and, in particular, obligations that we have long ratified on workers’ rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, sustainable development and so on.
Put simply, if the Minister in his response will neither happily agree to Amendments 11 and 18 nor offer explicitly to come back at the next stage of the Bill with something like them, that will raise a serious question as to why not. It is not enough to say, “But of course we would never make regulations that breach our international obligations.” That can happen by accident as well as by design. Without being insensitive about this, I remind your Lordships that, in recent weeks, the Government have lost their most senior legal adviser and one of their most senior law officers over this very issue of setting a course whereby we put our international legal obligations and domestic statutes into conflict.
In summary, what is wrong with children’s rights, workers’ rights, non-discrimination at work and sustainable development goals? The Government would say—and have said—that there will be no levelling down, only levelling up. If that slogan means anything, any regulations made under the Bill when it becomes an Act must comply with our obligations. That must be on the face of the legislation to ensure that any regulations that accidentally breach our obligations will be ultra vires this Bill. It is very simple. I really look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have pleasure in speaking to Amendment 33, which enjoys support from across your Lordships’ House. It appears in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Adonis and Lord Rooker. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his remarks in opening the debate on this group of amendments.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, at a meeting this morning of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong—of which I am vice-chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, expressed his support for this amendment and Amendment 68, which we will come to in due course and which homes in specifically on trade deals with states accused of genocide. The Committee may be interested to hear a little more of what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said this morning. I quote him verbatim:
“China has over the years broken both the spirit of what it had agreed to with the WTO negotiations and in many respects made a mockery of the letter, so that you cannot invest in China in the same way that China can invest here. China is involved at the moment in predatory purchasing wherever it can.”
He went on to give instances of the imbalance, citing the example of robotics from Kuka, and of the interference and intimidation which follows when, for instance, a country speaks up for the beleaguered Uighur community or hosts the Dalai Lama. He described the Chinese Communist Party as
“a regime which regards business, as well as the state-owned enterprises, as part of the political project.”
At this stage, Amendment 33 is an attempt to open a debate on three things. First, what should be the constraints on business as usual with states which are undemocratic? Secondly, what regard do we have to our critical infrastructure? Thirdly, in making trade deals, what should be the role of Parliament? This is something on which we have focused a lot already in the opening stages of this Committee debate on the Trade Bill; what should be the role of Parliament if these first two conditions become matters of contention? I particularly agree with the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
In tabling Amendment 33, I return to issues that I raised at Second Reading of this Bill, as well as in Committee and on Report on the telecommunications infrastructure Bill. I know that some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine, will have concerns about drawing these provisions more tightly. Between now and Report, there will be time to address that point, preferably with the help of the Government. I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has played a major part in the drafting of this amendment; I am grateful to him for doing so.
It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could say what progress has been made in bringing forward a human rights threshold—an amendment which, it was agreed, would come forward when we had our debate at the Report stage of the telecommunications infrastructure Bill and was promised for Third Reading of that now-delayed Bill. I have written about this to the Minister as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the Minister overseeing the other Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister today could say what role the Government envisage for the Joint Committee on Human Rights in scrutinising trade deals; this might address some of the issues raised thus far.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 33 proposed by my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool, and I congratulate him on the excellent and thorough speech he has just made.
If the Committee will permit me for just a moment before I get into the substance of what I wanted to say, I was amused by the usual rant from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, against Singapore. I just had to comment on it. He does not like Singapore, and he does not want us to emulate Singapore: a country with the highest GDP per capita in the world, the wealthiest people and the best education system in the world, which is rated fifth in the world for happiness and the third highest for anti-corruption. If he considers that the bottom, I would prefer to be there than at the so-called top, or perhaps he still considers South Africa to be the hero state of his dreams.
I had better get back to the amendment. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has campaigned tirelessly against the vile human rights abuses against the Uighurs perpetrated by the Communist Party regime in China—not the Chinese people but the Communist Party regime. The evidence is overwhelming about the concentration camps, the so-called training centres, and the use of these people as slave labour. Of course, the Uighurs merely join the people of Tibet, who have suffered the same oppression for decades. The communist regime in Peking wants to wipe out all people, races and ethnicities who do not comply with every aspect of their communist philosophy.
So, since these gross abuses of human rights are well-known to take place, what should we do about it? Would we dream of buying goods from the military regime in Burma or that of the late and thoroughly unlamented evil Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Of course not. So we must not trade with any country, including China, where there are human rights abuses, no democracy and no equality under the law.
I shall not spend time here on the list of critical infrastructure, since I think it is the same as in the definitive and highly respected Henry Jackson Society report called Breaking the China Supply Chain, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has more than adequately described to the Committee, and which revealed that the UK and, indeed, the Five Eyes countries are reliant on China for a frighteningly large number of goods and services that are vital to our critical infrastructure. I accept that we cannot disengage and reshore overnight, but I would like to hear from the Minister what progress we are making and what progress we expect to make on reshoring some of our critical goods and services.
I want to focus on the second part of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, setting out the criteria for “non-democratic”. I am privileged to serve on the Council of Europe. The four criteria listed here are not our technical definition, but they summarise everything that we consider to be democratic. In fact, I do not think there is a technical definition of democracy anywhere in the world. The Council of Europe has three pillars: the rule of law, human rights and democracy. When we observe elections in, say, former Soviet Union countries, those are the main criteria that we consider to determine whether or not the elections are free and fair.
I simply say: can anyone in this Committee or in government disagree with the four criteria that the noble Lord has built in here? The amendment says that
“‘non-democratic’ means a country which does not have … a political system for choosing and replacing the government, through free and fair elections”.
That may apply to a few countries. In fact, I have just reported on Belarus, which has severe deficiencies there although it, does not have some of the other deficiencies. However, China certainly does not satisfy criterion (a). A country is not considered democratic, in criterion (b), if it does not have
“the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life”.—
that applies to China—or, in criterion (c), if it does not have
“protection of the human rights of all citizens”.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just described the gross human rights abuses that are happening to the Uighurs and the people of Tibet. Finally, a country is not democratic if it does not have
“a rule of law in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens, and the judiciary is independent.”
There are quite a few countries in the world that that does not apply to, but it is certainly relevant to China as well. So, while one may identify some other countries, the one that is right in our sights here is China, because it fails to satisfy these four criteria that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has built in.
I say to the Minister that this amendment, if accepted, would not ban trade with China or any other country. It simply asks that Parliament has the chance to look over the deals and approve them. No doubt, with the Government’s majority in the Commons, they can approve and rubber-stamp anything, but we heard in our House yesterday in the Chamber unanimous demands from all sides that Parliament have a chance to approve new Covid regs before they are made. I suggest that the matters the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has raised here are every bit as important and, therefore, Parliament should have a chance to debate and vote on this. I support the noble Lord in his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. No? Therefore, I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I intend, unusually, to part company with my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool and shall speak against Amendment 33. Before that, I shall spell out why I think that amendment has come about, although some of what I shall say has been covered by him.
The motivation for Amendment 33 lies in the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, which we last debated on 29 June. We were given an assurance then that the Government would return at Third Reading with an amendment to give legislative teeth to human rights safeguards in the use of infrastructure. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, assured the House that, when the Bill returned for Third Reading, the Government would have drafted a suitable amendment. On that basis, we were willing not to test the opinion of the House. We are still waiting for that Bill to return, and the Government have spurned an opportunity to have a limited, reasonable amendment. As a consequence, we have this sweeping proposal before us, which I was surprised was found to be in scope of this Bill.
My first point relates to paragraph 44 of the Explanatory Notes, which has been touched on previously by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. Clause 2(1) refers principally to EU continuity agreements, but I cannot see how Amendment 33 is in scope. The agreements concerned would already have been scrutinised by the European Parliament, which I do not consider normally to be lax in its duty to recall human rights implications.
I also note, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, that attempts are under way for UK courts to determine whether genocide is taking place in other countries. While I know that trade with China is the object of concern of many of these amendments, they could be used much more widely. I shall turn to the unintended consequences of such amendments in a moment.
However, I oppose Amendment 33 for three principal reasons: the impossible burden of scrutiny on Parliament for such large categories of goods; the breadth of critical infrastructure included in an overly comprehensive list; and the exclusiveness of the definition of “democratic”, or “non-democratic”, thereby taking in more than half the countries of the world.
Amendment 33 is overly comprehensive, in that it seeks an interventionist role for Parliament in agreeing regulations that cover so many facets of infrastructure that it would render Parliament as an inspectorate of all commerce. If we are truly to be charged with each resolution laid before us concerned with the 11 broad areas of commercial transactions in the five years envisaged—perhaps five years more, if the proposal is rolled over—we may do little else.
Let me take the first category, which is “critical infrastructure”. Incidentally, critical infrastructure is not defined here, so I looked it up. Critical infrastructure,
“is a term used by governments to describe assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy”.
That is incredibly broad, and very little is not covered by it. In the UK, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure is the relevant representative body. I therefore ask the proposers of these amendments to say, when they conclude, if they have consulted that body in drawing up their sweeping list of categories, given that little would not be caught by the amendment.
My more significant concern is to do with how the movers have defined what they see as non-democratic countries. The four pre-requisites are perfectly clear, and most of us would agree with them as essential to what we might perhaps define as western-style liberal democracies. Therein lies my concern. If Parliament has to approve trade measures with all those countries we consider non-democratic, we would be in danger of becoming an autarky. For example, if we apply the definition of the noble Lord to BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—they would all come into that category, bar South Africa. Take, for example, China, which is the cause of much concern around the House. So much of what China exports to us could be caught by the definition of critical infrastructure. I am sure no noble Lord is proposing that we suspend almost all trade with China—even the Trump Administration have balked at doing that.
While China is a well-known example, what of India? This Government are ambitious to do a great deal with India. They already have partnerships on critical infrastructure with Indian companies—take OneWeb as an example, which is critical infrastructure by any category. If new opportunities for trade were to arise, India would be on the so-called watch-list as a non-democratic country for its treatment of Kashmiri Muslims—in fact, for its treatment of large swathes of its Muslim minority; some 200 million people—and its treatment of women overall, or for the caste system and the treatment of Dalits, and thus would clearly come under categories (c) and (d) on the list.
Take Brazil under President Bolsonaro. It would definitely be caught by paragraphs (c) and (d), not least for its treatment of indigenous people in the Amazon, and not to speak of the rule of law. What of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, or even Israel? I do not want to labour the point, but by no step of the imagination could most countries in the Middle East be seen as democratic.
I also remind those concerned with such broad definitions of human rights to recall Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines the right to economic well-being, broadly spelled out, and which might be denied to our citizens were we to agree such blanket measures against trade with other countries, or parliamentary scrutiny of trade with other countries. It is slightly disingenuous of noble Lords to claim that all they are asking for is parliamentary scrutiny. Once we open the can of worms as to what is democratic and not democratic, and once we start asking UK courts alone to rule on what is genocide or not, we are straying into an area where we are doing economic self-harm.
I know that human rights are increasingly accounted for in international trade agreements—as I said earlier, the EU is not impervious to that. However, Amendment 33 serves no useful purpose and we should rightly return to these measures in a very limited form in Amendment 68, which I will support when the time comes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, because I think I can follow up precisely the point she made. I think that the debate we have had is an important and interesting one, but the amendments before us do not have the effect that they are intended to by those who are proposing them.
The amendments are in scope of the Bill because they relate to the regulations being made under Clause 2(1), but the regulations made under Clause 2(1), by virtue of the rest of that clause, relate to continuity trade agreements and not to future trade agreements. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, everything he said about China is, to that extent, not relevant. It is relevant to future trade issues, but it is not relevant to the Bill as it stands.
Amendments 11, 18 and 33 are in scope because they relate to continuity agreements, but I am afraid that we have to assess their impact in relation to the existing agreements with the European Union which we are rolling over. That is the hard graft which the movers of the amendments need to do. If they want to do this thing and impact on those regulations, they have to look at those agreements.
My personal view, which was reflected earlier in the debate, is that the European Union has to a large extent done that work, as will have the European Parliament. We do not necessarily need to do it. However, the breadth of the issues—for example, in Amendment 33 —is such as to beg the question: is this really what the movers of the amendment are asking for? For example, the non-democratic provisions would imply that the agreement with Egypt would not be rolled over. That job has not been done and these amendments have not been exposed to that kind of scrutiny. I do not think that the movers of the amendments, or those who spoke in support of them, realise that they do not relate to future trade agreements but only to continuity agreements and so most of the arguments presented in their support have not been justified.
However, Amendment 45 is included in this group. Whether or not it is the right way of doing it, it raises a perfectly reasonable question that we should consider. When we come to exercise the scrutiny of trade agreements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, should we have a specific statutory requirement to assess the human rights and equalities impacts? There is a good argument for that. This may not be the way to do it at this stage, but we may need to return to that. Otherwise, I am afraid that, sympathetic as I am with all the arguments put for the other amendments, they do not do the job that is claimed for them.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, in this group of amendments we are once more addressing standards. Amendment 11, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and other noble Lords, rightly states that international trade agreements must not conflict with the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom. One wonders quite how the Government will steer through any agreement with the EU if our Government are threatening at the same time to break international law in the treaty they have just agreed in relation to Northern Ireland. This amendment should not be needed but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, it seems that it is.
The amendment also states that such agreements must be consistent with the SDGs, which aim to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030, leaving no one behind. They are wide ranging, covering women’s rights, health, education, the environment and much else. The UK has signed up to deliver them, not only internationally but domestically. In a later group, we will come back to amendments specifically on the environment, but that is central to the SDGs. Given that we have signed up to the SDGs, the Minister should simply be able to accept this provision.
The amendment also references international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The Minister will have noted the very powerful cross-party support for such an approach, and strong support in the Lords for the defence of human rights globally. I am sure that his Bill team will have correctly written “human rights” in the column that means that this issue will need to be addressed.
In Amendment 45, my noble friends Lord Purvis and Lady Kramer seek to make it a duty to bring human rights and equalities impact assessments of all trade deals before and after implementation. As my noble friend Lady Kramer pointed out, this is now routine within trade agreements. Clearly, this is a sine qua non and the Government should simply accept this amendment. I note the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this.
Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, protects against, for example, making a damaging trade deal with China. Parliamentary approval would be required if a trade deal were to be made with a signatory that was non-democratic and the trade deal affected critical infrastructure, as outlined here.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 11, a wide-ranging amendment, and make some general comments arising from it. I am particularly concerned about the relationship between leaving the single market—going it alone—and international law, because in various permutations there are a number of aspects that impact on a whole range of things here in this country and more widely, as quite a number of speakers have already pointed out this afternoon.
In particular, I would like to know how the Government would react to an international commitment, hitherto embedded in EU law but also part of international law, which they disliked. As we know from wider political debate over recent weeks, adherence to the rule of law is important—to Parliament, to the public and to the Government. On the other hand, one of the curious consequences of exercising sovereignty in its rawest form is that you are able to overrule the rule of law, whatever you might have signed up to previously.
Clearly, international law has a different impact at home and abroad, but the old, clear line of demarcation between home and abroad, and the relationship between the role of Parliament and the exercise of the prerogative is, I believe, mere fancy, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers. Decisions taken abroad, outside the jurisdiction, may not be directly enforceable in the courts at home, but they define a Government’s standing and credibility and, if implemented, can have a far greater impact on the UK than much domestic legislation.
For all this, I believe that the Committee is fully entitled to a cogent, understandable and comprehensive description of the Government’s approach to these matters, and that it should be given from the Dispatch Box to ensure the whole story—a kind of Pepper v Hart process. How this question is answered may very well determine how my votes are cast if and when amendments to the Bill are pressed: and I dare say that the same may be true for others.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will say at the outset that I was astonished by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. I shall not comment on it, but I thought it was astonishing—astonishingly negative, I might add. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was helpful in the sense that he correctly pointed out the obvious: namely, that the defects of Amendment 33, as he sees them, can be knocked into shape for Report. But that is the purpose of Committee, so I do not see it as a problem.
I was very proud to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree with everything he said. We have some serious issues regarding China. In the normal meaning of the word, it is clearly using slave labour, and has been for many years. The issue of predatory purchasing of products around the world is really serious.
I hope that the Minister will have picked up by now that there is a general lack of trust in the Government. This has been brought about, I have to say, by speeches from the Prime Minister and other senior Cabinet Ministers. There is a feeling that we want to cut corners and buccaneer our way round the world, as we used to do. All that means is dropping standards and, as I said at Second Reading, less transparency.
I will not go over the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He will not remember this, but the last time I followed him was in 1978, just after his maiden speech. I said a few complimentary things about it and the late Eric Heffer went absolutely berserk. A review of dependency on China is long overdue. If we are subject to 229 categories of dependency, of which 57 are critical, that is a strategic issue for the Government to look at with our partners and friends, whether inside or outside the EU.
I understand what infrastructure means. I do not have a problem with trade in infrastructure, which is different to the trade in goods. The water for the cup of tea I have just had was boiled in a kettle made in China. The shop where I purchased it had 16 models of electric kettle; every single one was made in China. I am sad to say that the trousers I am wearing—which I would not be standing up in the House of Lords in—were made in China. That is not infrastructure, but I understand what that is; it is listed in the amendment.
It is time for a disengagement. Only one country in the world is named after a family; China is actually owned by a political party. We have to take cognisance of that. It is not the Chinese people, or even the infrastructure of China. It is the co-ordinated effects of the Chinese Communist Party and we ought to be aware of that. So I wholly agree with the sentiments of and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
My message to the Minister is: there is a bit of a lack of trust in general, and the Government have to address that in this and other Bills. I too have been waiting for the telecoms Bill. Because of illness, I only got sworn in to the House in late June, so I could not participate in the debates on it, but there are some serious issues. I agree with the Government on telecoms; they are absolutely right. I agreed with Theresa May looking at Hinkley Point and I disagreed with the decision that was arrived at. These issues have to be looked at and addressed. The Minister has to take back to his colleagues that there is a general lack of trust in what the Government are saying and what they might do—hence these amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I am a firm believer in the need for democratic oversight of key procurement areas in international trade agreements. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave a comprehensive rationale for the amendment and why it should be placed on the face of the Bill.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House are deeply concerned about human rights violations in China and feel that, if it is going to be involved in critical infrastructure procurement deals, the deals have to be subject to legislative rigour by way of primary legislation and, maybe, to regulation by secondary legislation. It is well worth noting the commentary from the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, earlier today.
Having done some research in support of Amendment 33, I note that there have been considerable abuses by the Chinese against the Uighurs, as has already been referred to. There has been forced sterilisation of Uighur women, organ harvesting and detention of Uighur people into classified re-education camps. In fact, earlier this year Dominic Raab said there were “gross and egregious” human rights abuses. In view of what the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes—a former Governor of Hong Kong—have said, surely, based on their evidence and knowledge, it would be prudent to accept such an amendment in the Bill. The fact that they have also banned the Uighurs, who are Muslims, from fasting during Ramadan is a gross infringement of human rights and civil liberties. I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment and urge the Minister to give grave and positive consideration to ensuring that it is placed in the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I note that a number of noble Lords say that they are “rising” to speak to amendments in this Committee. Under the rules that have been set for us, when we are in the Chamber physically we still rise to speak; when we are in Grand Committee, the new rules say we must not rise to speak. We are positively prohibited from doing so. The authorities have not yet taken it on themselves to pronounce whether those speaking from a location other than the Palace of Westminster must rise or not, but I observe that those I have seen beamed in have not been rising while they say they are. I make a plea to return to normal language in how we describe what we are doing in this Committee.
Turning to the amendments, I was going to make the point, made so ably by my noble friend Lord Lansley, that these are continuity agreements and so the amendments that start off by trying to constrain regulations made under Clause 2(1) confine themselves to continuity agreements and no more. There are a lot of words that will have no real impact at all. In terms of continuity agreements, we should judge whether something is needed in the Bill by reference to what the Government have done in the continuity agreements that have already been agreed and been through the parliamentary process.
I do not think any noble Lords have raised any concerns whatever under the various headings included in these amendments in relation to those continuity agreements. I see no need to amend this Bill regarding continuity agreements for the matters that seem to be exercising noble Lords. Those associated with these amendments may well wish to reconstitute them to seek to deal with non-continuity agreements—that is, free trade agreements on an ongoing basis. I will therefore offer one or two comments on the amendments themselves.
Amendment 11 seems remarkably vague or difficult to interpret. There are a number of references to specific matters in international law and conventions, but there are also some quite loose words about children’s and women’s rights which are not confined to particular conventions or obligations. I suggest that they are too vague to be left in any amendment. I also note in Amendment 11 that we have introduced
“the primacy of human rights law”.
I do not think that there is primacy for any particular law or that we have a hierarchy of laws, whether established in this country or internationally. The wording of Amendment 11 is problematic.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I note that the guidance from the Procedure Committee says:
“Members have the permission of the House to speak from a seated position when participating remotely”—
which is standing order 26—
“and they must do so when participating physically in a hybrid Grand Committee”.
So there.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
Yes. I now call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham will not be participating, so she will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
I will speak in support of Amendment 33 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his commitment to the question of who we will become as a nation when we Brexit, and not just what we can get. This is an important moment for us, and the choices we make now will define the character of Britain for generations to come. We look back at our history with moments of extraordinary pride, and the stories we tell ourselves and our children are often rooted in the choices made by many in this House to build a nation on the principles that drive prosperity, not only economic prosperity but the prosperity that comes from an ethical vitality driven by people of character.
However, when we look back, there are also moments in our history when we might have wished to have chosen to do things differently had there been a moment to pause and check the path we were choosing. This amendment ensures that such a moment is created. We are being asked to consider what checks and balances will improve the wisdom of our choices, ensure our blind spots are challenged, and that we have a moment to consider the character of the nation we are, the one we are seeking to business with, their motivation for a deal and whether we have considered its impact on us and on their people.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the Government to bring trade deals to Parliament for ratification where they involve critical infrastructure and are being made with countries that are undemocratic. As someone who believes in free trade, why am I speaking to this amendment? Without adequate scrutiny, our sovereignty, safety and security are at risk. When a nation is undemocratic, its priorities are not the same as ours, which are the creation of prosperity through freedom of speech, respect for property rights—including intellectual property rights—the rule of law, equitable market access and a strong social contract between the public, government and business. If our trading partner’s objective is not the above but rather the strength of their state—and if their stated long-term ambition is the expansion and influence of their regime—our very sovereignty and the principles and values that define us as a nation could be undermined.
There are also issues of safety to be considered. The critical infrastructure named in this amendment—for communications, health, transport, food and water among others—is essential to the British people, and even more so in moments of crisis as we have just seen. Should provision in those sectors be withheld or slowed down, real harm would be created. As we move into an increasingly interconnected, networked world, our systems have become more productive but also more exposed.
There are also security challenges that we need to face up to and consider. Chinks in our security armour do not necessarily lead to hot war escalation, but we have seen recently in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia the subtlety and insidiousness of foreign interference. It is not just our security that we need to be wary of but that of our Five Eyes partners as well.
Britain is a global leader, so we should not underestimate our international influence. We demonstrate a standard not just for our neighbours but for emergent nations around the world. We do not want to set the standard that profit trumps national responsibility. At a time when soft power is bought and traded across Africa and the developing world, we need to demonstrate that true prosperity comes from upholding the principles and values of a democratic nation.
The amendment does not set out to block, cancel or modify existing trade agreements or to threaten or coerce our allies, neighbours and trading partners. It merely recognises that we need an effective mechanism whereby the wisdom of choices can be evaluated. The amendment is entirely reasonable. It does not argue that a trade agreement should not be reached, just that the Government should bring trade deals to Parliament for ratification where they involve critical infrastructure and are being made with countries which are undemocratic.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has just said. It resonated with me as I am sure it did with others, and we must take her arguments seriously.
We in this Committee are spending a great deal of time dealing with what in the end are second-order questions, because the first-order question is: what is the driving and determining force behind the proposed legislation? I am convinced that the omissions with which we are concerned are not oversights; they are part of a deliberate policy in driving towards an unregulated and, as some would see it, free society untrammelled by the responsibilities which we have grown to take so seriously over the decades.
That is why—the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, was right about this—it is essential to have these important amendments in the Bill, so that the muscle of Parliament is backed up by what is said in the legislation. I believe that most of us right across the party divides understand that the rule of law is not just a matter of law which we must in a disciplined way follow; it is a matter of rational conclusion about how we can order our affairs, best protecting and enhancing the well-being of our people.
The conventions to which the amendments refer are vital, including the conventions covering collective bargaining. Most important are the conventions governing the rights of children, who are very vulnerable and at risk in the world as it is at the moment. The amendments talk of parliamentary sovereignty, and that is right too, but that does not mean sovereignty for Number 10 or for the backroom boys there with their ideological commitments: it means real, effective parliamentary scrutiny, which is the essential essence of sovereignty. I know that many of those on the government Benches would not dissent from the analysis that I have given, but the trouble is that we are faced with driving forces that rely on populism and that are determined at all costs to fundamentally change the nature of our society.
The problem is not just the Bill that we are considering now: noble Lords should think of what is going on at the BBC at the moment. What are we about? We are at a real moment of destiny in our country; we really have to take the gravity of the situation extremely seriously. I therefore commend the amendments in this group; the sooner we have them in the Bill, the better.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to take part in this debate. I am speaking in support of Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had to say, particularly the detailed criticism voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was clear in his opening remarks that he was prepared to rewrite and scale back the amendment, but as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, is it not the purpose of Committee stage to test out ideas, see what noble Lords think, consider the Government’s response and then refine amendments for Report? I hope that the noble Lord, Lorde Alton, will stick to his guns on this and do just that.
My noble friend referred to the Henry Jackson Society report, Breaking the China Supply Chain, which, as he said, found that 229 separate categories of goods that the UK is strategically dependent on China for our supplies. As he said, it is surely right that we must consider moving the UK away from a position in which its economic dependency can be weaponised to discourage the UK from championing human rights or a rules-based order. As he said, my particular interest is in relation to the abhorrent practice of forced organ harvesting taking place in China and the importance of ensuring that the UK is in no way complicit in supporting it.
I raised this both in the telecommunications Bill and in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. So far, the Government have been disappointingly slow to respond, relying on the World Health Organization’s view that China is implementing an ethical voluntary organ transplant system. That is simply not credible; it is based solely on a self-assessment by China itself.
A much more objective assessment comes from the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The judgment released in March 2020 came to the conclusion that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and Falun Gong practitioners have been one—probably the main—source of organ supply. In regard to the Uighurs, the tribunal had evidence of medical testing on a scale that could allow them, among other uses, to become an organ bank. Adidas, Nike, Zara and Amazon are among the western brands currently benefiting, according to a coalition of civil society groups, from the forced labour of the Uighurs in Xinjiang. A shipment recently seized by US Customs and Border Protection in July included wigs made from human hair, which is hugely concerning, considering many reports and personal testimonies of female Uighur Muslims having their hair forcibly shaved in the camps.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I remain be-seated to beseech the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others to support Amendment 45 in this group. I shall try to address some of her specific points about that amendment a bit later.
It was very helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was able to take part in the debate on this group, and it is a pleasure to follow him. What he outlined very clearly, in many respects adding to what my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lady Northover said, is that it is now almost impossible to strip out human rights considerations from global trade. We require a degree of pragmatism from our Government in the scope of how much extra global trade we can have. Over the last couple of years, there has been a huge narrative saying that, once we are free of the shackles of the European Union, there will be massive growth potential in untapped markets around the world. Of course, there are constraints on that: in opening up those markets, there can be unfair access to our country that puts us at a disadvantage, or we can reduce standards or set them aside. That means setting aside new international norms on human rights and sustainability, inasmuch as they are a legitimate restriction on total and unlimited free trade.
The narrative therefore needs a degree of adjustment. I wish to address Amendment 45, which I hope is a reasonable addition to this debate but should also be seen within the package of Amendments 23 and 39, which are not in this group. It is about an overall framework of what the restrictions should be on our entering into trade agreements, the level of scrutiny that should exist and how we report on their impact. I hope that together they might allay some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, given what he said in the previous group about the need for a proper level of scrutiny.
Every year the Government publish a human rights and democracy report. This year, Human Rights and Democracy: the 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report ran to nearly 70 pages. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, prefaced it, after the Foreign Secretary, by saying:
“Every day, across the globe, UK Ministers and officials stand up for a set of universal rights that, if fully realised, would afford everyone, everywhere, dignity and allow people to flourish.”
I agree with him, and I am not sure that anybody would disagree with that. It is now inevitable, since we have an independent trading policy, that the impact of our trading relationships will have to be incorporated into our reporting. I am fairly open-minded as to how that is done, as long as it is done, and I am very happy to develop the idea further along the lines of the discussions suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. But I want to give a reason why it is also important and raise some questions for the Minister.
As we have said, it has become the practice for human rights to be part of the political and social chapters of trade deals. That has been the case over recent years and it has been the case in the EU common approach to the use of political clauses agreed in 2009. According to EU practice, in trade agreements human rights are to be included in EU political framework agreements under “essential elements clauses”. EU FTAs are to be linked to those political framework agreements. If no political framework agreement exists, essential elements clauses are to be included, and serious breaches of those clauses may trigger the suspension, in whole or in part, of the overall framework agreements. All the agreements, including the trade agreements, are linked. Are we seeking to continue this approach to future trade agreements? Will we deviate from an approach that we helped design in 2009?
My second point relates to Clause 2 powers, which we have already referred to this afternoon. I remind the Committee that it provides the authority to make regulations considered
“appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement”,
including those that make provision for modifying primary legislation that is retained EU law. The Minister referred to that during debate on the first group. I remind the Committee that retained EU law includes primary legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, the Energy Act 2013 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as referred to. Therefore, it is important to know that the implication of the regulation-making power in this Bill is an ability to change primary legislation on human rights. For example, the Equality Act gives effect to four EU law mandates: the race equality directive, the equal treatment directive, the equal treatment in goods and services directive and the equal treatment recast directive. Therefore, to allay many of the concerns, can the Minister tell us whether the Government will rule out using this regulatory power to amend primary human rights legislation? If he cannot give that commitment, I am afraid that he will have to appreciate that concerns about the Government’s intentions will remain, because the Bill has insufficient safeguards to ensure that human rights legislation, debated and voted on in primary legislation, cannot be amended by regulations.
Coming back to international trade, my final point concerns continuity and pragmatism. It is not the case that there has been no consideration of human rights in continuity agreements so far. I am a member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, which has written to the Government and the Minister about human rights considerations regarding trade and continuity agreements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We have agreements, that have been EU agreements, with Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Eswatini, Iraq, Kazakhstan and the Palestinian Authority. They are all classified by Freedom House as not free, but all those agreements have human rights components within them. I will be the first to say that this is not a panacea and that some—with Vietnam, for example—are fairly problematic, but they all exist. Therefore, if the Government are seeking powers over the next five years to amend those agreements by regulations, what are their intentions for the human rights clauses of those continuity agreements? If the Minister can clarify that, it will be very helpful.
Canada has been referred to in debate on this group and it is a very interesting example. The approach for Canada has developed beyond simply those that we have had for other continuity agreements. A European Parliament briefing on the CETA says that
“a particularly serious and substantial violation of human rights or non-proliferation, as defined in paragraph 3, could also serve as grounds for the termination of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.”
Therefore, for the first time, what is envisaged is not simply the suspension of trading relationships but the termination of those relationships—a nuclear option, as it were. One would imagine that that would never become the situation between Canada and the EU, but the possibility exists.
Given that it is government policy to have a Canada-style agreement, there is no reference in the draft text from the Government to the EU that they published over the summer to any equivalence for human rights. There is none at all. The only reference to human rights in the draft text would be to deny most favoured nation status to other third countries if they violate human rights. If we are to trust the Government, which the Minister says repeatedly for us to do, why is it that in their draft text for the EU agreement, they have not put in any draft text for any human rights clauses as far as we operate with the European Union? The very least we can do is to have the ability to ask the Government to report on its impacts.
With reference to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—and I will conclude on this point—the Government publish a comprehensive human rights and democracy report every year. That is not onerous; that is what the Government do. As they say, it underpins their foreign policy. With regard to sectors in our amendment, they are sectors linked to all of the sections within the agreement. That is fairly straightforward. When it refers to our commitments, and the countries we have signed commitments with, yes, it is the whole lot, because that also covers what we currently have within the Commission.
The only reference to human rights, in what the Government are proposing with future trade agreements, is other countries not adhering to them. We do not believe this is sufficient. I am very happy to speak to the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, if there is a better way of having this. Given the fact that trade is going to be a fundamental part of our foreign policy and our foreign relationships, we will require a reporting mechanism of the impact of trade on human rights for the United Kingdom and those we trade with.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, before I come to Amendments 11, 18, 33 and 45, I want to put on record that we have heard some very powerful views on human rights expressed by noble Lords in the Committee today. I deeply respect those views and when I say, with all due respect, they are not relevant to this Bill, which is about continuity agreements, I hope that is not in any way taken as me belittling those views that have been expressed. I would also like to put on record that we do not see it as a choice between securing growth and investment for the UK, and raising human rights. There is not a trade-off here that we are looking to make.
The UK is active in raising human rights concerns. In the case of China, it raises those concerns both directly with the Chinese authorities and in multilateral fora. For example, on 30 June the UK delivered a statement on behalf of 28 countries at the UN Human Rights Council, highlighting some of the matters that noble Lords have raised today—that is, highlighting arbitrary detention, widespread surveillance and restrictions, particularly those targeting Uighurs and other minorities, and urging China to allow the UN high commissioner for human rights meaningful access to Xinjiang. When I say these concerns are not relevant to the Bill, I am in no way say these concerns are not relevant in a wider context and deeply felt.
Coming to the amendments we have been debating today and turning first to Amendment 11, I am proud to say the UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. This will not change once we leave the EU. We have always been clear that we have no intention of lowering protections in these areas, as the Prime Minister set out in his Greenwich speech earlier this year. We are not engaged, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said or feared, in a race to the bottom. The bottom would not be an appropriate place for the United Kingdom to find itself.
It should come as no surprise that our continuity programme is consistent with existing international obligations as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements which, of course, are fully compliant with such obligations. By transitioning these agreements, we are reaffirming the UK’s commitment to international obligations on labour and human rights. As noble Lords know, we are seeking to provide certainty and stability in trading relationships for UK businesses and consumers through our trade agreement continuity programme.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just to put on record the issues I would have highlighted in my speech if I had not ineptly failed to identify the amendments to which I intended to speak, for which I apologise. I will have much more to say when we reach Amendment 68, on genocide, at later sittings.
It is a privilege to speak in support of Amendment 33. On 29 June I spoke in support of an amendment, also moved by my noble friend Lord Alton, to the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, saying:
“This is not about China or Chinese companies … It is a conflict of values between … democratic societies and repressive, cruel regimes”—[Official Report, 29/6/20; col. 529.]
such as China—and I would add today, as they are especially relevant, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
China is undertaking religious persecution of Muslims and Christians, using slave labour and incarcerating Uighurs in concentration camps, as noble Lords have already heard. There is also the enforced sterilisation of Uighur women in four prefectures, which would violate the 1948 Geneva convention.
The United States has banned imports, including cotton and computer parts, from five regions in China, claiming that these extraordinary human rights violations demand an extraordinary response. This is modern-day slavery. As I finish my brief resumé, for the protection of our national security, our national interest and our values, I believe Amendment 33 is essential and Parliament should have the right to ratify trade agreements.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. I have carefully noted them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am conscious of time and I will try to be brief. We had an interesting discussion because this was a good group, even though it was quite widely drawn. We touched on the limits and what the Government should have to say about their policies going into negotiations. We talked about what aspirations they might have, how they go forward and the scrutiny arrangements that should follow. Out of that came a sense, that we all shared, that if you wanted evidence that trade matters to Parliament, this debate and particularly the section on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, proved that we were talking about substantial issues at the heart of what we think about a democracy and that are important for how we relate to society more widely.
Having said that, we should not forget the earlier discussions, particularly those led by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Hain. I thought that the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble friend Lord Judd, were also important and I also appreciated the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. We covered a lot of ground, have a lot to think about and will read Hansard carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord McLoughlin
Introduction: Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
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 brief.
Covid-19: Child Trafficking
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how measures to protect the victims of child trafficking have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, protecting those at risk from abuse and exploitation is a priority for this Government. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have continued to monitor and respond to the impact of Covid-19. Working with local authorities which are responsible for children, the Government have ensured that specialist support remains fully operational so that these children can access support remotely. The Government took action to safeguard vulnerable children by providing an additional £500 million for communities, including children’s services.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minster for the response. Evidence from the UN human rights report on the consequences of Covid-19 shows that the risk of online sexual exploitation of children has increased because parents, devoid of income, are turning to illegal methods of getting money, including selling videos of their own children being abused. What action have the Government taken since this evidence came to light in order to crack down on this appalling exploitation of innocent children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wholeheartedly concur with the noble Baroness’s concerns—concerns that the Prime Minister also shares. She will recall that he opened the virtual hidden harms summit in order to drive action to tackle domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation and modern slavery, which, as she has said, often now can take place online.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. No? I call the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, would the Government consider rolling out across the country child guardians for the benefit of the foreign children who have been trafficked here?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness will probably know that we have already rolled them out in a third of local authorities in England and Wales. That work is progressing, starting with those areas with the highest need in requiring independent guardians for children who have been trafficked.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, last weekend, in Trafalgar Square, alongside the anti-maskers and the anti-vaxxers were conspiracy theorists who believe that an international elite is kidnapping children for abuse, sacrifice and to drink their blood—an insidious resurgence of historical anti-Semitic blood libel. These people have hijacked the legitimate concerns about child trafficking and abuse. This vile nonsense is circulating increasingly widely and, worryingly, is gaining credence. What are the Government going to do to combat it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will want, as I do, to see the online harms White Paper become a Bill in Parliament. Much work is going on to tackle that sort of abuse, which is probably on the increase during the Covid pandemic. On conspiracy theorists of all descriptions—including anti-vaxxers and those against 5G masts, which we saw at the beginning—clearly that sort of misinformation can be incredibly harmful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the role of local authorities. Covid-19 has led to the scaling back of some crucial local services, one of which is on-site workplace inspections to identify child and adult victims of trafficking and rescue them. Can the Government tell the House how many inspections have been carried out since the start of the pandemic?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised that I do not have that figure at my fingertips, but I can tell him that we are very mindful of the dangers that children and people who are vulnerable to trafficking might face during this pandemic. The Government recently gave £500 million for local pressures, which the issue he mentioned might come under, and have given local authorities a total of £3.7 billion to acknowledge and deal with issues of vulnerability.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister advise your Lordships’ House what discussions have taken place at ministerial level with the devolved regions about online child trafficking, particularly in the Covid crisis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness will probably know that we are in regular contact with the devolved Administrations on Covid and lots of other things. It is important that they are not only engaged but in agreement with some of the actions that we are taking.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, what part does the Minister believe can be fulfilled completely by local authorities? Can they be encouraged? They have always been closely involved in helping these people and it is important that their role continues. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend. Local authorities are of course the responsible authorities as the corporate parents of children, for whom they have a duty of care.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Save the Children reported that children make up a quarter of trafficking victims. Do the Government agree that a lack of safe, legal asylum routes for unaccompanied children puts them at risk of people traffickers and that, particularly during Covid-19, this has led to an increase in dangerous journeys across the channel in small boats, in addition to journeys in the backs of lorries? If the Government agree, what protection, including safe routes, will they put in place for such unaccompanied children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will know that we have safe and legal routes. I say it time and again: we do not want children to make the terrible, perilous journey in those small boats to this country. It is also worth acknowledging that 65% of trafficking victims are in fact UK nationals.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, access to EU police databases and co-operation with multilingual officers has been crucial in helping to track and prevent transnational crime, such as child trafficking. What assessment has been made of how the pandemic could compound the impact of our leaving the EU on access to these resources and personnel?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Government see it as very important that we continue not only to share such data but to have access to it. To that end, it is a top priority going forward.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am concerned about the child victims of trafficking who are coerced into illegal activities, such as working in cannabis factories. These children may be caught and prosecuted, while those who run the factories escape. How will our overstretched children’s services support such victims in these challenging times?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness will recall that, through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Government introduced the statutory defence for victims of modern slavery to protect those really vulnerable people who would previously have been unfairly prosecuted, as she said, for crimes that they were forced to commit by their exploiters—notably, as she mentioned, in cannabis cultivation.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, support for the victims of child trafficking is obviously vital, but so is the prosecution of the perpetrators responsible. What action are the Government currently taking internationally to ensure a higher level of prosecution of those responsible for child trafficking? How can we ensure that, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, the UK, as a “force for good” in the world, does more to achieve that goal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord may recall the NCA swoop of a few months ago that pulled in many illicit articles and items. You cannot look at child trafficking in isolation; it is part of a package of drugs, guns, trafficking and child sexual exploitation, and it can be tackled effectively only at an international level.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
Is the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, online? No. All supplementary questions have been asked and we will now move to the next Question.
Female Offender Strategy
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the level of funding that has been provided to the Female Offender Strategy launched in June 2018, and (2) whether such funding is sufficient to implement the Strategy fully.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to ensuring sufficient funding for the female offender strategy, which we keep under review. To date, we have invested £5.1 million in the strategy in 30 different women’s services across England and Wales. In 2021, we will invest a further £2.5 million to meet core costs in the women’s community sector. In addition, we have been allocated up to £800,000 to support the development of our first residential women’s centre in Wales.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Given the amount of money that the MoJ spends each year, the high cost of reoffending and the relatively small number of female offenders, why have the Government seemingly invested so little in their own strategy? When will we hear details of the implementation of the strategy, given that it all seems to have gone very quiet?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate and I thank her for the work that I know she does for the Nelson Trust. There are a number of achievements so far. I could read them out, but I do not think I have time. I am very happy to meet with the right reverend Prelate to discuss these things further. I would also like to say, for the Nelson Trust, that we have invested in a brand new women’s centre in Bridgwater.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I note my membership of the Advisory Board for Female Offenders. The Government have committed to fund community provision as an alternative to custody, where appropriate, for female offenders. But, as the Minister has recognised, only £5.1 million has actually been allocated since the publication of the strategy. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the necessary funding is committed to comprehensive community sentences, including primary and secondary mental health treatment requirements and community-based women’s support services, especially a national network of women’s centres?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and I repeat that we have put in £2.5 million this year particularly for community sentences. For female offenders, community sentences often can be far better than sentencing them to prison. We will work to support the women’s centres—of which we have, we think, around 200 across the country, run by different private or voluntary sector organisations.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, two years ago the Government saved £50 million by not building five women’s prisons and, as the Minister said, £5 million has since been spent on community provision, with an additional £2.5 million to come. The MoJ’s advisory board has urged the Government to allocate £20 million. Would the Minister agree that £20 million would still be a small price to pay in terms of the social value that it would bring?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Yes, of course, the more money we have the better but, when we talk about the prison estate, we are investing £2.5 billion and some of that will, of course, will go to the women’s estate. It is not just about additional places. It is also about really good modern purpose-built accommodation within the closed estate, and good outside experiences for women who are suitable for open conditions.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, the £2.5 million announced in May is a welcome addition to the Female Offender Strategy. Nearly 60% of women entering prison have experienced domestic abuse. There has been a clear increase in domestic abuse, with mental health and other issues increasing during the Covid pandemic. Does the Minister have confidence that the Female Offender Strategy is still fit for purpose and, if not, what changes are being considered to take account of the new demands?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We do remain committed to the strategy. We also think that it is flexible enough, within its policies, to be able to deal with the situation we find ourselves in at the moment. The Government have also given £76 million to support very vulnerable people during the pandemic, £2.5 million of which came from the Ministry of Justice to charities supporting victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence. We also, let us not forget, launched the new You Are Not Alone campaign during the pandemic, which is helping victims. They include female offenders, of course, as we help those who are victims of domestic abuse during the lockdown and pandemic period.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, would the Minister tell me what steps she has taken to ensure that, in the sentencing of female offenders, the courts do so to custody only in cases where there really is no alternative?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble and learned Lord brings up an extremely important point. One of the biggest issues is to make sure that pre-sentencing assessments are done very well by very experienced and trained people. We are also working with the health community to make sure that, before sentencing, any health issues of offenders are dealt with in accordance with the new rules.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The Female Offender Strategy was well received in 2018. The concern is about whether or not it is being effectively implemented. Paragraph 76 of the strategy says:
“We are committing to work with partners to develop a ‘residential women’s centres’ pilot in at least five sites across England and Wales.”
Could the Minister tell us how many of those five pilot sites are up and running, and what the plans for those that are not are?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think I answered the noble and learned Lord’s question earlier: no, we have not delivered the five, but we are in the later stages of delivering the first one, as a pilot in Wales, and we have put forward £800,000 to do that.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, last week the Secretary of State for Justice published a sentencing White Paper, in which there was mention of funding, announced in May, for the development of residential centres, the first of which, we have heard, is being built in Wales. Can the Minister please tell the House how many centres the funding provides for and where these are to be built?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The £800,000 funding that was announced is for the first centre in Wales. We will be looking at how that works, and will be looking for sites to add the four more that we have said we will deliver across the country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s answer to earlier questions and the conclusion of the National Audit Office in February that a succession of plans for prisons have disintegrated almost as soon as they have been announced, can she really stand there in the House and say that in particular community-based interventions—the most effective for women prisoners—are effectively resourced?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, my Lords, I can, because it is a package of commitments from the Government, and an important one for the community services will be the new National Probation Service.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of Safe Ground. Do the Government recognise the value that can be brought to the management of women in the justice system by high-quality specialist services, by collaboration between such services and by local providers? Will they therefore work with them outside their dynamic purchasing system which, contrary to general government policy, is heavily biased against small providers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. What he talks about is in the strategy called whole-systems approach, I think. With the whole-systems approach, where the private, public and voluntary sector work together, and particularly where they work with women’s centres, they start to deliver really good services that work. It is important also to remember that the Ministry of Justice put another £275,000 in this year to help those small voluntary sector organisations through the pandemic.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this question has elapsed.
Hong Kong: Political Situation
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current political situation in Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned by the situation in Hong Kong. The new national security law is a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration and directly threatens a number of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. The UK will not look the other way on Hong Kong and we will not duck our historic responsibilities to its people. We will continue working with partners to hold China to its international obligations.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, China has broken its treaty obligations—I am sure the Minister agrees that we must never do the same with any of ours—suspended elections in Hong Kong, and compromised the judiciary, the free press and free speech. Will the Government extend the pathway to citizenship beyond BNO passport holders to the many young Hong Kongers who are currently excluded, but are particularly vulnerable to intimidation and arbitrary arrest?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree that the situation for all people in Hong Kong is challenging at the moment. Recent arrests after the national security law was brought in have put that into focus. The BNO route, which was announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, provides direct assistance, as we promised. Anyone else, from anywhere in the world, who seeks the protection of the UK because of persecution will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the introduction and implementation of the national security law by China has rightly been described as a watershed moment for human rights and academic and press freedoms. One part of the Government’s response that we have heard about is the fast-track UK citizenship proposal, but I ask the Minister to say more about how this pathway is to be implemented, how many he expects to tread this route and whether there will be a transparent process for taking up these opportunities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have already announced how that route will operate. As I previously said, around 2.9 million people currently in Hong Kong qualify for BNO status and will be allowed to apply for the scheme.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, how can Her Majesty’s Government credibly condemn China for reneging on the Sino-British declaration, when they threaten to renege on the EU withdrawal agreement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am proud that Her Majesty’s Government have stood up and will continue to stand up for the rights of all citizens around the world who are subjected to persecution and human rights abuses. We have a special responsibility to Hong Kong and we continue to raise the broader issue of the abuse of human rights in China. The United Kingdom continues to defend and stand up for international law and the international rules-based system.
Baroness Hooper (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what effect the deteriorating situation and restrictions on academic freedom, in particular those imposed by the new national security law—for example, students and teachers are being required to monitor each other’s compliance—are having or are likely to have on British schools, universities and teachers operating in Hong Kong? What is the impact on the work of the British Council?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises important points. We continue to review the situation in Hong Kong. Recent arrests of pro-democracy activists have been particularly concerning, but I assure my noble friend that we continue to ensure appropriate protections for all British citizens within Hong Kong.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is not the answer, when dealing with the multiple challenges of a resurgent China, to create alliances with like-minded countries and to be willing to confront or contain, as appropriate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. It is why, at the last Human Rights Council, the UK led a statement of 28 like-minded countries. As I am sure the noble Lord followed, on 25 September, I delivered a statement standing up for this, which was supported by many international partners.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, after the violent and public arrest of a 12 year-old girl, what representation have the Government made to the Hong Kong Executive to investigate police brutality through an independent and judge-led inquiry?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point about the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong. That is why we are concerned about the implications of the national security law. We continue to raise issues around the case she has mentioned, alongside those of other under-18s who have been arrested, with the Hong Kong authorities and bilaterally with China.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch. Can the Minister comment on the arrest, and detention in a jail in Shenzhen, of Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Andy Li, whom I met while monitoring elections in Hong Kong last year? I have sent the details to the Minister. What are we doing to ensure that his family have access to him, that he is returned safely and unharmed to Hong Kong, and that due process is observed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, FCDO officials in Hong Kong raised specific concerns about these cases with the Chinese authorities on 23 September, and I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to do so.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. It is clear that we need to build international support for the people of Hong Kong. The Government have indicated that they are open to supporting a dedicated UN envoy for the crisis in Hong Kong. With recent press reports of an even stronger clampdown on freedoms, is it not time for the UK to spearhead a campaign for such an envoy and to bring other countries on board—to lead, rather than follow?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord agrees that we are leading. The United Kingdom led the two joint statements that were made through the UN machinery. I already mentioned the recent statement I made at the Human Rights Council. Equally, at my recent meeting with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, we again stressed the importance of her visit, both for unfettered access to Xinjiang and to monitor the human rights situation in China more generally.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the UN Human Rights Council last week, the Minister noted that 1.8 million people have so far been detained without trial under Hong Kong’s national security law. Will the UK respond with actions that include, for example, campaigning to suspend extradition treaties with Hong Kong and China to prevent extradition under this draconian law? What about introducing Magnitsky-style sanctions on the perpetrators of human rights abuses under the national security law?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the UK has already suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and applies the same rules to China. On Magnitsky sanctions, as I have said before, I will not speculate on future sanctions.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, how many of the 2.9 million BNO passport holders have responded to the offer of an immigration visa? Have the Government reached a decision on the Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans’ appeal to be granted full British citizen passports, which was first raised six years ago, or replied to the 64 individual veterans’ applications sent to the Home Secretary in March?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the first question, this is an ongoing process. I do not have a specific figure, nor do I think it would serve a specific purpose. The scheme is open to all 2.9 million and we will continue to support any applications. On the point about former military personnel, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, a proportion of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps hold British dependent territory citizen status. That now translates to BNO status. On his wider point about those who remain, officials continue to have discussions with Home Office colleagues.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, some 20 years ago, I set up and ran a Hong Kong committee within the China group to inform itself of what was going on in China. Would it be a good idea for the Government to set up something like this again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note my noble friend’s suggestion and will reflect on it. I assure my noble friend and all noble Lords that we are watching the situation in China specifically, particularly that of human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. I have said before, and reiterate, that we want a progressive relationship with China. China it is an important partner on the world stage, when it comes to the challenges of climate change and the Covid pandemic. Therefore, it is important that it stands up for the rights not just of others but of its own citizens. We will continue to raise issues of the abuse of human rights anywhere in the world.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Licensing: Closing Time
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Licensing Act 2003 to allow local authorities to take action against premises that are not enforcing the 10 pm closing time.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we expect that licensed premises will act responsibly and abide by the new rules on opening hours. We are satisfied that proper enforcement mechanisms are available to the police and local authorities to take action against businesses that fail to comply.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, as a former council leader, the Minister will know better than most the impact of the universal closing time on our high streets. It is no surprise that the police, the LGA, mayors and leaders are all expressing their concerns, not only about the impact of the return to the bad old days but about their ability to enforce appropriately. Without effective enforcement, they feel like these are the empty threats of the teacher who has already lost control of the class. When and how will this policy be reviewed? Can the Minister commit to meeting soon with the LGA to listen to and act on its genuine concerns regarding the limitations of current legislation and, with their genuine desire to do more and better, councils’ ability to enforce effectively and appropriately?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I depart from the noble Baroness on needing more legislation, or amendment to the current legislation. The Covid-secure guidelines have become legal obligations. Businesses will be fined and could be closed if they breach the rules. I do not see that an amendment to the Licensing Act, which I think she is referring to and would require primary legislation because it departs from the four current pillars, would be appropriate at this time, because we need swift action.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, in respect of the 10 pm curfew, which is causing so much of a problem for the hospitality sector, have the Government assessed whether the law could be tempered by guidance, giving publicans and restaurant proprietors, who are generally responsible people, a degree of flexibility over drinking and eating-up times, so that dispersal problems might be eased?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, guidance has been issued and the guidelines have become legal obligations. It should not be difficult to comply, but I can understand that from many people’s point of view these things have happened quickly and that they are ever-changing; such is the pattern of this virus.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my various interests and acknowledge that health always comes first. The hospitality industry employs 4 million people and has been one of the hardest hit throughout the pandemic. The British Beer and Pub Association said:
“Make no mistake, a 10 pm curfew will devastate our sector during an already challenging environment for pubs … During the current circumstances every hour of trading is crucial to the survival of pubs—for many this curfew will render their businesses unviable.”
Can the Minister explain on what scientific basis the 10 pm decision was made? I understand that fewer than 5% of new infections come from the hospitality sector, and our trade evidence shows that 10% of drinks are consumed after 10 pm. Will the Government put in place further comprehensive support packages for this sector that really needs help?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, there is a general acknowledgement that the sector is struggling with an hour of its business being cut. The scientific basis is that the number of infections is going up, and the Government, through their engagement with SAGE, are thinking of the best ways to tackle the virus while keeping the economy going as best they can.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support whatever legal arrangements are in place, but regarding 10 pm breaches, may I suggest that the authorities have powers, which will take a week or two to settle in, not only to fine, clear and close premises, but to require from premises and personal licensees and their dedicated premises supervisors a written assurance on future compliance with the law, and in default to subject them to a form of aggravated breach penalty payment—in other words, an increased fine?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that this system is in place. The fines do go up, from £1,000 to £10,000. It would be an unusual licensee who wished to have several £10,000 fines.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. The people who do the work covered by regulations in these premises, and not just at kicking-out time, are environmental staff on district councils in two-tier areas, yet the powers to enforce and, if necessary, to close down for a period, rest at county level with public health. Should the powers not be aligned with the people who do the work on the ground at district level?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Coming from a county authority, the noble Lord will know that quite often the powers lie at county level regarding planning and other things. It is important that, whether we represent organisations or individuals, everyone plays their part in ensuring that the restrictions can be lifted as swiftly as possible.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. While I full support the intent behind the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister, there is a real problem with how this is playing out. Shop workers are at the forefront of dealing with violence, threats and abuse, as people who in many cases have had more than enough to drink seek to buy more alcohol from shops, supermarkets and off-licences. Can the Minister today commit to a proper and urgent review taking account of the additional risks that shop workers face, as the shop workers’ union, USDAW, have called for?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot commit to a review, as the noble Lord will know, but I acknowledge that, whether it is a shop worker or a publican whom people are frustrated at, and whether through the lack of freedom over the last few months or because they have drunk too much, these things are happening in shops. I will certainly take this back and I am very happy to speak to him further about this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I share the scepticism expressed by some previous speakers. The 10 pm closing time is, to my mind, mistaken from an economic and a social perspective. If there is to be a curfew, it should start at 11 pm, to allow two servings in restaurants, clubs and pubs serving food, and to prevent huge crowds spilling out on to our streets and into our off-licences and shops, causing yet more mingling. Can my noble friend the Minister publish the scientific evidence on this measure? What will be the cost? What will the police and the local authorities stop doing instead?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but SAGE is an independent body and anything it publishes is down to it. On her point about an 11 pm curfew, that is what we had until recently. When making their decisions, the Government strike a balance—I know my noble friend disagrees—between suppression of the virus and trying to keep the economy going to some extent.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the last two speakers intimated, when restaurants and pubs close, consumers dive into other sources for their alcohol. Will the Minister explain why the Government refuse to listen to local authorities, such as the Mayor of Manchester, that want alcohol sales after 9 pm stopped?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I acknowledge all the views of noble Lords who want the curfew later, and I know the Mayor of Manchester wants the curfew earlier, but the Government have to balance the economic effect with the effect of the virus going up.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Performing Arts: Job Support Scheme
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Jobs Support Scheme on live performing arts organisations.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I remind the House of my interests as listed in the register.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed more than £190 billion to deal with the Covid pandemic and to support the economy and jobs. This includes a £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund to support arts and cultural organisations. While furlough was previously the right intervention, we must recognise that the virus will be with us for a while, so our economic support needs to evolve. Businesses must adapt and receive support that helps them to do that. The job support scheme is targeted at businesses that can support their employees doing some work but which need time for demand to recover.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer and I hear what she says, but does she not accept that the effect of the Chancellor’s post-furlough arrangements is that many perfectly good businesses in the performing arts sector will become unviable because they are not allowed to operate under the current restrictions? The Culture Recovery Fund has still not reached theatres and production companies. Arts organisations are already making staff redundant and some will not survive, despite huge pent-up demand for their services. Many freelancers, who make up 70% of the workforce, have been, and remain, unable to access any government emergency funds. As the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre made clear last week, the Chancellor’s announcements do little, if anything, to help. Will the Government act now to provide further sector-specific support to prevent irreversible damage to one of our most successful industries?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, performing arts organisations can benefit from the job support scheme. We understand that although performances are allowed indoors and outdoors with social distancing and there is no set limit on audience numbers, the need for venues to adhere to social distancing guidance can make it very difficult for them to operate profitably. That is why we have the Culture Recovery Fund. The noble Baroness is right that that money has not yet been distributed, but I reassure her that DCMS and the associated arm’s-length bodies have been processing more than 4,000 applications for more than £880,000 million of grant funding, and announcements will be made about hundreds of allocations in the coming weeks.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on asking this Question, and I thank the Minister for her response. However, does she recognise—I think that she does—that thousands of jobs in the arts community are at risk, especially in local communities? Does she also recognise the valuable work that they do in a variety of locations—for example, in care homes and through street theatre? Can the Government look at ways of assisting local authorities to support these vital jobs? I understand that they are processing lots of applications but, in the meantime, these jobs really are at risk.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think that the Government do recognise that these jobs are at risk, and the Job Support Scheme is open to these organisations. Some will have benefited from the VAT cut, the business rates holidays and local government funds and grants. However, the Culture Recovery Fund is the big government policy that will provide further support, and that will come online within the next few weeks.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, 36% of freelancers in the performing arts receive no support from the Self-employment Income Support Scheme and will get none under the new scheme. However, in Wales, yesterday, it was announced that a freelancer pledge is to be established and that some of the Culture Recovery Fund is to provide grants for their excluded freelancers. Are there any plans to do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of any specific plans to do that, but the noble Lord is correct that these organisations may use the Culture Recovery Fund to employ freelancers or staff to put on performances and offer other services. Through that route, they can provide support to freelancers.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that those in the arts industry and in leisure will not enjoy a rapid recovery from the pandemic. Even in good times, business rates had a disproportionate effect on the leisure industry and the arts because of the number of large buildings that they occupied in towns and city centres. The current holiday is very welcome. Will my noble friend keep in mind the need for the holiday and, as things start to improve, will she look at the possibility of business rates not being imposed on the arts industry immediately but being phased in?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the business rates holiday applies for the year 2020-21. The Government will in future keep under review all the policies that they have put in place to support businesses and arts organisations.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the winter economic plan, including the Job Support Scheme, is bold and will, I hope, save hundreds of thousands of viable jobs this winter. However, will the Government acknowledge that the Chancellor’s announcements will not help everyone, especially when the medium-term outlook for some sectors, such as hospitality and the creative industries, looks so uncertain? Do they agree that further business support for these sectors might be required, including in relation to business rates? Do they also agree that there is a huge requirement to provide people with the skills that they need for the jobs of the future?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have recognised the specific pressure that certain sectors are under, and extending the 5% VAT cut until the end of March is one measure that they have taken. We also recognise that not every job will be saved, and that is why we have invested £2 billion in the Kickstart jobs scheme for young people. I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making further announcements on skills training today.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, is it not the case that a theatre or concert hall that simply cannot open, and therefore cannot provide even partial employment for staff or contracted freelancers, cannot gain any benefit at all from the new jobs scheme? Surely we desperately need to provide something better for this sector, not just through the Culture Recovery Fund, or we will lose the very heart of our cultural life.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government completely recognise the importance of the cultural sector to the British way of life and to people’s morale during this difficult time. As I said, it is possible for theatres and other arts organisations to reopen. We recognise that they have specific challenges with the costs of reopening, given that they might not be able to do so at full capacity. The Job Support Scheme might help them with that, but there are a number of other schemes in place that will also help organisations with the additional costs that they face if they are not able to operate at full capacity.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister has heard, the UK’s vibrant and successful creative sector, particularly the parts that support local communities, is angry because the Treasury’s original one-size-fits-all scheme did not reach the freelancers and self-employed who make this sector viable. The DCMS schemes are taking too long and, in any case, are focused on the national companies and their London buildings. On top of that, it was deeply unhelpful of the Chancellor to stress that his priority was to protect jobs in “viable” businesses. Will the Minister confirm on the record that the Government believe that the creative industries are a vital and important component of the economy, and will she agree that rather than question the sector’s viability, what is now needed is a sector-specific winter economy plan along the lines of the £7 million scheme just announced by the Welsh Government, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foster?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government absolutely believe that the cultural sector is a vital and important part of the UK economy. That is why we have put in a specific scheme to support that sector with £1.57 billion. If I understand it rightly, the initiative announced by the Welsh Government is a reflection of that money that has gone in.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
Will the Minister accept that the issue here is not that nightclubs, theatres, concert halls and other live venues are not viable; it is that they cannot operate under the Government’s rules? Surely the Chancellor needs to put in place a different support scheme for those businesses, and the freelancers and self-employed who work within them, that are prevented from working and operating not because they are long-term unviable but because of the Government’s rules.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe that the Government understand and accept that. That is why we have put record funding into the cultural sector through the recovery fund.
Lord Aberdare (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that over a third of musicians are considering leaving the sector and that many freelance musicians do not even qualify for the support that is currently available, what prospects can the Minister offer to freelancers who remain ineligible for the extended Self-employment Income Support Scheme either because they have only recently started work or because their work is split between paid and freelance, or because they are paid via dividends as small business owners?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, although the Culture Recovery Fund has not been dispersed yet, the DCMS has provided £3.36 million in emergency funding, which has been allocated to support 135 grass-roots music venues. Support for the self-employed was extended as part of the winter economy plan. For those who do not qualify for that support, the application period for bounce-back loans was also extended. The repayment period for bounce-back loans was extended to up to 10 years, and that can nearly halve the monthly repayments for those who are eligible and choose to take out those loans.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as listed in the register. The heart of the cultural industries in this country lies with freelancers, and at the moment that heart is being ripped from the body. I ask the Minister to look at one or two specific schemes. The one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, as being used in Wales, is a very practical idea to give some help to a really challenged freelance section.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely commit to noble Lords that I will take the specifics of that scheme back to the DCMS and the Treasury, if appropriate, to look at how it is proposed to operate and whether it can be integrated into the operation of the Culture Recovery Fund.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fairs and Showgrounds, which includes circuses, can I ask the Minister if she agrees that these groups are of great value to the culture and heritage in the UK and much loved by the public? If so, does she also agree they clearly fall within the definition of live performing arts groups and qualify for assistance under the scheme announced by the Chancellor last week?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the enjoyment derived from going to a fair or a circus. On his point about their eligibility under the scheme, I am afraid that I do not have that level of granular detail before me, so I will write to the noble Lord with that.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the arts and creative industries find themselves at the bottom of the Chancellor’s new economic package. However, they are an enormous help in sustaining well-being in the current Covid-19 pandemic. Will the Minister consider a further temporary lowering of VAT and an expansion of the Culture Recovery Fund to ensure the continuing viability of this important sector of our economy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the arts and culture to our well-being, but I have to disagree with him that it is at the bottom of the Chancellor’s list. In fact, the VAT cut extension which the noble Lord has called for was delivered as part of the Winter Economy Plan, which was due to end in January but has been extended to March. The plan has been designed to see us through the next six months, which the Prime Minster has said these measures could be in place for, and we will continue to prioritise the arts and culture as an incredibly important part of our national fabric.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 September.
Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 July be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the instrument before you includes the measures to phase out the supply of the most polluting fuels used in the home. These fuels are traditional house coal and wet wood, or wood with a moisture content of more than 20% when sold in units under two cubic metres. It also introduces sulphur and smoke emission limits for manufactured solid fuels. These measures will come into force in a staged process from 1 May 2021 to 2023.
As noble Lords will know, the Government have made a commitment in the clean air strategy to tackle harmful emissions from domestic burning and to improve air quality. In February, the Government published national statistics on emissions of air pollutants in the UK. It is clear from these statistics that domestic burning is a major source of fine particulate matter emissions. These emissions can have a considerable impact on human health. The tiny particles can enter the bloodstream and internal organs, leading to long-term illness and reduced life expectancy, mainly due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Indeed, the World Health Organization has identified fine particulate matter as the most damaging pollutant in its impact on human health. Given this, the Government consider it vital to take action to protect the health of householders and their neighbours.
We know, of course, that domestic burning is not the only source of fine particulate matter emissions. However, while we have secured a reduction in the amount of emissions from transport and industry, emissions from domestic burning are increasing. The clean air strategy states that we should be looking beyond transport and industry and we should now take steps to deal with pollution from other sources including the pollution caused by heating our homes. The instrument before us will make a substantial contribution towards the reduction of fine particulate matter emissions, which are causing considerable harm.
The Government also recognise that better management and restoration of our peat-lands is needed. We have always been clear of the need to phase out the rotational burning of protected blanket bog to conserve these vulnerable habitats; we are now looking at how legislation could achieve this.
I want to set out in broad terms what the instrument before us will do and make clear what it will not do. The regulations introduce measures which will apply to domestic burning only. The measures will not apply to businesses or the heritage sector. The regulations do not ban domestic burning. We are fully aware that many people enjoy using open fires and wood- burning stoves; we are not looking to stop them. Instead, we are looking for people to move from using more polluting fuels to less polluting fuels. That is why we are phasing out the sale of traditional house coal and wet wood sold in smaller volumes, and requiring that all manufactured solid fuels meet sulphur and smoke emission limits. These regulations will enable people to make informed choices and source cleaner fuels, thereby protecting the health of their families and neighbours.
I will now set out in more detail why it is necessary to regulate the supply of each of the fuels regulated through this legislation—that is, traditional house coal, wet wood and manufactured solid fuels. The amount of fine particulate matter emitted from the domestic burning of coal is less than that emitted by burning wood. However, the Government have taken into account evidence indicating the level of harm that the emissions from coal can cause. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has advised that the smoke from burning coal is carcinogenic. The agency has also highlighted the harmful elements and compounds which are released when coal is burned. These include arsenic, mercury, lead, fluorine and selenium. It is government policy to reduce people’s exposure to these more harmful pollutants, as set out in the clean air strategy. That is why we need to regulate the supply of coal used in the domestic setting. These regulations will encourage people to switch from traditional house coal to smokeless coal and low-sulphur manufactured solid fuels.
The regulations also tackle the domestic burning of wet wood. Burning this type of wood releases significantly more fine particulate matter, smoke and soot than burning wood which has been seasoned. Our estimates indicate that 24%—or nearly a quarter—of all the wood burned domestically is burned at least partly wet. We understand that wood burned in smaller units is more likely to be bought for immediate use. Under these regulations, wood sold in smaller units must have a moisture content of 20% or less. It will be easy to tell whether wood meets the new requirements. To be sold in these smaller units, the wood will need to be certified and bear a logo indicating that this is the case.
The regulations encourage people to switch from traditional house coal to manufactured solid fuels. We want to avoid unintended consequences arising from this switch in fuels, and we want industry to manufacture these solid fuels to the cleanest specifications. Unlike coal, the amount of sulphur and smoke emitted by these fuels can be controlled. That is why these regulations extend the sulphur and smoke emission limits which currently apply in smoke control areas across England. This will mean that manufactured solid fuels sold throughout England will need to meet a 2% sulphur limit and emit less than 5 grams of smoke per hour. Again, it will be easy to tell whether a fuel meets these requirements, as all fuels of this type will need to bear a logo showing that they have been tested and certified.
The Government are aware of concerns that these regulations could have a negative impact on people who are reliant on coal and are in fuel poverty. We have taken these concerns very seriously, and we want people in fuel poverty to share in the benefits of this legislation. We consider that they should be protected from the harmful effects of more polluting fuels just as much as anyone else. We have commissioned research which indicates that they may also be better off financially, as manufactured solid fuels have been shown to be cheaper than coal when energy efficiency is taken into account.
We recognise that vulnerable people who are used to burning coal will need some time to adjust and make the switch to appropriate alternative fuels. That is why these regulations include a transitional period when approved coal merchants will be able to sell loose coal direct to their customers. This will run until 1 May 2023. During the transition period, these coal merchants will work with their customers to inform them and help them find appropriate, cost-effective fuels which are far better for their health.
We have engaged with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the measures they are taking forward to tackle fuel poverty such as the updated fuel poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. BEIS also runs the national concessionary fuel scheme. Under these regulations, everyone receiving fuel as part of the scheme will continue to be entitled to it. Over 90% of recipients will not need to make any adjustment as they are already receiving fuel which complies with the new requirements. We will work through approved coal merchants so that others can move to compliant fuels which meet their needs. These will be available at no extra cost.
These regulations give small wood producers an extra year to comply with the new requirements. The suppliers qualifying for this transitional period are those who produce less than 600 cubic metres a year. We understand that these suppliers may struggle to meet the 20% moisture requirement immediately; this period gives them time to season their wood to the required level or to consider changes to their business model.
I am aware that there has been some concern about the impact these regulations may have on the heritage rail sector. As I said earlier, this legislation applies to domestic burning only. It will not apply to heritage rail. It may have some indirect impact on how this sector sources its coal, but the regulations give time for the sector to make any necessary adjustments. We will make guidance available to the manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of fuels affected by this legislation so that they are aware of the new requirements. We will also provide guidance for local authorities so that their enforcement officers understand their role in enforcing this legislation.
In summary, the instrument before us takes forward a key component of the clean air strategy, helping us to meet our national and international obligations to reduce polluting emissions, and dovetails with measures which the Environment Bill will deliver. The regulations will make sure that householders are able to make informed choices and can protect themselves and their families from the effects of the most polluting fuels. The measures in these regulations will deliver benefits to the environment and to the health of our citizens. They will also reduce the burden that illness caused by air pollution places on the National Health Service. I beg to move.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have tried for the last two decades to persuade previous holders of the Minister’s post, and others in various Governments, on this issue. The general drift of these proposals is in the right direction; I have no specific objection to what the Government are proposing, but I fear that they will not achieve everything they intend.
For clarity—from my understanding of what I have read and what the Minister said—there will be no criminalisation of a householder. The seller is the one who will be caught by these regulations. I would like that clarified by the Minister as I have been in many of the households directly affected over the years and I know many affected households. I think it is fair to say that not everybody uses the official market in their supply of heating products, particularly in former coal-mining areas where the tradition of open fires in many households disappeared quite a long time ago. They have something quite antiquated in terms of technology, akin to a wood burner, in which solid fuels such as coal were burned—previously including concessionary coal or any other coal obtained—but where people have now migrated to burning waste and, in particular, burning wood. They get those supplies of wood in many different ways, not always, indeed rarely in my experience, from petrol stations, supermarkets or DIY stores selling it.
I fear that there will be a continuation of the entrepreneurial spirit of the old coal miners. Some of them cannot read all the guidance, in my experience, but if they can they tend not to bother with the fine print. If they cannot buy in a store, they may find a supply elsewhere, which comes to what I have been banging on about to Minister after Minister. I will put it simplistically but, I think, accurately.
What I have said repeatedly is that I can persuade any pensioner household living in an old pit house or bungalow to take green technology if it would give them free energy, if someone would only install it. Some of them will grumble and then sign on the dotted line, while others will openly embrace it. When it came to solar panels, I found that nothing was easier. If it went on the green arguments, we might get into something of a side-tracked debate but if we went into the economic arguments, it was very straightforward: “We’ll stick them on your roof and you’ll get some free energy. How much, we don’t know.” I never used to promise what I was technically incompetent to deliver and had no authority on, but I could guarantee that there would be some considerable savings. That proved always to be the case. It was less so with ground-sourced heat although there remains a huge potential for it, which has hardly been tapped. I can think of some council bungalows near me, where 24 of them were some of the first in the country to be done. I never heard a complaint afterwards because people were getting at least their hot water for free and sometimes more.
There is the idea of retrospectively fixing these old pit houses by doing this, that or the other to make them more environmentally sound. That is true, but proportionately much less so than for other properties. These houses are well built and well insulated. They do not need retrofitting like the new thin-bricked houses. These are solid properties with solid roofs, therefore they self-insulate anyway. We might add a bit extra insulation and have better windows and doors. That is very welcome and would save on their bills.
On the Minister’s strategy, if he could find a way of incentivising getting this green technology installed on houses, particularly for pensioners, then those who have not already will do so. It will get into this small number of the most vulnerable, who are the most fuel-poor. I can hear those who have not done so saying no to me now; if I went to meet them next weekend, they would say the same thing but if it could be installed for free, they will go with it. They are the ones who will continue, one way or the other, in burning whatever they get hold of. Whether it is full of creosote because it is an old railway sleeper or something else industrial, they will source it. They will chop it up, burn it and save money by doing so. The only way that any Government will crack that is by incentivising the putting-in of the green technology.
The Minister has a reputation for being one of the greenest Ministers in our history, which is deserved. This is an opportunity for him to make his mark in areas where his name is perhaps less well known but could become famous, if he can get into these areas of fuel poverty and persuade this tiny but important minority of households, but he is going to have to incentivise it. I would say: make it pensioners only, make it free and get it delivered. The capital cost would be small, but I put it to him that the payback in PR and the real payback for the environment would be hugely disproportionate. These will be the people who carry on burning the stuff the Government do not want them to burn, even if they cannot get it through their usual, traditional suppliers. Let us therefore target them and be adventurous. It would be British technology and British jobs, and the Chancellor and Prime Minister will look favourably on this Minister when it comes to future promotions.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the rationale for this important statutory instrument. The air we breathe has to be clean. Many of our children and adults suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases. They are not helped by pollutants in the air. I fully support the measures proposed to ensure high air quality and welcome the Minister’s commitment to address the issue of burning blanket bogs.
What we are debating and the improvement it will make to air quality is a far cry from the air which I often encountered in my childhood in Bristol. Not knowing anything whatever about the impact of poor air quality, I often travelled on a bus in the late winter afternoons and was unable to see anything out of the window. The outside was a very odd, dense yellow colour. People were hurrying along with their heads down and scarves pulled up over their mouth and nose. As a child, this seemed quite exciting from the safety of the warm bus but it was a different matter when we alighted and had to walk home from the bus stop with the fog swirling around us, making us damp and our eyes water. Mercifully, today such smogs are rare in our country but it is vital that we monitor air quality at all times and do everything possible to improve it.
Wood burners are very popular; I declare an interest, as we have one in our home. They are extremely efficient and produce a good heat in a short space of time. But what we burn on them needs to be of good quality—wood that has been allowed to dry out—and if solid fuel is added, it has to be smokeless and sulphur-free, burning with a clean heat that does not produce particles and pollutants.
The Government’s clean air strategy, published in 2019, covers the use of wood burners; it also covers other important measures to improve the air that we breathe. Idling cars alongside schools at pick-up and drop-off times do nothing for the lungs of the children going in and out of school. PM2.5, already referred to, is an atmospheric particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometres, which is about 3% of the diameter of a human hair. Particles in this category are so small that they cannot be detected without an electron microscope. Even at moderate levels, particulate matter can still be harmful to sensitive people. When air pollution levels are lower, the cardiovascular and respiratory health of a person will be much improved in the long and short term.
PM2.5 causes numerous adverse effects such as breathing difficulties, eye irritation, dryness of the nose and mouth, throat infections and a feeling of claustrophobia, as well as numerous psychological effects. It has been identified as the most damaging air pollutant by the World Health Organization. The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that 41% of pollutants came from PM2.5, with 16% coming from industrial combustion and 12% from road transport. However, the EM also admits that these figures are only estimates and that it is difficult to accurately estimate the extent and nature of domestic burning and emissions.
This brings me to the crucial test in this matter. How are the Government going to monitor whether domestic properties are adhering to these new restrictions? The noble Lord, Lord Mann, laid out that case clearly. What measures will be in place to ensure compliance? What will be the penalties for the hapless households not adhering to the rules? Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates what the exact limitations will be, while paragraph 7.4 goes on to say that the Government are not banning stoves or open fireplaces.
To me, indicating this shows that the Government had considered it, although the Minister said that they would not be doing it. I want to give a personal example of why I would fight tooth and nail against such a ban.
When my first child was six months old, we lived in a house that was entirely electric but had an open fireplace. It was winter, and there was heavy snow, bringing power cuts to the whole village and the larger surrounding area. After 24 hours, the main road was cleared, and so my husband and others carefully went off to work in the town four miles away. I was left keeping the baby warm in front of the open fire. After three days, the village was connected except for the five houses on our side of the street. It seemed our electricity came over the fields from a neighbouring village and had not been reconnected. When my husband came home that night and asked why I was still sitting in candlelight, I seriously considered divorce proceedings. However, with the intervention of a neighbour, electricians worked throughout the night to reconnect us. At that time, I swore that I would never again be totally dependent on electricity for heat and cooking facilities, and I have kept to that.
The Government are right to encourage households to switch to cleaner energy forms, but it would be very unwise to legislate to ban stoves and open fireplaces completely. There will be many who, like me, want a fail-safe back-up for when there are electricity outages, as is so often the case, especially in very rural areas.
I welcome smaller suppliers being given more time to comply with the regulations, and I am encouraged that the freeminers in the Forest of Dean are exempt. Can the Minister say whether this exemption is for the lifetime of the current freeminers or in perpetuity?
I note that paragraph 11.2 of the EM indicates that local authorities will be expected to issue certification schemes and enforce the legislation. The guidance will be issued three months prior to restrictions. Many households will have stocks of fuel that will last more than three months and could become liable to fines, if there are any for individual households. The cost to local authorities is estimated at £1.2 million over 11 years. Are the Government going to cover this cost? Local authorities are extremely short of cash due to funding social care and the Covid-19 crisis. They will not be able to cover this additional cost.
I fail to see that the reduced sale of wood is likely to cause a £14 million loss over an 11-year period due to less dry wood being used than wet wood. It is far more likely that the cost of kiln-drying wood will push the price up at the point of sale. The SI refers to an “approved wood certification body”. Can the Minister give a little more detail on what this body will look like and what powers it will have?
I note that the phrase “best endeavours” has crept into the SI in Regulation 5(6)(b), referring to the certified supplier ensuring that their wood is consistent with the sample they have provided in order to gain certification. I see a loophole here for the unscrupulous operator who will provide a sample that fits the criteria and then supply a very different product to the customer. There is the threat of a fine, but again I ask: how will this be monitored? If the wood thus produced is cheaper, will those on low incomes be likely to report that their wood is producing more smoke than anticipated? Do the Government believe that the £300 fine will be sufficient to deter illegal trading?
The SI says that:
“The Secretary of State must appoint at least one person to be an approved manufactured solid fuel certification body.”
I suggest that a lot more than one will be needed. Some areas of the country are more likely to use wood-burners and open stoves than others. It will be necessary to have access to more than one certification body, especially as small producers—often sole traders—are involved here, not large multinational companies.
Fixed penalty notices appear to be the responsibility of the local authority. Does this mean that each local authority will be responsible for collecting the £300 for a penalty notice, which has to be paid within 28 days?
I note that the Government envisage publicising the logo “Ready to Burn”, so that consumers are aware both that the law has changed and how to easily identify fuel that meets the required standards. Will this be a similar type of campaign to the current television advertising campaign to try to get us to download the test and trace app?
I apologise that I have asked a lot of questions. I am totally behind the Government in this initiative to try to reduce the amount of pollution in the air that we breathe. I support this SI.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the intention of this SI so clearly and thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate this afternoon. The issue of toxic air quality has long concerned Members from across this Chamber, from well before the Minister was able to join us. Our criticism has always been that the action being taken is too little, too late. That is why the Government have ended up in court on this issue on a number of occasions.
We now have a proposal before us that specifically takes action on fine particulate matter which arises from the burning of wet wood and bituminous coal. As the Minister said, this is known to be the major source of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, including lung cancer. These proposals are acceptable as far as they go, but do they go far and fast enough?
Having read the SI and the Explanatory Note, as well as the debate in the other place, it seems to me that since the Government set out to tackle this health hazard, they have been busy scaling back and limiting their proposals. We have national and international obligations to phase out the production of PM2.5, which has been identified by the WHO as the most damaging air pollutant. According to the impact assessment, the Government are set to miss their legally binding target for a reduction of PM2.5 by 31 kilotonnes by 2030 if no action is taken. The Explanatory Note goes on to say that this instrument will abate approximately 9.37 kilotonnes in the year 2030. I hope the Minister will help me on this because, unless I am reading these figures wrong, we still have a huge gap in meeting our legal requirements, and indeed a huge mountain to climb to meet our international obligations on this issue. Can the Minister please clarify what proportion of our 2030 target will be met by these proposals? Can he tell us when we will see the remaining pieces of legislation that will make sure that we deliver properly on our national and international commitments? Is it also true that the Government published a more ambitious draft SI earlier in the year that has now been replaced by this version which includes longer delays for implementation?
I have a number of questions about the detail of the proposals. First, can the Minister clarify the open tender arrangements for appointing the certification body? This question was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and again today by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I have experience, in another life, of ombudsman bodies being appointed to businesses in the sector that have a clear, vested interest in the outcome of their judgments. Can the Minister assure the House that the certification body or bodies will be truly independent and not able to benefit from the products that they certify?
Secondly, the proposals understandably raise concerns about people living on low incomes who rely on solid fuels, particularly in rural areas. Does the Minister accept that these families need greater financial help to transfer the source of their heating from health-damaging to safe fuels? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that we could be far more ambitious on this issue. Surely this is particularly pressing, given that, as the Minister has already acknowledged, those who continue to use these toxic materials threaten not only the health of their families but that of their neighbours and the community around them.
The Minister also made it clear, as is identified in the Explanatory Notes, that clean fuels are actually less expensive than traditional fuels once energy efficiency is factored in. In these circumstances, is there really a case for a delay in the coal-burning ban beyond that which was originally envisaged, particularly when there are healthy alternatives already freely available?
Thirdly, would the Minister like to comment on a letter I have received from a producer of smokeless domestic fuels, who points out that all the makers of smokeless fuels are UK based, while all the coal we use is imported? There would, therefore, be a benefit to UK businesses in making the shift to clean fuel more quickly. Finally, will the Minister again update the House on the timing of the Environment Bill? I know that we ask this question regularly, but I am going to repeat it. The Bill is languishing in the Commons and we now understand that it is not due to leave there until Christmas, so it will not begin consideration in the Lords until the new year. We need the Bill to be passed to make broader progress on the clean air strategy. As it already seems that it will miss the end-of-year deadline, we will be left with a regulatory gap on this and other issues. Why has it been delayed? What steps is the Minister taking to chase it up?
We are not going to oppose this SI, but I have to conclude, sadly, that it is a poor imitation of the kind of ambitious policies we need to clean up our toxic air and deliver on our WHO targets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The instrument takes forward a key component of the clean air strategy, to help us meet our national and international obligations to reduce pollution, and it demonstrates this Government’s commitment to delivering environmental benefits. The measures it contains will improve air quality and deliver benefits that improve the health of this country’s citizens and the quality of their lives. I will attempt to address in order the questions and comments put to me by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised the prospect of unforeseen consequences, citing the example of the potential criminalisation of householders. More pertinently, he asked whether householders could find themselves being criminalised. This SI does not result in householders being criminalised; this is about the trade. The noble Lord’s logical next question was about the consequence for entrepreneurial individuals opting for a less formal, or even non-market, route to providing fuels to householders, who would not then get caught up in this legislation. He is, of course, right up to a point. Legislation rarely answers all the questions that are put to it; no legislation is perfect. We cannot stop people burning foraged wood and waste, but we are clear that burning these materials is highly damaging to their health and to that of others in the community. In addition, it is worth noting and remembering that people burning coal and switching to manufactured solid fuels could—and likely would—save money, because they would be burning a more efficient fuel than coal.
The noble Lord also asked about incentives around the uptake of clean energy and to encourage greater levels of energy efficiency. He is absolutely right; incentives are central. The payback on energy efficiency is already there. We know that money invested in energy efficiency has a faster payback than that invested in any form of new energy. The best power plant is the one that is not needed as a consequence of strategic investment in energy efficiency. That has always been, and remains, the case. My colleagues in BEIS are looking hard at the kinds of incentives that are going to be needed to see a step change in the volume and speed of energy efficiency that needs to happen around the country. I very much take the noble Lord’s point that such incentives should be targeted at fuel-poor, low-income and elderly householders.
On a broader point, the market is changing rapidly. Even in the last few years, the costs of renewable energy across the board have come down far faster than anyone anticipated. No one anticipated that, in the very early 2020s, we would be on the cusp of offshore wind being able to exist without subsidy. Most people put their assessments and predictions at around 2030-plus, but we are now right on the cusp of offshore wind being viable without subsidy. The cost of solar has come down by around 90% in the 12 years since the credit crunch. Last year, more money by far was invested in new renewable technology than in fossil fuels.
A final, interesting point on that is that coal use in the United States has declined far faster under President Trump, despite his being wildly in favour of coal, than was the case under President Obama, who was more interested in tackling climate change. This just shows that the market is racing ahead of politics, and the cost ratio is changing so dramatically that the Government’s job is to do what they can to accelerate those trends. The solution is easily within our grasp now, in terms of both energy efficiency and renewable energy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, began by painting a vivid picture of the smogs that she was used to in an earlier part of her life. Although it is very hard to capture precise numbers of how many people’s lives were brought to a premature end as a consequence of air pollution, it is worth noting that the figures we have today are not dissimilar to those that existed at the time of the great smogs. The difference is that the pollution that damages people today is largely invisible and does not therefore have the same stark effect as the smogs which she described so well.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the importance of wood-burners to many people, including herself. I add myself to that list; I too use a wood-burner. However, in doing so she reinforced the need for this legislation. She made the case very well for a shift towards a cleaner fuel for those wood-burners. She raised the broader issue of air quality and zoned in on PM2.5, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. This is just one measure—one tool—that the Government are using to tackle air quality. We certainly would not pretend that this SI is going to crack the problem of environmental air pollution. I will come to the specific point of PM2.5 in a moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the free-mining tradition and welcomed the fact that an exemption exists for those living in the Forest of Dean. Nothing in this SI changes the arrangements they have. Their rights remain protected. There is no difference; it has no impact. So they can, I hope, rest easy. She also asked about households being fined. Householders are not going to be fined. The target of this SI is the trader. She also asked about enforcement. Local authority enforcement of this SI is meant to be light-touch. It will involve checks at retail outlets that fuels being sold comply with the legislation, such as by carrying the correct certification number and logo and being correctly stored. We are looking closely at how we can best support local authorities in their enforcement of the regulations and will be issuing guidance on that very soon. This is alongside measures in the Environment Bill, which I will come to in a moment, which will also make it easier for local authorities to tackle air pollution in their areas.
The noble Baroness’s last point related to the logo. Wood and manufactured solid fuels that meet the legislative requirements will be identifiable by the same logo and certification number on the product packaging. Details about the logo will be made public as soon as the legislation and certification body are in place, so will come back to the House when appropriate. We intend that the same logo will be used for both manufactured solid fuels and wood, to provide clarity for consumers. We do not want to overcomplicate what should be a fairly simple measure.
Finally, I would like to come to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The failure to implement this legislation is most likely to result, as she says, in the UK failing to meet its legally binding targets for 2020, and possibly 2030, on fine particulate matter—PM2.5s, raised earlier by the other noble Baroness. Therefore, there is a consequence of this legislation not going through, and I am therefore very grateful to her and other noble Lords for supporting this legislation.
But she is also right to say that there is a big gap in terms of meeting our legal obligations. To that I say, yes, that is correct; there is much that the Government need to be doing, working with business and local authorities and other departments of government—not least the Department for Transport—to tackle the issues of air quality that are damaging the health, in some respects, of people in this country. This is just one of those measures; we are not pretending this a catch-all solution. But we are at the forefront of reducing industrial pollution in this country. We are currently consulting on bringing forward the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035, or even earlier if a faster transition is feasible. We are looking closely at that now and working closely with the industry. The Environment Bill delivers key parts of the clean air strategy and is the first environment Bill in over 20 years.
The noble Baroness asked when it is going to continue its passage through Parliament. I am extremely sorry; I wish I could provide a detailed answer, but I am not able to. But I am absolutely aware that timing is an issue and that this extraordinarily important piece of legislation needs to find its way through both Houses as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible. I make this case at every opportunity, as do my colleagues in the Department for Environment.
The “Air quality” chapter in the Environment Bill makes a clear commitment to a certain ambitious air quality target that goes beyond EU requirements and delivers significant health benefits. The Environment Bill will also enable the Government to recall the engines of non-road mobile machinery and related emission components that are non-compliant with the environmental standards they were approved to meet, and more besides. The Environment Bill really does help us deliver on and achieve the ambitions within the clean air strategy.
The final—I think—question I was asked related again to the issue of fuel poverty. I reiterate that a number of concerns were raised during the consultation process that led to this situation today: to us being able to present the SI. We took those concerns, and we continue to take those concerns, extremely seriously. We want people in fuel poverty to be able to benefit from this legislation, just as anyone else can. There is no reason why those living in fuel poverty should be exposed to more dangerous, more polluting fuels than anyone else. Indeed, were that to be the outcome of this legislation, I would say that the legislation had failed. It is very important the benefits are spread evenly and equally.
We have commissioned research that, as I said in my opening remarks, tells us that once they have made the transition to cleaner fuels, they should be better off financially because of the efficiency with which these fuels burn. It is worth taking that into account. At every step of the way, we are determined to ensure that people are not left worse off, particularly those people who are living in fuel poverty today. We are absolutely determined that this legislation will help, rather than hinder or harm, people in vulnerable households, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that that is the case.
As I have outlined, the regulations phase out the supply of the most polluting fuels used for domestic burning. The measures they contain will enable people to enjoy their wood-burning stoves and open fires, safe in the knowledge that they are using cleaner fuels which will protect the health of their families and neighbours, as well as the wider environment. I will close my remarks at this point and thank noble Lords for their contributions and their support today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Noble Lords will be pleased to know that we are not taking a short adjournment here; we are rolling straight into the next piece of business. So those who wish to dance out of the Room now may do so: otherwise, I will move on to the next Motion. The time limit for the debate is one hour.
Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 July be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed at the end of the transition period. As noble Lords will be aware, we have conducted intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime at the end of the transition period.
This draft instrument amends the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009, as amended, which I will call the “2009 regulations”. These regulations provide a framework for ensuring the safe transport of dangerous goods in Great Britain.
The 2009 regulations give effect to two EU directives concerning the carriage of dangerous goods. The Dangerous Goods Directive 2008 gives legal effect to international agreements on the carriage of dangerous goods and establishes a common safety regime across all EU member states. The Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive 2010 sets out procedures to be followed and safety requirements for transportable pressure equipment.
These amendments ensure that we continue to work to the same requirements and standards in the carriage of dangerous goods as before the UK’s exit from the EU and provide legal certainty for the industry. This is achieved by amending references to the directives in the 2009 regulations, as well as requirements that are predicated on the UK being a member state of the EU.
I will give a tiny bit of background. The UK has signed up to various international agreements on the transport of dangerous goods. It is a signatory to the European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road. The agreement, helpfully known as ADR, was made under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE, and has been implemented in the UK since 1968. The UK is committed to the ongoing implementation of the requirements of this agreement, which predates our EU membership. ADR does not automatically have legal force and is now implemented within the EU by the Dangerous Goods Directive. The EU has also introduced a directive on transportable pressure equipment, also applied domestically through the 2009 regulations.
Turning to rail, the UK has been a signatory to the convention concerning international carriage by rail—COTIF—and predecessor conventions since 1980. The regulation concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail, RID, forms appendix C to COTIF. As with ADR, the Dangerous Goods Directive implements RID in the EU, including for national transport.
As mentioned previously, this draft instrument will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is subject to the affirmative procedure because it transfers an EU legislative function to a public authority in Great Britain, in that it gives the Secretary of State power to derogate from the standards set in three international agreements concerning the carriage of dangerous goods by road, rail, and, to a lesser extent, inland waterways, through the issuing of domestic exemptions to these agreements.
At the end of the transition period, the dangerous goods and transportable pressure equipment directives are retained in their entirety in UK law. This draft instrument makes the changes necessary so that the requirements and procedures within those directives continue to function correctly. This is essential to ensure the regulatory regime in place in Great Britain after the transition period continues to function. This instrument updates references and definitions used in the regulations to reflect the UK’s exit from the EU.
At present, the power to issue derogations from ADR and RID, and in respect of inland waterways, rests with the European Commission. This draft instrument gives the Secretary of State power to issue domestic derogations where safety is not compromised. The instrument also introduces a new UK conformity mark—the UK TPE—so that transportable pressure equipment, or TPE, may continue to be manufactured and inspected in Great Britain after the transition period. This instrument places obligations on manufacturers, importers, distributors and owners of this UK TPE, and it mirrors the requirements of the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive.
This instrument introduces a process by which the competent authority in Great Britain—in practice, the Secretary of State—may appoint bodies to undertake inspections, examinations, testing and approval of transportable pressure equipment. Under the Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive, the European Commission would have been notified of, and could have vetoed, such an appointment before a UK inspection body was awarded “notified body” status. For notified bodies established in Great Britain before the end of the transition period, this instrument provides for their appointment by the GB competent authority without charging a fee.
As the carriage of dangerous goods is devolved to Northern Ireland, this instrument will also ensure that transportable pressure equipment assessed in Northern Ireland in accordance with the transportable pressure equipment directive continues to be recognised in Great Britain, through acceptance of the UK(NI) mark. This implements a requirement of the Northern Ireland protocol relating to unfettered access of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
This instrument is relatively simple. It serves to ensure the continued effective regulation of the carriage of dangerous goods in Great Britain to the same standards as before the UK’s departure from the EU. It maintains the existing regulatory framework but includes essential amendments to ensure we have a functioning statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations as an essential part of our preparation for the end of the transition period into 2021. The transport by road, rail or inland waterways of dangerous materials, such as hazardous chemicals, fuel, gases, explosives and pressure equipment, through or near populated areas must be as safe as possible, both for the public and those working with these materials. This is certainly not an area in which to take risks. For decades, we have ensured that international standards, and then even stronger EU standards were introduced to improve protection and enhance environmental protections. I am delighted that it has been confirmed that these regulations will maintain the pi marking system to ensure that current standards are met, and that the EU directives implementing our agreements with the UN prior to joining the EU will also be maintained, but who will oversee this in future?
I am delighted to see that the Northern Ireland protocol is being upheld and, for example, that the TPE in Northern Ireland will continue to comply with EU directives and recognise Northern Ireland inspection. My noble friend said that the Secretary of State can approve derogations
“where safety is not compromised”.
Who will judge this? What expertise and experience will the Secretary of State call on to exercise this discretion?
I understand that the optional new rho standard will potentially be used for our own GB equipment, manufactured here or imported, and will have conformity assessed by appointed inspection bodies. Can my noble friend give us a little more information on who will staff these bodies, what they will be, who will fund them and what safety checks or early warning systems they will have access to? Are we considering joining EU bodies that have already been established and continuing to benefit from the much broader reach that those 27 other countries can attain relative to the UK itself?
I welcome my noble friend’s introduction of this SI and congratulate her on her clear explanations and her words of reassurance that this merely maintains what we have now, but if she could answer the questions I have raised, I would be most grateful.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, these regulations relate to the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway. They include amendments to legislation relating to the inspection of transportable pressure equipment. This is another in the long line of changes to our statute book required because of Brexit. It is a good example of the effectiveness of the EU and how we have benefited from the highest standards set by it over the years.
Safe transport of dangerous goods is something we take for granted, specifically because it has been done so well for so long. As always, leaving the EU has complicated matters. As this is about international transport of goods, we have to continue to use the EU pi marking if we want to continue to trade in this important sector. The continued use of the pi marking will be essential in Northern Ireland, but because of the Northern Ireland protocol, there will also be a UK(NI) marking alongside the pi marking, to enable goods to enter Great Britain’s market. This is one additional complexity. In any event, there is to be an additional UK rho marking. Is that just someone’s clever idea, to give us a feeling that we are free of the dreadful EU, or is it essential? Again, I ask the Minister to explain: is this a government choice, or is it essential?
Then there is the difference between notified bodies and appointed bodies. I read this part several times very carefully, and I have to confess that I am still not clear, so will the Minister please elucidate for me? I should like to know more about these bodies. May we have some examples? Specifically, how are they appointed and who sits on them? How free are they from government interference? The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has made her concerns clear on the issue of safety and high standards, and this is what is behind my question. The Government do not exactly have a shining reputation from recent months for filling public appointments with the correct level of expertise. We are back to the situation which predated the Nolan rules, in some cases. I cannot think of a sector where real expertise, rather than political linkages, is more important, so I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of exactly who these bodies are.
My other concern is the consultation, which took place two years ago. The list of bodies quoted as consultees does not include any specific reference to the nuclear industry. I hope the Minister can reassure me. I hope she can explain clearly that the SI refers to the nuclear industry—I assume it does—and explain which of the bodies consulted cover the nuclear industry. How were the views of that industry taken into account? For example, nuclear waste from Hinkley Point in Somerset travels regularly by night train to Sizewell. The amount of nuclear waste will increase when Hinkley C is operative, and there will be real challenges in rail capacity and so on, so the issue of safety there is important.
Finally, what if there is no deal? Will this legislation be affected? Will it be affected by the handover process from the current system to any new system?
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of this draft statutory instrument covering the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail, which in transferring an EU legislative function at the end of the transition period, as she said, also gives the Secretary of State power to derogate from the standards set in three international agreements through issuing exemptions to those agreements. As the Minister said, these international agreements relate to the carriage of dangerous goods by road, by rail and by inland waterways.
This SI, through the introduction of an optional UK-only compliance mark, also enables bodies inspecting transportable pressure equipment in Great Britain to continue to do so for such equipment on the non-EU market. Why have the Government apparently concluded that the new UK-only compliance mark should be optional?
The SI provides for Great Britain to continue to work to the same standards and requirements in the carriage of dangerous goods at the end of the transition period as applied while we were a member of the EU and as still apply today. Can the Government confirm that this also applies to the petroleum driver passport?
Both noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Randerson, asked who will ensure that the standards and requirements will be adhered to following the end of the transition period and how. I too await with interest the answer to the questions they raised.
Do the Government have any plans to exercise the powers in these regulations to create domestic exemptions or changes to the current standards and requirements of the present regulatory framework, and if so, in which areas in particular? In addition, have the Government been approached by any parties involved in the carriage of dangerous goods in this country to introduce exemptions or changes to the current standards and requirements of the present regulatory framework, and if so, in what areas in particular?
As has been said, the carriage of dangerous goods is devolved to Northern Ireland. Will Northern Ireland also be able to take powers to create its own domestic exemptions to the current standards and requirements? If so, do the Government know whether there are likely to be any such exemptions or changes of that nature?
Finally, we heard recently from the Government that when the transition period ends we could find up to 7,000 lorries being held up at channel crossing points. What would be the position if vehicles carrying dangerous goods were among the possible 7,000 held up? Could such a delay have any effect on their being able to adhere to all the current standards and requirements of the present regulatory framework, in respect of the carriage of such goods, which will still be in force immediately following the end of the transition period but which will then be a matter solely within our jurisdiction?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations and their input into this short debate. I will say at the outset that this is one of those statutory instruments in which nothing much changes. I reassure my noble friend Lady Altmann that there is no new system per se which will come in and need to be set up and resourced, et cetera. We will be very reliant, as we are now, on an existing and well-functioning system.
My noble friend quite rightly asked who will oversee the carriage of dangerous goods, so I will take her through that in a little more detail. It is the same system as now. Enforcement activity is carried out in line with the enforcement policy of the Health and Safety Executive, as one would imagine. Both the police and the DVSA can undertake roadside inspections and issue prohibition notices under Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 where there is non-compliance with any of the regulations. Details of these prohibition notices are recorded and published on the HSE website, which gives the appropriate level of visibility to see how the system is responding. Where justified, police officers may also initiate court proceedings. The Office of Rail and Road enforces the rules in relation to the carriage of dangerous goods by rail. We do not expect any change in the capacity for enforcement, so it will require no new resources.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the inspection bodies, there are already 33 inspection bodies appointed by the competent authority, which was previously the EU and will now change over to the Secretary of State. We do not expect that these inspection bodies will change particularly; they are well-established and have been around for a long time, and relate to every element of the carriage of dangerous goods, as one would expect. This SI simply allows the Secretary of State to appoint the same bodies to fulfil the same functions thereafter.
However, it is worth going into a bit more detail about consultations with the industry—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the nuclear industry and whether it had been consulted. This SI has been very widely consulted on. We actively engaged with over 300 stakeholders, including the Office of Rail and Road, and no concerns were raised. In 2018, we issued a public consultation on this SI and received just seven responses, none of which raised any concerns but some of which guided our drafting, as noble Lords would expect. Because that was done back in 2018, we conducted a second informal consultation in 2019 which targeted specific stakeholders, primarily around transportable pressure equipment and the conformity assessment bodies, on the introduction of the non-mandatory UK mark. Again, there were few responses—just four—and they did not identify any concerns with our approach to the introduction of this mark and guided our thinking as to how it would be implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the petroleum driver passport. This will not be impacted at all by the regulations. The PDP is a UK industry scheme which was established with backing from DECC, now BEIS. It was set up and is managed by the industry—the Downstream Oil Distribution Forum. DfT’s role with the PDP is to facilitate the contract for the delivery of the scheme between the DODF and the Scottish Qualifications Authority, which manages the implementation of the scheme. There will be no change: the DODF will retain the ownership and management of the scheme which is not mandated by law. We expect that to continue.
It is worth spending a little time on Northern Ireland and on possible exemptions that may arise. As the transport of dangerous goods is a devolved issue, Northern Ireland has its own legislation concerning this, but it mirrors the GB regulations. At the end of the transition period, Northern Ireland will continue to apply the requirements of one of the directives relating to the transport of dangerous goods—the transportable pressure equipment directive. This means that transportable pressure equipment, or TPE, conformity assessed in Northern Ireland will need to bear the “UK(NI)” marking in addition to the “pi marking” required by that directive. This draft SI introduces a provision to recognise such marked transportable pressure equipment on the market in Great Britain. Without this provision, it would not be possible to place such equipment on the market in Great Britain, and therefore it is required to permit unfettered access of such equipment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the different marks. In Great Britain, at the end of the transition period TPE already on the market with a pi mark will continue to be recognised, and any new TPE entering the market in Great Britain may either be pi marked or rho marked. To that extent, the rho marking is non-mandatory. Where a new product is pi marked, GB inspection bodies will not be able to perform conformity assessments, as they have to be undertaken by EU notified bodies. Northern Ireland is in the process of making equivalent regulations, which will mirror what is under discussion today and which are making their way through its legislative system.
On divergence and exemptions—an important topic—the Government are not actively looking to diverge from, or to create new domestic exemptions from, the present regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods. Of course we will continue to work both with EU partners and internationally as regulations may be developed, but these tend to be reviewed every two years, and we are not looking actively to diverge from them at all. In considering any such exemptions or divergence from the present regulations, safety of course will always remain a priority. However, it is important that our domestic legislation provides flexibility, which is where we come to the Secretary of State being able to grant exemptions as and when they become necessary, although safety will of course be top of mind. At present, about 20 exemptions are being used by industry. They all expire on 30 June 2021 and therefore may need to be extended, if that extension is still appropriate.
It may help if I give a brief example of what a derogation might look like. Road derogation 17 is a partial exemption because complying with the requirements would be impractical. A health care worker does not need to comply with the ADR requirements if, for example, they carry a 2 kilogram fire extinguisher when carrying a small amount of clinical waste. I think we can all agree that that makes complete and utter sense, and it is the sort of thing for which derogations are used. A second example is where a very small amount of explosive article is being transported. Usually you would not carry the detonating fuzes alongside that explosive article, but if there are very small quantities of the explosive article, it is of course appropriate, because the safety risk is fairly negligible. A note to Hansard may be of interest to noble Lords: the correct spelling is “fuze”, as that is its proper shipping name. I did not know that.
I hope that I have answered the questions today. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the end of his remarks, asked whether hauliers carrying dangerous goods will be delayed as they arrive at Kent. As long as hauliers and consignors have all the correct documentation required, not only those for dangerous goods purposes but those that are required for all hauliers to get a Kent access permit, we do not envisage that there will be a problem.
This instrument makes very minor changes to the retained EU legislation to ensure that appropriate national arrangements are in place to oversee the safe carriage of dangerous goods. I commend it to the House.
Electric Scooter Trials and Traffic Signs (Coronavirus) Regulations and General Directions 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
That this House takes note of the Electric Scooter Trials and Traffic Signs (Coronavirus) Regulations and General Directions 2020 (SI 2020/663). Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 22nd Report.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
What has prompted me to ask for this debate is the July report on this SI from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These regulations were laid under the made negative procedure on 30 June and came into force on 4 July 2020. The rush was apparently because the Department for Transport considered that urgent action was required to provide immediate additional transport capacity, which had been severely restricted by the impact of Covid-19. The SI amends road traffic regulations on the use of electric scooters to allow representative on-road trials of e-scooters to begin with a view to gathering evidence on the use and impact of e-scooters which might also impact on possible future legislation. E-scooters are classified as motor vehicles and cannot currently be used on public roads or pavements in Britain.
The SI applies only to e-scooters used as part of a trial arranged between a rental operator and a local public authority within a specified area and does not permit the use of privately owned e-scooters or other e-scooters which are not participating in organised trials. The scrutiny committee report drew these regulations to the special attention of the House on the ground that the explanatory material laid in support provided insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the SI’s policy objective and intended implementation.
The committee commented that similar schemes had been running in cities abroad for some time and that accordingly it would have expected more use of evidence from those schemes to shape the DfT’s proposal. It also said:
“We would also expect DfT to offer more substantial evidence of the anticipated benefits of these schemes to both individuals and local authorities in the EM and no cost/benefit analysis is offered.”
In that connection, the scrutiny committee drew attention to the assertion in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, not backed up by evidence, that:
“E-scooters could be a convenient and clean way to travel that eases the burden on the transport network and allows for social distancing.”
Equally, commented the committee, e-scooters
“could also be a hazard for other users of the road, cycle lanes and for pedestrians.”
Continuing, the committee concluded that it was unclear what the policy objective of this SI was and how its outcome would be measured. Is it, the committee asked,
“a pilot scheme to test the viability of a controversial vehicle on British roads”
and/or is it a means rapidly to
“expand transport capacity in cities all over the country during the coronavirus pandemic? And are those two objectives compatible?”
Could the Minister in her reply respond to the committee’s questions on policy objectives and the measurement of the outcome of the policy objectives?
The scrutiny committee raised the issue of the scale of the trials. Originally, the department planned to run trials in four areas but now, apparently in response to Covid-19 and to help mitigate reduced public transport capacity, the department wants more areas to be able to host trials commencing from an earlier date,
“between June and the end of August 2020.”
The department has not specified the number of trial areas, which are now potentially limitless. Despite that, just two weeks were allowed for public consultation on an issue that will now affect the public generally.
Despite similar schemes proving divisive in other major European cities, as the scrutiny committee pointed out, is this, in reality, a case of a potentially significant major long-term transport policy development for Britain being pushed forward as a Covid-19 related emergency measure without proper public consultation and without an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny? Or, as the scrutiny committee put it in paragraphs 27 and 29:
“A small data gathering exercise has turned into a major implementation programme … This is a major development in transport policy yet it was put into effect in a matter of days without any opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny. The information in the EM is insubstantial and it is the additional information that demonstrates the extent of the powers enabled by the instrument.”
Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
Will the Minister say how many local authorities have submitted proposals for hosting trials, how many have been approved, whether they are all for 12 months, how many trials are now in operation, how many and which companies are running those trials and how they were chosen and when the last trial to be approved will conclude? Is there a minimum number of trials that the Government have as an objective? Likewise, is there a maximum number of trials that the Government would approve? Will the Minister say what the evidence is to support the Department for Transport’s case and justify this sudden and rapid scaling up the number of trial schemes from the number originally envisaged, taking into account data on safety, potential nuisance and additional costs—including to already sorely stretched local authorities in the middle of a pandemic?
In more detail on safety, the scrutiny committee remarked that although the wearing of helmets was being encouraged, they were not mandatory for the trials. Can the Minister say why the decision was taken not to require the wearing of helmets? Continuing on safety, the committee pointed out that since the Department for Transport accepted that there were risks in introducing e-scooters into the transport network, it
“would have expected the DfT to have illustrated the main risks to be expected using data from similar schemes abroad.”
Can the Minister indicate what the department considers those main risks to be and the evidential basis for coming to that conclusion? Finally on safety, the committee asked whether there are “sufficient cycle paths” for the number of trials anticipated or desired and
“whether they are wide enough to cope with a vehicle that may be wider than a bicycle and weigh up to 55kg, and whether can they cope with the anticipated increase in usage and allow for overtaking.”
Once again, a response to those points from the Minister would be helpful.
On the environmental gain from the use of e-scooters from transfers from other forms of transport—in particular, cars—the scrutiny committee reported that
“DfT’s initial assessment, based on the experience of European schemes, suggests that ‘around a third will transfer from walking, a third from public transport, 15-20% from car, 10% from cycling and around 2% for new trips. Social distancing requirements may cause the shift from public transport and the proportion of new trips to be higher than these estimates.’”
In the light of the DfT’s assessment, can the Minister say how any environmental and other gains and any offsetting of benefits from the trial schemes for e-scooters will be evaluated, by whom and against what criteria? How and when will the results of the evaluation be published? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, either today or subsequently, to the questions and points I have raised, which largely repeat those raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report on this SI.
There will inevitably, but hopefully incorrectly, be a view that a sudden increase in the number of trial schemes—schemes to which there is no limit—is an indication that the Government have privately decided to proceed with further legalisation of the use of e-scooters. If the Government still have an open mind, why, with just two weeks’ public consultation and no parliamentary scrutiny, would they suddenly and without limit increase the number of intended trial schemes, bring forward starting dates and give as a reason for so doing issues related to Covid-19, such as allowing social distancing, unless the desire is to come to some pretty quick conclusions to proceed?
We need to see the outcome of properly run trial schemes for e-scooters independently evaluated against transparent and laid down criteria before reaching conclusions, since there are clear safety concerns that need to be balanced against the benefits of any emerging new technology. There have been issues over anti-social behaviour by some using e-scooters; for example, Guide Dogs has pointed out that e-scooters can create
“a more unsafe street environment for people with sight loss”.
We need to know now on what basis, and against which criteria and benchmarks, the Government will be judging and assessing the outcome of these e-scooter trials. Most importantly, there must also be proper and full, not rushed, public consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of what would be a major mode of transport development that will affect us all for the long term and way beyond, by comparison, any much shorter-term Covid-19 considerations on addressing transport capacity issues and allowing for social distancing. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we come to the second debate this afternoon on dangerous goods. It is unusual for me to find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have already apologised to my noble friend the Minister for being thoroughly unhelpful to her on this subject.
After four months of staying inside and on my first afternoon back in London two weeks ago, in the short journey from my flat to this House, I was nearly hit by a big e-scooter on the pavement outside the Department for Transport in Marsham Street. A few minutes later, another thug on one of these almost ran me down on Millbank, on the pavement just by Black Rod’s Garden.
When I used to go to Paris last year with the Council of Europe, I had first-hand experience of these things. Most Parisians do not ride them on the pavement but a large minority do, and everyone abandons them all over the pavements in their tens of thousands. Some 20,000 of these things are now causing what the Mayor of Paris described as “complete anarchy”. Even the French Financial Times said:
“An electric scooter scourge is stalking Paris”
and the French Transport Minister said that Paris was experiencing the “law of the jungle”, although that is unfair on nature behaving properly in its habitat.
That is what is coming to every city in this country. These scooters weigh up to 55 kilograms, and with an average male of another 83 kilograms, that is 28 stone of solid mass hitting pedestrians at 15 miles an hour. The Department for Transport’s road death research shows that a pedestrian hit at 15 miles per hour stands a 3% risk of death and a much larger chance of serious injury.
To those who say, “That’s all overseas; it’s the French and it won’t happen here”: it already has. Just five days after starting a trial in Coventry, the company Voi had to stop all operations because its managing director said:
“I think we have a British antisocial behaviour issue across the country … We haven’t seen this level of antisocial behaviour in any other market. We have had great experience of it but the volume of it in the UK was quite surprising.”
He said that people were riding the scooters on the pavement and had a disregard for the law. If the company trying to get us to use these killing machines says that, we should stop this experiment until we have proper control of them.
If the Government are determined to push ahead, these regulations must be changed to reduce the weight to no more than 25 kilos and the speed limited to 10 miles per hour. Even then, these scooters are still silent killing machines when driven on the pavement. Therefore, the Government must copy Voi and insist on number plates, or some sort of numbering system, so that cameras can identify them. There is then a slight chance of enforcement.
We see cyclists blatantly riding over zebra crossings with pedestrians on them and through red lights, and there is no enforcement. There must be strict enforcement for these e-scooters. People will dump hired machines anywhere but will safely park their own dearly bought scooter. The policy there is wrong, too.
I do not know how Paris has got it so wrong with scooters, given that it and Strasbourg—which I also visit regularly—are so civilised about cycling. There is not a single helmet or bit of Lycra in sight. People ride upright with the handlebars higher than the seats. They can ride on the pavements and I feel perfectly safe among them. What a contrast with London, where you can see nothing but Lycra-clad bums in the air as wannabe Bradley Wigginses mow you down on the crossing at 1 Millbank.
If the Government persist with introducing this measure, I hope that an instruction is given to every police force in this country to enforce the law. There should be none of this nonsense of engage, explain, encourage, pat on the head, sympathise or bend the knee. If the police turn a blind eye to enforcement, I hope that they will ignore me when I use my stick to get one of the scooters off the pavement or when I chuck an abandoned one from the pavement under the wheels of a 30-tonne lorry. I say to the police: do your duty and enforce the law, or the law will be brought into disrepute with every other law. They should do their duty or we will see the same anarchy as in Paris.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for giving us this opportunity to debate these regulations as well as the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I wish to address my remarks to the concerns on safety as well as use on public roads. I speak as one who has ridden a motorcycle in the streets of London for more than 30 years. While I support the use of e-scooters, which are very practical for commuting around busy cities and are environmentally friendly, I am sad that some users have grossly abused the opportunity and are breaking the law. We have seen a huge proliferation, not just of e-scooters but of e-skateboards populating the streets of London with no clear regulations, and given the police being unable effectively to enforce responsible usage of these scooters, I have the following suggestions to make.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I find it astonishing that wearing helmets is not mandatory. It is well known that, unlike driving a bicycle, there is a lot more risk of those driving an e-scooter having a head injury because of the dimensions of the small wheels. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, in many cases electric scooters are being used on pavements, which is highly dangerous, not just for pedestrians but for those pushing prams. I have seen e-scooter drivers weaving their way between big trucks and cars on public roads, where they can often not be seen by drivers. In this regard, e-scooters should be restricted to bicycle lanes, where they are available. I was pleased to see that the London cycle campaign supports e-scooters being used in cycle lanes. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also mentioned, the e-scooter trial in Coventry has been put on hold because users have abused the guidelines and were driving them not just on pavements but in shopping centres, causing not just panic but a massive danger to the public.
While the trials of e-scooters require users to have a provisional driving licence, that does not apply to those buying these scooters online. Clearly, it is essential that users have basic road awareness, knowledge and skills. While most of these scooters manufactured in China and Japan have a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour, it is well known that some users have retrofitted their scooters to go at much higher speeds, which is extremely dangerous. There need to be strict speed limits and ideally some form of registration process so that those who drive these scooters recklessly and cause damage to others can be held accountable and sanctioned. Can the Minister elaborate on the data and feedback received from the trial schemes and, in particular, on safety and nuisance as well as public perception around the use of scooters?
In conclusion, while I welcome the use of e-scooters, I believe that tighter legislation needs to be introduced to protect users as well as pedestrians, and to set a minimum standard for the manufacture of these scooters.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as a patron of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking, and a vice-chair of the new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Micromobility. I am trying to span cycling and what might be called the new electric means of individual propulsion.
I love scooters and Segways. About 10 years ago, we got the late Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—a great expert on motoring—on a Segway in the car park outside, and he enjoyed it. I cycle in Brussels and Paris when I am there and sometimes use scooters. They bridge the gap between walking and sitting in a polluting car, and they give individuals transport, but all the comments made by noble Lords so far are quite right: people need to obey the law, such as it is.
The key is probably to treat these scooters similarly to cycles, whether electric or non-electric cycles. They should not go on the pavement. People have strong views about whether people should wear crash helmets, but there is no point in putting an ASBO on people who ride scooters, any more than there is on those who ride cycles. Both can be very dangerous and both, as some noble Lords have said, can operate effectively and safely.
I welcome the trial that the Government are doing. It might have been easier if they had just said that a scooter is the same as a cycle, but they did not do that for whatever reason. My understanding is that 30 towns and cities have already signed up to it. In Northampton, there were 40,000 rides in three weeks, so they are very popular. In Coventry, there are 7,500 users. The average journey is 20 minutes and 85% are returning customers, but these are just the trials. In the United States, which we think of as the motorist’s bonanza, 88 million journeys by scooter were recorded last year.
We have to try to educate people, live and let live, and try to find a way to encourage people to cycle safely, because we cannot stop them now—it is too late. We also need to think about the green agenda. When 63% of riders say that they are replacing a car journey by riding a scooter, that is worth having.
I conclude with a story. I know that many noble Lords are quite old and may think this is something for young people, but I have a quote from YorkMix about a man called Tom—he will not give his other name—who travels
“around York illegally on an e-scooter”
and enjoys it. It is much better than an electric wheelchair. He carries on riding
“Because it helps him stay active”,
after being locked down for three months because of coronavirus. I encourage the Government to carry on with the trial to encourage people to use scooters safely and responsibly. Do not give up.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The trials in England, Scotland and Wales have been under way for almost three months. It is a shame that your Lordships have not had the opportunity to debate the regulations before now. I understand that the Government’s original intention was to run trials in four areas next year but, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to mitigate reduced capacity on public transport because of Covid-19, these have been brought forward and effectively introduced en masse.
While I appreciate that rental e-scooters only are currently allowed on roads and cycle lanes for the trial, one must wonder how the police can differentiate between them and privately owned e-scooters, which remain illegal on public highways. The Metropolitan Police caught almost 100 riders in London in a single week last summer. It will be much more difficult to do so now. I note that the rental e-scooters permissible in the trials are required to carry a unique identifier to aid with enforcement. Could the Minister provide the House with more detail about the nature of this unique identifier and advise if it is clearly visible to assist the police with apprehending illegal riders? Registration plates would seem to be the obvious solution, but this was rejected by the Department for Transport.
I welcome the need for riders to hold a full or provisional car, motorcycle or moped licence to use e-scooters, and that they must be aged 16 or over. The decision to class e-scooters as motor vehicles is also prudent, meaning that offences such as drink driving will apply to them and can be enforced in the same way as they are for car drivers. I am less reassured by the absence of any form of training for riders before they take to the roads. Given the nature of the trial scheme, it should be straightforward for registered renters to either provide a short practical demonstration or require riders to show that they can safely use an e-scooter before being unleashed. Further, for the safety of the riders themselves, I am in favour of helmets being mandatory rather than optional. I agree with the Government that motorcycle helmets are unnecessary but surely a requirement to wear a cycle helmet is basic common sense. I would be greatly surprised if most e-scooter riders do not already own a cycle helmet, thereby removing cost as a barrier. Renting outlets could also have a small number of helmets available for hire.
I understand that the argument to set the power limit at 500 watts is to help e-scooters climb hills and inclines, particularly when carrying heavier riders, but I am wary of the speed limit of 15.5 mph, which seems high. Given that the Government have decided to set the maximum weight at 55 kilograms, that amounts to genuinely dangerous collisions when they do inevitably happen. The original position, as I understand it, was to set the weight limit at 35 kilograms but this changed following arguments that the lower limit would preclude designs with heavier batteries. I hope that the 55 kilograms can be reduced as technology improves and batteries get smaller, but to encourage manufacturers to make this a priority, I encourage the Government to make provision for the upper weight limit to be reviewed on an ongoing basis once the trial has concluded.
I urge the Government to take on board my concerns and those of other noble Lords before more permanent arrangements are put in place. I also hope that policymakers are listening in Northern Ireland, where e-scooters are still not allowed on public highways but could make an appreciable difference before long.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking the initiative to regulate electric scooters. They have arrived. Even in Eastbourne, we have people zooming around on them. We even have one young man on a Segway monocycle, and very stylish he looks too. As other noble Lords have said, however, we need to find a way of binding these into the rules of the road so that pedestrians can feel safe, and users know how to interact with each other. The Government must, absolutely, be on the front foot on this. I am sure they will get to a positive answer, and I do not think we need a repeat of the red flag Act or anything draconian. They are a liberating factor in our street environment and one to be welcomed.
I expect we will see much more use of electric scooters locally, but they have a deficiency. They are, essentially, vehicles for the young. You cannot really use them if you are at all shaky. You cannot use them if you want to go shopping or if you want to take the kids to school. In a very diffuse community such as Eastbourne—and there are a lot of similar towns and bit of towns around the UK—with houses that have a nice amount of space around them and a very convoluted road layout, it is inconceivable that, with current technology, we can devise a public transport network. Personal transport has devolved, largely, on to each household having two cars.
In Eastbourne, we have one of the highest rates of intra-urban car use in the UK, and this results in quite high levels of atmospheric pollution. Putting to one side the detriment to the world generally of generating so much carbon dioxide, we would like to do something about this locally. We need not an e-scooter but something cheap, slow, electric, short range, low technology, weatherproof and three-to-four seater.
Several of those things are clearly available on the market in China. They cost about £1,000, so are thoroughly affordable, but there has been no collaboration that I can find from the Department for Transport to get such vehicles on to UK roads. I would be really grateful if the Department for Transport would help me set up, on a very small scale, a representative on-road trial of these machines to see whether they solve the problems that I think they will solve and to see whether we can reap the benefits that they offer. They might look like a tin box on wheels and might not appeal to your average man, who has a different idea of what they would like to be seen in, but in areas where public transport is not working, and really cannot work, I think that they would offer a thoroughly practical solution in trying to reduce our levels of transport carbon emissions
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I also declare that I am a fairly avid e-bike user and have tried out these scooters, albeit overseas on holiday.
My first point is one that others have already made. I welcome the Government’s use of trials to introduce this technology into the country but again I ask the Minister why we cannot have greater scrutiny, even with Covid. We need to ensure that we use the wisdom of this House and of Parliament as a whole to help make these trials work and introduce scooters to the nation in a healthier, sustainable way with less injury. As a country, we have a reputation for being an innovator and for using our expertise, including legal expertise, as a regulator. We should therefore trial these technologies in a sandbox in a way that balances the need to protect people with the need to be ahead of the game. You see that in many other sectors, so why not in this area too?
Secondly, having tried e-scooters, it is very clear to me that they are a bit more dangerous than bikes because of the way you stand on them. You are very susceptible to things such as potholes. Therefore, there is a difference. I ask the Minister what the policy is on e-bikes. I think that there is an even bigger opportunity to retrofit existing bikes with the many battery systems, whereby you essentially replace one of the bike’s wheels. Many millions of cyclists who might struggle to commute and use electronic scooters or regular bikes would benefit from that technology. I think that we should do that rather than focus on just scooters.
That said, in the interim there seems to be a real opportunity to use scooters as part of an integrated transport strategy, particularly in smaller towns and other places, as part of levelling up. Given the immaturity of the technology, I am not very much in favour of them being used in a totally deregulated way. Why can we not use them as part of an evolved transport strategy in cities and towns and ask those who lead those places to figure out on which routes there could be more trials of rented scooters? For example, Watford, which I visited recently, has a real problem in that the Tube finishes not in the middle but on the edge of the town. Could the use of scooters not be encouraged on very defined routes from the edge of that last mile to the town centre so that people could go there to shop and young people could be brought in?
Bicycle helmets are essential, as a previous speaker mentioned, and, as we have seen in these trials, we need to ID users. It seems that many of the problems have been with people who are not responsible drivers, and with some who are underage getting access to electric scooters. In the longer term, these scooters may be like drones; when the technology is ready, we can then start to bring them into wider use. As a nation, we perhaps need to encourage the manufacturers to look at the possibility of making the scooters stop when they encounter an obstacle, the ability of a person to geotag them so that they cannot go to places they should not, or the use of fingerprinting or other ID systems so that they literally cannot be used other than by the authorised user. Perhaps the way the scooter renter or user drives on pavements should affect their insurance, or their ability to use these vehicles. Ultimately, however, electric vehicles may over time become safer than existing vehicles, as in the way they allow the rider to accelerate away from red lights.
In conclusion, we must balance the risks with the potential to innovate and be ahead. I ask the Minister: what is the plan to do this in a careful and staged way?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Motion, which gives us the opportunity to examine this important issue. The Government have come to this pretty late in the day; we have now been talking about this for a couple of years. Cities across Europe and well beyond have been grappling with the issues raised by electric scooters for a long time now. My own experience as a frequent visitor to Brussels has been of a problem of abandoned scooters on pavements, often left in the way of pedestrians. Make no mistake, electric scooters are a very divisive issue. I am therefore surprised that there were only two weeks’ consultation, after years of thought building up to this.
I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when it criticises the poor quality of the explanatory material provided with this legislation, and the apparent failure of the Government to build on experiences elsewhere. To make it clear, by instinct I welcome these trials. Electric scooters are exciting, and they look fun—I wish I were young enough to take up riding one. However, it is also important to remember that they are a complex issue, because they are frightening to many pedestrians, particularly older and disabled people. Overall, I find it anachronistic that we have a new environmentally friendly form of transport that remains illegal in Britain on public roads and footpaths.
Looking at the safety concerns in detail, on the roads, riders of electric vehicles will be exposed to traffic and, as they are lower than bicycles, are less likely than cyclists to be seen by motorists passing in their cars. On pavements they are an obvious hazard to pedestrians because they are both speedy and silent. Can the Minister explain why there is no requirement for a helmet, given that their maximum speed is same as that of an electric bike? Why should they not have lights? Why is there no requirement for reflective clothing? Should there not be visible registration numbers? These are vehicles on the roads, or soon will be. We have come round to the view that we require registration numbers for drones, so I think there should be registration numbers for electric scooters.
I also draw the attention of the House to the concern felt by the ABI, representing the insurance industry, about the lack of requirement for insurance.
Lessons from abroad indicate significant costs to local authorities in clearing up abandoned scooters and regulating the rental process. Will the local authorities that hold these trials be provided with any finance?
Who will enforce the requirement to have at least a provisional licence? If you are caught by the police doing something illegal on an electric bike, will the fact that you have a licence mean that you will get points on it? That is the kind of clarity I seek.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the Doppler schemes; they have been a particular cause of problems because of the method by which the scooters are recharged. They rely on people doing casual work, going around picking up the scooters and recharging them in their own homes; they are paid according to the number they recharge. The effect of this rather casual approach has been that scooters abandoned in difficult places get left there, unrecharged. So I urge the Minister to make sure there is a proper way of docking these vehicles.
One government response quoted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to making legal other micro mobility vehicles. Can the Minister please explain what other vehicles the Government have in mind?
Studies show that generally scooters are used much more as leisure vehicles and for short distances. Have the Government taken this into account? The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised the lack of clarity about the Government’s purpose. It is being done under the Covid umbrella; the Government say that they see this as an important alternative form of transport.
How many trial areas do the Government envisage? The press has mentioned 50. What is the timescale for the rollout? There will be some places where scooters will share space with pedestrians, so what about the rules of the pavement? Who will give way to whom?
How will the Government evaluate each of these trial schemes, and will the Minister undertake to publish a full evaluation and let us debate it here?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for providing the opportunity to outline the Government’s intentions in introducing trials of rental electric scooters—e-scooters. I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for highlighting the omissions of our department. I am assured that it will not happen again.
As time is short, I will move immediately to the points raised. I note that there were noble Lords on all sides of the debate today, which I feel is positive progress. We have had some additional issues raised, including those from my noble friend Lord Lucas on electric tuk-tuks in Eastbourne and my noble friend Lord Wei on e-bikes. I will probably have to write in regard to those areas.
The e-scooter trials have been widely trailed, for quite some time, as part of the Future of Mobility Grand Challenge. They were planned for introduction by the Government in four regions in 2021. However, we felt that the trials could be brought forward and expanded in response to the pandemic, because we recognised their enormous potential to provide a new socially distanced travel option, to improve air quality and to reduce the pressure on public transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned electric bicycles and I welcome his All-Party Parliamentary Group on Micromobility; it is very important that we debate all these issues in great detail. The overall aim of these regulations is to treat e-scooters in trial areas as similarly as we can to electric bikes. For example, in common with users of e-bikes, users of e-scooters in trial areas will not be mandated to wear a protective helmet—although it will be strongly recommended, and many rental operators provide helmets. E-scooters will also be permitted where bikes and e-bikes are permitted. Users of e-scooters in trial areas will need to have some form of driving licence, which could be a provisional licence, and motor insurance must be held by e-scooter operators.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned technical standards. We work with each rental operator to satisfy ourselves that the technical conditions we require have been met, and out requirements are based on the world-leading German regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned lights, which we do require on our trial scooters. We consulted on the use of helmets, and the majority of those who responded agreed that cycle helmets should be recommended and not mandated. Given that in trials these scooters have a maximum speed of 15.5 mph, we recommend that an e-scooter user wears a cycle helmet, as we do for bikes and e-bikes, but this will be subject to review after the trials end.
We believe that e-scooters offer many potential benefits. They are a greener form of transport than private cars, and if people use them for journeys normally undertaken by a private car, we will see a decrease in congestion and in air pollution. However, we acknowledge that there are risks surrounding the safe use of these scooters, as many noble Lords have highlighted. We have looked at their introduction in other countries. In countries where e-scooters are allowed on the road in an unregulated way there have been difficulties, including a rapid increase in the number of e-scooters, discarded scooters causing a hazard for pedestrians—as noted by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—and scooters being used in, frankly, unsafe ways. Some lessons have been learned and there are many successful examples of operators and cities working together to ensure that excellent services are provided. None the less, e-scooters are a new type of vehicle, and it is important to stress that the evidence around their potential benefits and risks is limited and inconclusive, hence we need time-limited and location-specific trials.
Currently there are trials in six areas: Tees Valley, Milton Keynes, the West Midlands, Staffordshire, Norwich and Northamptonshire. Ministers have approved trials in 11 further areas, and there may be more in the pipeline, because in each of these areas we look very closely at the local authority and work very closely with it. Each local authority has volunteered to take part and is fully involved in selecting which e-scooter operator it wants to work with. Also, a local authority can decide how many e-scooters it wants to allow in its area. The scooters are branded and individually identifiable. This allows the local police force to trace riders when needed, and to differentiate them from privately owned scooters—a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.
My noble friend Lord Wei mentioned local authorities defining the areas for use. He is right; this is exactly what happens. The local authority decides where it is safe for e-scooters to be ridden, including in cycle lanes, and is required to engage with the local police force and accessibility groups in designing its proposals and to work with them to resolve any issues. To date, no concerns have been raised about the capacity of cycle lanes during the trials. The cost to the Government and local authorities of running e-scooter trials is low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned funding. Local authorities hosting trials can use a small proportion of the £250 million active travel fund to make the necessary changes. However, this funding is capped at a total of £5 million overall, not per trial. The Government are running the central monitoring and evaluation contract to assess the trials and to further reduce costs. They have given support to local areas in designing their proposals through a series of weekly online meetings.
Let me be clear. The regulations being discussed today apply only to e-scooters used as part of the trial, arranged between a rental authority and the local public authority. They do not extend to privately owned e-scooters, which are where we have many of the bad apples. E-scooters are not allowed on the pavement during trials or at any other time. A trial e-scooter may be used in a cycle lane but not on the motorway. E-scooter users who commit an offence can be fined up to £300 and, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, have six points put on their driving licence. The Government are publishing details of the trial areas on GOV.UK as each trial begins. We anticipate that most trials will be live by mid-October. The trials will run for 12 months but we will keep this under review based on the evidence that we gather. They are trials in the truest sense of the word, to see what works and what does not work. Nothing is being taken off the table. The national evaluation of trials will be undertaken by third-party contractors managed by the department and the results are likely to be published towards the autumn of 2021 when we have robust data.
I have ridden an e-scooter and it is great fun. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that she should have a go too. In all seriousness, I sense the issue here is not that most noble Lords are against progress in micromobility but that they want to get the implementation right. That is what we are focused on. I am extremely grateful for the input of all noble Lords today. These deliberations will be taken into account as we consider the future of e-scooters.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Like the Minister, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this all-too-brief take-note Motion debate and made it worth while. I thank the Minister for her responses to the many points and questions that have been raised.
E-scooters may well prove to have a valuable role to play as a safe mode of transport. If this is to be the case, let us make sure that it is with public consent and acceptance, after full public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, following properly conducted trials, independently assessed against transparent criteria, with the assessments being made public.
Once again, I thank noble Lords for their participation in the debate and thank the Minister for her responses.