House of Commons
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker's Statement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I remind colleagues that deferred Divisions will take place today on two statutory instruments in the Members’ Library between 11.30 am and 3.30 pm. Members will cast their votes by placing the completed Division slip in one of the ballot boxes provided. I remind colleagues of the importance of social distancing during the deferred Divisions and ask them to pick up a Division slip from the Vote Office and fill it in before they reach the Library, if possible. The result will be announced in the Chamber as soon as possible after the Divisions are over.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We have committed to delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the whole UK market. We continue to discuss our approach to the protocol with the European Union, and we have put in place a safety net to ensure that qualifying goods do not face exit procedures upon leaving Northern Ireland for the rest of the UK, delivering our promise of unfettered access.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome the UK Internal Market Bill being passed by the House, because it does indeed put in place the benefit for Northern Ireland businesses that he describes. Can he say a bit more about how businesses based in my constituency, for example, can export to Northern Ireland without restrictions and how we will ensure that businesses and constituents in Northern Ireland get unrivalled access to the whole United Kingdom market?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a difference with businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland. We are determined to give them the certainty that they want and need. That is an important part of delivering on the protocol, which says that it
“should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities”.
That means ensuring good free trade. The protocol makes it clear that there will be some changes for goods movements into Northern Ireland from Great Britain. We are consulting businesses in Northern Ireland and working with our partners in the European Union to deliver on that, and there will be a slimmed-down Finance Bill that includes all the commitments we have made to the people of Northern Ireland that are outstanding at that point.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Our concern is also about goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and that includes products used in the manufacturing process for goods that are then sent back to Great Britain. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Finance Bill will contain specific definitions in relation to goods that are not deemed at risk that are for consumption exclusively in Northern Ireland or are part of the manufacturing process in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. At the heart of our approach is our determination to ensure that trade flows freely, so that businesses trading in and with Northern Ireland can continue to trade properly. We will make full use of the provisions in the protocol to deliver on that, and we will continue to discuss this with the European Union. As I say, there are still issues that we are discussing as part of the free trade agreement and through the specialist Joint Committee, but we will ensure that all the commitments made by myself, the Prime Minister and other colleagues at the Dispatch Box are delivered through a slimmed-down Finance Bill later this year.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I have been meeting businesses in the agrifood sector, and they are particularly concerned about the definition of qualifying businesses and qualifying goods for the purposes of the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to GB and vice versa. I understand that the Government are preparing a statutory instrument on that. Can the Secretary of State update us on the progress made to bring about such a definition?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. The withdrawal agreement includes provision for the Government to define the qualifying status for goods and businesses in Northern Ireland, as part of ensuring that they benefit from unfettered access. We are also engaging with businesses, as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are. I have been engaging with businesses—and will do so again later today—in Northern Ireland and with the Executive to work through the means for delivering that qualifying status. There will be an ability for us to deliver that, and we will do it by secondary legislation under the withdrawal Act before the end of the year.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Just like their counterparts in Kent and Scotland, Northern Irish businesses need clarity on the looming post-Brexit reality. The Secretary of State must know that the last-minute shambles of the Internal Market Bill delivers the exact opposite and fails to provide much-needed reassurance. Does he appreciate the damage that this lack of clarity is doing to Northern Irish businesses?
Brandon Lewis
Northern Ireland businesses responded very positively to the Command Paper and the guidelines we set out earlier in the summer. The UK Internal Market Bill delivers on that and on the key objective of guaranteeing unfettered access. I think it is a bit rich for the hon. Lady to talk about this. We are delivering unfettered access—something the SNP wants to block by putting another border between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK’s internal market has functioned seamlessly for centuries. As the transition period ends, we will ensure that the most successful Union of nations in the world continues to thrive, and we will do this while maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process. The Secretary of State and I regularly meet Cabinet and ministerial colleagues across Government on this point, including through the Cabinet Committee on Union policy implementation, which is driving forward the Government’s Union strategy.
Sarah Atherton
To continue a theme, Wrexham has one of the largest trading estates in the UK, and trading with Northern Ireland via Holyhead port is vital for Wrexham’s future growth. Will the Minister give us reassurances that from January, seamless trade around the UK will continue as it is essential to our Union’s growth and prosperity?
Mr Walker
Yes, I can. That is why the Government are very pleased that the Bill has completed its passage through the House this week. The provisions in the Bill ensure that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and provide a power for Ministers to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other export procedures on such movements.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is very welcome to hear that a slimmed-down Finance Bill is coming later in the year, but not a single clause in the internal market Bill changes the fact that new requirements on trade between Britain and Northern Ireland will be coming into force in 13 weeks’ time. Why is a coalition of business groups still waiting for answers on 60 of the 67 basic questions that it put to the Secretary of State in June on how the protocol will work? Why is there still no border operating model? Why has the necessary infrastructure been described by the permanent secretary for environment and agriculture as undeliverable? Is it not time for both the EU and the UK to act in Northern Ireland’s interests and deliver the certainty that businesses are crying out for?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady rightly calls for certainty, but in making the criticism that she does, she appears to be criticising the protocol that her Front Benchers have been arguing that we cannot interfere with. It is essential that we deliver on the protocol and deliver certainty for businesses, and the steps that we have taken in the UK Internal Market Bill help us to do so. I am not going to take lectures on upholding the integrity of our Union from a party that refuses to rule out backing a divisive second independence referendum in Scotland.
Louise Haigh
Those are absolutely ridiculous comments from the Minister. We have been supporting the protocol and the implementation of it, and it is the divisive, law-breaking UK Internal Market Bill that has undermined the implementation of the protocol. While criticism from five former Prime Ministers, the leaders of three Northern Ireland parties, the Speaker of the US Congress and the resignation of the Government’s most senior law officer may not have concerned the Government, I wonder whether the comments of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland have. Sir Declan Morgan said that the threat to break the law may have undermined public confidence in the legal system. I wonder whether the Minister now regrets the comments made by the Secretary of State and the actions of Governments over the past fortnight.
Mr Walker
We have been repeatedly clear through the passage of the Bill that we are respecting and delivering on the protocol. We remain absolutely committed to the peace process, the Good Friday agreement and to acting within the UK’s constitutional set-up, and that is what we will continue to do.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
In August, the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland, announcing the establishment of a centenary forum and centenary historical advisory panel, ensuring that we listen to diverse perspectives as we create a bold and ambitious centenary programme. As well as being the centenary of Northern Ireland, it is also the centenary of the United Kingdom as we know it today. We are committed to delivering our programme that will allow the public to engage with the history of the centenary while supporting Northern Ireland businesses, its tourism industry and promoting Northern Ireland on the world stage.
Marco Longhi
Does my hon. Friend agree that next year’s important anniversary for the UK as we know it today is also a fantastic opportunity to mark Northern Ireland’s future, its diverse people, business and culture?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is an opportunity to look ahead towards a bright and prosperous future for Northern Ireland. It is a chance for people across the British Isles and abroad to celebrate the progress made while showcasing the people and places that I have so enjoyed getting to know since my appointment last year.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that I put a written proposal to the Treasury about a commemorative celebratory coin for Northern Ireland in its 100th anniversary year. Perhaps the Minister would take the opportunity to elaborate on what progress has been made on that celebratory coin for our nation, and will he elaborate on what the Treasury has told me, which is that the Government will use this opportunity to promote Northern Ireland on the world stage and celebrate its people, culture, traditions and enterprise because we have made such a vital contribution to this United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are in firm agreement that we should mark this historical centenary in a way that facilitates national recognition and international awareness. Specifically regarding a commemorative coin, this is a matter for the Treasury. It is a proposal that I have shared with ministerial colleagues previously, and I am very happy to explore it with them further. On the international dimension, he is absolutely right. We will be working with the Department for International Trade and our colleagues at the Foreign Office to ensure that promoting Northern Ireland around the world is an opportunity that is taken during this centenary.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I continue to work closely with colleagues across the Government and the Executive to support the tourism industry in Northern Ireland. The industry has benefited from financial support provided by the UK Government, including through the job retention scheme and the extension of the 15% VAT cut for the hospitality and tourism sectors. I welcome the new UK- wide Escape the Everyday campaign, promoting domestic tourism and promoting Northern Ireland across the UK as a great place to visit.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that response. Indeed, the lower VAT is helpful, but will he discuss with Treasury colleagues the potential benefit to Northern Ireland of extending that lower rate even further?
Mr Walker
I absolutely recognise the point that my hon. Friend is making. The extension of the 15% VAT cut for hospitality and tourism to the end of March next year will provide vital support for the tourism industry through these challenging times. The approach taken by this Government is already one of the most generous and comprehensive globally, but we will continue to monitor the impact that the measures are having, to provide the necessary support for businesses and individuals. I know the Secretary of State will be meeting representatives of the hospitality industry later on today.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Secretary of State, in relation to Northern Ireland tourism, may I say that it has to compete not only on a world stage, but with the market from the Republic of Ireland and its predatory actions? It has been fast and loose in terms of using the opportunity of state aid, but in relation to air passenger duty, it has sucked the life out of our international trade to our international airports. What can be done in relation to using APD as a tool to help our tourism industry?
Mr Walker
I absolutely recognise the competitive pressure that Northern Ireland faces, and it is something that I have discussed with hospitality and, indeed, the aviation industry in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Treasury is looking into what can be done on the APD front, and it is certainly something where we will take on board the views of Northern Ireland businesses.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
This Government will always make sure that the Belfast Good Friday agreement is protected. I speak regularly with my colleagues on that very issue. We will not allow anything to shake our steadfast commitment to it.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will be aware that the Good Friday agreement encourages co-operation across the island of Ireland, including in security. He will know that, last week, the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice said that, to prepare fully, she needed clarity on negotiations and on the delivery of the protocol. What guarantees can he give us that the vital sharing of intelligence and information will continue after Brexit?
Brandon Lewis
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the co-operation has been shown to work exceedingly well, as we have seen in the past few weeks with the quite phenomenally successful operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners in the Garda in arresting terrorists. That operation highlights how well that co-operation works on the ground. Obviously, we are very keen to ensure that that kind of co-operation continues after we leave the European Union, and I know that our partners are keen on that as well.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Secretary of State and I have engaged extensively with Northern Ireland businesses and have been impressed by their resilience and adaptability. This Government will do everything they can to help people and businesses through this extraordinary time. Businesses in Northern Ireland will benefit from the job support scheme, VAT reductions being extended and the extension of bounce back loans.
Andrew Griffith
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the latest package of measures in the Government’s winter economy plan? Those measures will ensure that we continue to protect jobs and help businesses through the uncertain difficult months ahead to ensure that Northern Ireland not only recovers but has the opportunity to prosper as part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Walker
I absolutely will. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the comprehensive winter economy plan. The Government are providing support for businesses and employees throughout the United Kingdom with an unprecedented series of grants, loans and support schemes. We are steadfast in our commitment to strengthening the Union and levelling up opportunities for Northern Ireland to prosper, and that includes for our investments in the city and growth deals programme, which covers the whole of Northern Ireland.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
In March this year, the Government made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which set out the new law on access to abortion services in Northern Ireland. Since then, we have been dealing with the response to covid-19. However, I am pleased that some service provision has commenced on the ground in Northern Ireland through existing sexual and reproductive health clinics across all the health and social care trusts. I hope that longer-term services can be commissioned as soon as possible so that access is available locally in all cases set out in the regulations. The Government stand ready to provide whatever support we can to Northern Ireland’s Minister of Health and his Department to assist them in this regard.
Ruth Jones
We all know that the time for debate about the need for abortion services for the women of Northern Ireland is long gone. These women deserve equality of access to these vital services without having to travel to the mainland. What discussions has the Minister had on the funding needed for the UK Government to commission and sustain new abortion services for the women of Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
The regulations deliver equivalent outcomes, in practice, to the rest of the UK so that women and girls can enjoy similar rights in accessing abortion services in Northern Ireland going forward. We are in constant dialogue with the Executive about their overall funding settlement. As the hon. Lady will recognise, there have been substantial increases in their funding, thanks to the Barnett consequentials of funding across the UK, including in health.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. In this pandemic, it is even more important that women do not make risky journeys. Despite the clear indication of this Parliament, women’s rights are still being denied in Northern Ireland because of the difficult local politics—which we understand. What discussions is he having about specific funding for wider abortion services, and is he considering a legal duty to provide?
Mr Walker
I think that we all recognise the importance of this issue. I understand that sexual and reproductive health clinics are providing some services consistent with the regulations. I am pleased that an interim solution has been reached on the ground in Northern Ireland so that the health and safety of women and girls can be protected by accessing services locally. We all want the Executive to be able to move forward with formal commissioning of further services, and we will continue to support them in doing that.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that tomorrow marks the commencement of Down’s Syndrome Awareness Month, when we celebrate Down’s syndrome, raise awareness and promote inclusivity within our society. With that in mind, what assessment has he made of the impact of the Government’s decision to allow for termination to birth for diagnosis of Down’s syndrome in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that many people see this as disability discrimination within the womb that would otherwise be illegal outside of the womb?
Mr Walker
Let me first join the hon. Lady in supporting all those living with and supporting people with Down’s syndrome. There is absolutely no intention whatsoever for any form of discrimination. As I repeatedly made clear in the debate on the regulations, they do not list specific conditions but rather ensure that we have complied with what CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—requires. These are complex decisions. It is only right that women can make individual, informed decisions, following medical assessments, clear provision of information and proper support from medical professionals. That support should be there in cases where they choose to take their pregnancies to term even in cases of severe foetal impairment. We will continue to support the Department of Health and the Executive to deliver on this issue.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We continue to engage regularly with stakeholders from across Northern Ireland and beyond on the implementation of the protocol. We have heard loud and clear the need for further clarity and certainty to ensure that we are all ready for the end of the transition period. Some of the steps we have taken over the past few months are about delivering on that. We are committed to implementing the protocol, as our recent work on the sanitary and phytosanitary checks, for example, highlights. We have been working hard to ensure that this is done in a way that delivers in full on our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, including our commitment to deliver unfettered access to Northern Ireland businesses to the whole UK market.
Kevin Brennan
I am not sure that the Secretary of State told me what representations he had received, which is what I actually asked. He conceded earlier that there will be some changes to the movement of goods as a result of the protocol. Can he tell us what that will look like in practice, because that is the clarity that businesses want?
Brandon Lewis
I thought that I had actually answered the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am meeting businesses on a regular basis. The business engagement forum talks to businesses across a range of sectors in Northern Ireland. In fact, only this afternoon, I will be meeting more business representatives in Northern Ireland to talk about a range of issues—not only recovery from covid but delivering on the protocol and what happens after the end of the implementation period. What these businesses have consistently wanted is certainty about unfettered access, which the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill delivers. We will continue to focus on seeking an agreement through the specialist Joint Committee and through the free trade agreement to deliver that. We have also been clear that there will be some checks—particularly, for example, SPS checks for live animals and agrifoods. We are delivering on that with the Northern Ireland Executive. These checks are building on the checks that have been in place since about the 19th century. We are determined to deliver in a way that works for people and businesses in all communities in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The businesses of Northern Ireland urgently need to see the detail on the border operating model down the Irish sea. This was promised previously by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by the end of July. It is not essential that we see the outcome of the Joint Committee, so can the Secretary of State clarify when that will be published, because it is so urgent?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about businesses wanting as much certainty as they can get. We are still working through things with the specialist Joint Committee, but we are also engaging with those businesses. As I say, we are having regular weekly meetings with businesses—a range of businesses—across Northern Ireland to ensure that we deliver what works best for those businesses in Northern Ireland.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Despite the need to focus on covid-19, quite rightly, good progress has still been made in a number of areas in delivering on the new decade, new approach agreement. We have been releasing money from the £2 billion of funding set in the deal, changing the family migration rules for the people of Northern Ireland, holding the first joint board meeting, announcing the appointment of a veterans commissioner and, indeed, setting out our intentions for marking the centenary of Northern Ireland next year.
Robbie Moore
I welcome the tremendous progress that my right hon. Friend has made in delivering on the new decade, new approach deal, including appointing a veterans commissioner, as he has just pointed out, but also holding the first meeting of the joint board. Does he agree that this demonstrates that the deal signed earlier this year is working well?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The deal is a good example of ensuring that the Northern Ireland Executive are able to function and flow. They have worked very well through the difficulties and the challenges of the covid period, and they continue to work well. It is good to see all five parties working across the Assembly and across the Executive to deliver for people right across all communities in Northern Ireland.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
Covid and Brexit are of course the headline acts—my right hon. Friend is right—but the NDNA cannot be forgotten. The Government response to our Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report was, possibly understandably, thin. Can he assure me that delivering the NDNA in full has his energy and commitment, because he knows how important that agreement is for progress and peace?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is absolutely right about delivering on that in full both in the legislation we will need to pass in this House, which we will bring to this House in due course, and in making sure that things are being delivered across the NDNA—whether the independent fiscal council, which I have spoken to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister about, or continuing the joint board meetings, the leaders meetings and the whole range of things that we need to do. Working together, these are the issues I discuss with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, generally on a weekly basis at least, to make sure that we continue to deliver.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations. I want to thank the Executive for their engagement to date, including their response to our consultation on the Bill. I can confirm that I did speak to Northern Ireland’s party leaders about the UKIM Bill ahead of its introduction, and I look forward to continuing to engage with the Executive as we progress towards the end of the year.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
Given that the leading member of the United States Congress, the Democrat nominee for President, the Trump-appointed special envoy to Northern Ireland, the Irish Government, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and three of the five parties of the Executive have all condemned the Secretary of State’s juvenile law-breaking boasts in this House, does he now accept that he has done more harm than good?
Brandon Lewis
I would just respectfully say that the hon. Lady may want to have a look at exactly what I said in this House, which was giving a straight answer to a very direct, straight question and making a statement of the position. It is a position that will ensure that this Government deliver on our overriding promise to deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses and ensure we are protecting the Good Friday agreement.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Government have been clear that we will bring forward legislation to address the legacy of the troubles, which focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of investigations that have failed both victims and veterans alike with vexatious claims. We are committed to making progress on this and, indeed, to engaging with the Irish Government, the Northern Ireland parties and stakeholders from across the community on this issue.
Mary Kelly Foy
The Stormont House agreement was agreed by the overwhelming majority of political parties in Northern Ireland, was endorsed by the British and Irish Governments and had cross-community support. Will the Secretary of State recommit to the principles of Stormont House and reconfirm the central involvement of victims’ groups in any legacy proposals?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, as I outlined at the time of the written ministerial statement, we absolutely do follow through and we intend to follow through on the principles of Stormont House. It is hugely important that we are all working with all communities, and particularly the families and the victims who suffered so much through the troubles. I was so pleased that we are finally seeing the victims’ payment scheme going forward. It is a hugely important step for all those people in Northern Ireland.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Some Members of this House want an amnesty for veterans who served in Northern Ireland. In 1976, Majella O’Hare, who was 12 years old, was walking with her friends to church. She was shot twice in the back, and killed, by a British paratrooper. Does the Secretary of State believe that that paratrooper should be immune from prosecution?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am unable to comment on any particular cases, but we all recognise the sensitivities, difficulties and complexity of all the issues that come through the troubles, which people in Northern Ireland have been dealing with for a very long time. We have made a commitment through NDNA, and as I did in the written ministerial statement earlier this year, to find a way to work through this, working with all parties and all communities in Northern Ireland, and we are still determined to deliver on that.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a statement about this House’s scrutiny of delegated powers during the pandemic, and on the selection of amendments to the motion relating to the Coronavirus Act 2020 later today.
The way in which the Government have exercised their powers to make secondary legislation during this crisis has been totally unsatisfactory. All too often, important statutory instruments have been published a matter of hours before they come into force, and some explanations why important measures have come into effect before they can be laid before this House have been unconvincing; this shows a total disregard for the House.
The Government must make greater efforts to prepare measures more quickly, so that this House can debate and decide upon the most significant measures at the earliest possible point. The use of made affirmative statutory instruments under the urgency procedure gives rise to particular concern. I will give very sympathetic consideration to applications for urgent questions or emergency debates in such cases, requiring Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to justify the use of such powers.
I hope that all hon. Members will have a chance to express their views through substantive amendable motions on scrutiny of delegated powers, or on the operation of the Coronavirus Act 2020, or both.
I turn now to the motion to be considered later today, which invites the House to make a narrow, binary choice as to whether the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should or should not expire. Unfortunately, as it is only a 90-minute debate as a proceeding under an Act under Standing Order No. 16, I am disappointed that I cannot give additional time to discuss the issues. I know some Members will be disappointed.
When I became Speaker, I made it clear that I would take decisions on matters relating to procedure guided by professional advice. I have concluded, on the basis of advice that I have received, that any amendment to the motion before the House risks giving rise to uncertainty about the decision the House has taken. This then risks decisions that are rightly the responsibility of Parliament ultimately being determined by the courts. Lack of clarity in such important matters risks undermining the rule of law. I have therefore decided not to select any of the amendments to the motion.
As I hope my earlier comments show, I have not taken this decision lightly. I am looking to the Government to remedy a situation I regard as completely unsatisfactory. I now look to the Government to rebuild the trust with this House and not treat it with the contempt that they have shown.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I know the whole House will want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was tragically killed in Croydon on Friday. It is a reminder of the huge debt we owe to those who put their own lives at risk to keep us safe every day.
Tomorrow sees the start of Black History Month. For generations, countless people of African and Caribbean descent have been shaping our nation’s story, making a huge difference to our national and cultural life and helping to make Britain a better place to be. This is a fantastic moment to celebrate their contribution to our country.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Jason McCartney
The events sector, which includes weddings, festivals, conferences and music events, supports nearly 1 million jobs and is worth more than £30 billion to the UK economy. It has been devastated by covid: revenue is down 90% since last year. Will the Prime Minister look at financial support, focusing on grants and not just loans, especially for freelancers, including musicians and performers? Will the Government support proactive, covid-secure testing events to boost confidence and start to allow the events industry to support itself?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the sector in the way that he does. The £1.57 billion culture recovery fund is clearly intended to support the organisations and freelancers he mentions. The vision he lays out, in which people can be tested before they go to events, is absolutely right, and I hope that when that day comes, the public will show their support for this vital sector by visiting theatres as they reopen.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in sending my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Matt Ratana? This was a truly appalling incident, and I have to say that every time I contemplate the circumstances, I shudder, and I suspect I am speaking for a lot of people when I say that. It reminds us of the huge debt that we owe to all our police officers and of the risks that they take every day to keep us safe.
More than 16 million—around one in four—people are now living under local restrictions. In recent months, 48 areas in England have gone into local restrictions, but only one has ever come out and stayed out—Luton. Why does the Prime Minister think that is?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of local lockdown measures. I can tell him and the House that since I last updated the House, he is absolutely right to say that there is now a serious and growing problem with the resurgence of the virus, which is why we brought forward the package of measures that we did last week. The reason for the success of Luton is that local people pulled together to depress the virus—to follow the guidance. That is the way forward for the entire country, that is what we did before, in March and April, and I have no doubt that that is what we are going to do again.
Keir Starmer
When local restrictions were introduced, the Prime Minister described them as a “whack-a-mole” strategy. That implies that at some stage the mole goes down and restrictions are lifted, but in fact, in some lockdown areas infection rates are still going up, and in towns such as Bradford, Bury and Oldham restrictions have now been in place for months. For many of those communities that are affected, things feel like they are getting worse, not better, so I ask a question on their behalf: what is the Prime Minister’s strategy for bringing these places out of restrictions so that they can see their families again?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to impose restrictions of this kind, whether in Bradford or anywhere else in the country. We work very closely with local authorities to ensure that we have the right mix of the approach that we adopt. Frankly, when we have the virus going up in the way that it now is in some parts of the country, we have to take strong local action. One important difference between the way the virus is behaving this time and how it behaved in the spring is that it does appear, at the moment, as though the illness is more localised. That is why we need direct local action of the kind that we are taking, in addition to the strong national measures that we announced last week, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supported and whose effect we hope to see in the coming days and weeks.
Keir Starmer
One of the major problems, as we have seen in the last 24 hours, is widespread confusion about the local restrictions, and I do not just mean the Prime Minister not knowing his own rules. Having sat opposite the Prime Minister at PMQs every week, that did not come as a surprise to me. But let me quote to him the Conservative council leader in Bolton, who said that the Government’s handling of restrictions was “breeding resentment” and:
“It’s become too complex, too complicated…People feel very let down, they feel frustrated…very forgotten”.
If the Prime Minister does not understand the rules and his own council leaders are complaining about mixed messages, how does the Prime Minister expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think the people in this country do understand and overwhelmingly follow the rules, in spite of the Leader of the Opposition’s efforts continually to snipe from the sidelines and to undermine what we are trying to do.
On the restrictions in the north-east, I cleared that matter up as fast as I could: it is very clear that people should not mix indoors either at home or in a hospitality setting and should avoid socialising outdoors. We need to apply that in the north-east, because that is where the virus is spiking. I think people do understand why we are doing that; I think people get it. I think people want us to defeat this virus, and they want to see us doing it together. Sometimes the Leader of the Opposition backs the Government, sometimes he snipes from the sidelines. May I ask him to be a little bit consistent and show some support. Let’s hear him try to instil some confidence in the British people in the measures that he supports.
Keir Starmer
The idea that anybody who asks the Prime Minister a question at Prime Minister’s questions is undermining the Government effort is wearing a bit thin. We have openly supported the restrictions, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask why they are not working. I spoke to the leader of Newcastle City Council yesterday. He said the other big problem, apart from Government messaging, is the lack of economic support being provided to local communities under restrictions. Newcastle City Council indicates that by the end of the year 10,000 jobs in hospitality will have been lost. Many businesses are forced to stay closed. Prime Minister, but for these extraordinary restrictions, these are viable jobs. These businesses are doing the right thing. Why have the Government decided that these jobs are not worth saving?
The Prime Minister
As I have said repeatedly, we are putting our arms around the whole of the UK economy. We will do everything we can to save every job. I must say that I saw the Labour leader of Newcastle and I was rather surprised by his comments because, to the best of my knowledge, they were calling for the measures that we put in. The best way to protect our jobs and our economy is to continue to work together, to comply with the measures, to drive down the virus, to keep our children in education—which is an absolute priority for this country —and to keep the economy moving. That is what we want to do. That is the strategy; that is the approach that the Leader of the Opposition supported last week. He now both simultaneously attacks and does not attack the restrictions. Which is it? He has got to make up his mind. If he supports the Government’s policy—if he supports these restrictions—will he say so now?
Keir Starmer
I support the restrictions. I have done so every single time the Prime Minister has introduced them; he wells knows that. Because of the restrictions, lots of people’s jobs—in Newcastle, it is 10,000 people’s jobs in hospitality—are at risk. I support the restrictions, but the question I asked the Prime Minister is: can the economic support go in for those who will lose their jobs? He did not answer that. There are 10,000 people who wanted an answer to that last question, because they are going to lose their jobs by Christmas. Prime Minister, you really should have answered it.
The reality is that the Chancellor has made a political choice to reduce economic support just when the new health restrictions are coming in. If the Prime Minister does not accept that from me, maybe he will listen to the following example from the Chancellor’s own constituency. This is a business owner. Prime Minister, you might want to listen to what he has to say:
“We own a wedding venue in Richmond, North Yorkshire.
The Chancellor’s latest plan
“does nothing to help us…We cannot employ people to work events which the government are not allowing to take place. Our events team are therefore looking in the face of redundancy as we simply cannot afford to pay wages when events are in lockdown…The jobs are viable if only the Government would allow us to return to work.”
He goes on to say:
“My events team are talented and fantastic and it is an insult to suggest their jobs are not worth saving.”
This is not about supporting restrictions, Prime Minister; it is about what the Prime Minister has to say to those who are at risk of losing their jobs and businesses. What, on behalf of the Chancellor, does he say to that business owner?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that it is very important to remind everybody that it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Opposition questions? Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.
I think the answer is very clear. Last week, the Labour party supported the package—the winter economic plan—that the Chancellor put forward. I think most people, looking at the £190 billion that we have invested in supporting our people across this country, will recognise that. The furlough plan alone is far more generous than any other European country. I think most people around the world can see that the Government are putting their arms around the people of this country and helping them through it. We will help. I know that the wedding sector has had a particularly tough time, and of course I feel for the gentleman in Richmond in Yorkshire to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, who wants his business to go ahead, but the best way forward for him and for all other businesses in the country is if we all pull together now, get the virus done, and keep the economy moving. In the meantime, yes of course this Government are able to supply the support that is needed, which by the way is only possible because we have had a prudent, sensible, one nation Conservative party in power over the past 10 years. The Labour party would have bankrupted the country.
Keir Starmer
It is refreshing to hear the Prime Minister try to dig the Chancellor out of a hole for a change, but I do not think that will wash. The Prime Minister just does not get it. The problem with his argument is this: these are viable jobs, Prime Minister, but for the restrictions. The vacancies for new jobs just do not exist and the training scheme the Prime Minister announced yesterday does not start until April. There is a gap here, and the Prime Minister should not be so tin-eared to those whose jobs are at risk.
Finally, tomorrow marks the start of Black History Month. As well as celebrating the huge contribution black people have made to the UK, we must also reflect on the present, and the structural inequalities and discrimination that sadly persist. For example, black women in the UK are five times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That is truly shocking. Will the Prime Minister commit to addressing that and launch an urgent investigation into the issue?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that the Government have launched an urgent investigation into inequalities across the whole of society. We will certainly address them in a thoroughgoing way. I am amazed that he seems ignorant of that fact, absolutely amazed.
It is a quite extraordinary state of affairs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s general line of questioning is that one moment he is supporting the restrictions, the next moment he seems to be opposing them. One day the Opposition are theoretically marching side by side with the rest of us trying to defeat coronavirus, the next minute they are off in the undergrowth firing from the sidelines. I must repeat it: it was the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the shadow Education Secretary, who really revealed what Labour is all about. She said that this was a “good crisis” that they intended to exploit. We see this as a moment for the nation to come together, and that is what we are doing. We are taking the tough decisions that will take this country forward: not just the lifetime skills guarantee, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to mention, but the huge investments we are making in the NHS, in our policing, in affordable housing. This is the Government and this is the party who are taking the tough decisions to take this country forward, while, I am afraid, once again all they want to do is snipe from the sidelines.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that important matter, which I have raised several times myself with President Trump and others in the US Administration. We will continue to take a very robust line. It cannot be right that American consumers should continue to pay over the odds for Scotch, or that this discrimination should continue. We will fight it every step of the way.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the murder of Sergeant Matt Ratana? It was a truly shocking incident. We should applaud the efforts of our police and all our emergency services, who do a wonderful job keeping the rest of us safe. Our thoughts are with Matt’s family, friends and colleagues. I also associate myself with the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks on Black History Month and the responsibility we all have to eradicate inequality.
Yesterday, the Scottish social attitudes survey revealed that just 15% of people trust the UK Government to work in Scotland’s interest. Last night, Scotland’s MPs voted overwhelmingly against the Tory power grab Bill, but the Prime Minister forced it through anyway, in the biggest attack on our Scottish Parliament in the history of devolution. If the Prime Minister cares to listen—it is not a difficult question—why does he think the people of Scotland have no trust in him or his Government?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Perhaps the people of Scotland deserve to hear from him a clearer account of what it does. After all, the Bill, which I believe the Leader of the Opposition supports, actually devolves power back to Scotland—it gives power back to Scotland. Not only does it enable Scotland to take back control of its spectacular fisheries but it opens up markets for Scottish agriculture around the world. I can tell the House that today is an historic day: after 23 years in which every successive Government have failed, this Government have managed to lift the ban on British beef in America. Scottish beef will be going to the United States, thanks to the efforts of the British Government. That is a fact of which the right hon. Gentleman might, with advantage, inform his electorate in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
I do not know what that was, but it certainly was not an answer to the question. After that performance, it is little wonder that trust in the Government is at 15% and falling. Here we go again—yapping, bumbling, mumbling, but no answer. Since he cannot answer a straight question, I will tell the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I expected the Prime Minister to be heard; I certainly want to hear the leader of the Scottish National party.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are very used to Scottish voices being shouted down by Tories in this place. A Tory Government who casually and arrogantly break international law and break devolution have shattered any remaining trust in this broken Westminster system. Last night was a defining moment. If the attack on devolution fails to gain the consent of the devolved Parliaments in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, will the Prime Minister withdraw the legislation, or will he force it through against our wishes? Is not the Prime Minister demonstrating yet again that the only way to defend our Parliament and its powers is by Scotland becoming an independent country?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Gentleman demonstrates once again that his ambition is simply to foment grievance where no grievance should exist. All the Bill does, in fact, is devolve power back from Brussels to Edinburgh; it gives powers back to Edinburgh, which he should welcome. More important than the powers is the fact that the people of this country are not really interested in wrangling between parties. What the Bill does is protect jobs, protect growth and protect trade in the United Kingdom. That is the most important thing and that is why he should support it.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. He talks about noise and pollution from the M25, and the Government have a vision: we want to accelerate the introduction of electric, zero-emission and quieter vehicles in order to reduce not just pollution but noise. That is what we are going to do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Lefarydd. From tomorrow, 2.3 million people in Wales will not be able to travel out of county without good reason, yet people from lockdown areas in England can still visit rural Wales. Travelling from Betws-y-Coed to Beddgelert could land someone with a fine, but Rochdale to Rhosneigr is no problem. I raised that with the Prime Minister last week. Leisure travel from lockdown areas has to stop. Will he make good on that today?
The Prime Minister
There are different measures in place, as we have discussed already this afternoon. Overall, the UK is proceeding with the same approach. I am very grateful to Mark Drakeford and everybody else in the Welsh Government for the way we are working together to defeat the virus. Yes, there will be some differences and some seeming illogicalities, but that is inevitable in tackling a pandemic. I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s co-operation.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As the Prime Minister, I totally support HS2 and the ambition of linking up our country better. As a local MP, I feel my hon. Friend’s pain and I understand exactly where he is coming from. I have been assured in my conversations with HS2 that it is having extensive engagement with the Wendover group. I know Wendover well, as he knows. I will ask the relevant Minister to make contact with him.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are making sure that everybody in our society gets all the protections they need. I am aware of the easements in the Care Act 2014 that the hon. Lady refers to. It was necessary to put them in temporarily, and we now need to make sure we give everybody the protection that they need. That is what this Government will do.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am hearing a lot of good stuff from the Government Benches about the clean, green future—the green industrial revolution that this country is embarked on. I am delighted that Tees valley will be the UK’s first hydrogen transport hub, and I look forward to joining my hon. Friend there before too long.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am a keen student of democratic principles, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, and I recall that there was a referendum in 2014 in which the people of Scotland—the people of our country—voted overwhelmingly, or by a substantial majority, to keep the Union. It was a once-in-a-generation event, as the then leaders of the Scottish National party acknowledged. I think they were right then, and we should stick with that.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can tell her that we are going to ensure that we have a planning system that is fit for purpose and that allows us, for the first time in a generation, to give young people the chance of home ownership, which millions of people are currently shut out from. That is what we want to do, but we think we can do it in such a way as to avoid desecrating our beautiful countryside and our green belt. That is what we are going to do, and I hope very much that she supports it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. There will of course be plenty of time to go over all the decisions that the Government have made—for which, as I have said repeatedly, I take full responsibility—but she is right to draw attention to the incidence in her constituency of 183 per 100,000. That is a serious increase. The position is not the emergency of March, but it is serious, and that is why I hope she will encourage her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to support more actively—or perhaps more consistently; I will put it that way—what the Government are doing. I hope she will also encourage her constituents that the best thing we can all do is to follow the guidance: hands, face, space; get a test if they have symptoms; and where local measures need to be in place, look at the website and follow that advice.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The UK can be incredibly proud of what we have done to resettle Syrian refugees. We have resettled more than 25,000 through safe and legal routes direct from conflict zones, and we will continue to meet our obligations to those fleeing persecution and war around the world.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can to save every job in the country. That is why the Chancellor set out the winter economic plan and why we have the job retention bonus at the end of January. But, of course, things are tough. As the Chancellor has said, alas, we cannot save every job, but we have the kickstart funds, with £2 billion to support young people into work, plus we now have a lifetime skills guarantee to ensure that people can retrain for the jobs that are going to be created by this economy.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right in his support for the midlands engine. That is why we are investing another £200 million from the getting building fund into the midlands engine region. I will be happy to write to him in the next few days about what we are doing for levelling up in the midlands.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Last week, the Chancellor made the political choice to write off 1 million jobs as unviable. There are more than 1,000 jobs at risk in my constituency of Birkenhead, and 141,000 jobs at risk in the north-east. This would be unemployment on a scale even worse than under Thatcher. Why do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor think that that is a price worth paying?
The Prime Minister
That is completely to misrepresent what the Chancellor is trying to do. As I have just told the House, we have already put £190 billion into supporting livelihoods, people and families. We are going to continue to put our arms around the people of this country. The most important thing is to get the economy moving and get people into work, and, at the same time, to keep kids in school, but the only way we can do that is if we suppress the virus in the way that the Government have set out, with the local lockdown measures that we have announced and the national measures that, I hope, are the subject of cross-party support.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I am assured that the closure to which my hon. Friend refers is only temporary, and I remind him that this is the Government who are putting in the record—the biggest ever—capital investment in the NHS, with £34 billion of investment in the NHS, to say nothing of the investments we have made just in the last nine months.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
In January, the Government were still pretending that there were only 5,000 rough sleepers across the whole country. During the lockdown, 15,000 rough sleepers were supported under the Everyone In programme. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the homeless charities, councils and others who stepped up and provided accommodation in the crisis are funded for every single person they helped?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. One of the consolations of this crisis was that we were able to prevent so many rough sleepers from succumbing in the way that, alas, happened in other countries. That was a great effort by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the charities, working together. Of course, we will continue to do what we can to support those vital charities, to prevent rough sleeping and homelessness.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon Friend because that is a classic and fine example of the philanthropy and public spirit of the British people, which has been shown clearly throughout this crisis.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I know that the Prime Minister refused to recognise my figures last week, but my local housing provider, Stockport Homes, has a waiting list of more than 7,000 households. With Shelter saying that 200,000 renters are at risk of imminent covid eviction, will he reinstate the ban upon evictions to prevent an even bigger housing crisis in Stockport this winter?
The Prime Minister
We have changed the law to ask landlords to provide tenants with at least six months’ notice before eviction. We are not going to have evictions in lockdown areas, there will not be any enforcement of evictions over Christmas and we are putting £180 million into discretionary payments for local authorities to help hardship cases. We are also embarking on a huge programme to build hundreds of thousands more homes, particularly affordable homes, which I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will want to buy and to part-buy.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the temporary disappointment that my hon. Friend is experiencing, but this Government are immensely ambitious for the improvement of our transport infrastructure, and active consideration is now being undertaken of that project again. I understand that parliamentary colleagues are meeting Baroness Vere, the roads Minister, this week to discuss the options for additional schemes from 2025 onwards.
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.
Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Government support for professional and amateur sport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Her passion and dedication to the sporting sector are well known and appreciated, and on behalf of the whole House I wish her the very best for a speedy recovery and a swift return to this place.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government believe that sports clubs are the beating heart of their communities. Were we to lose them, we would lose so much more than sport. That is why, to help community clubs through this crisis, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport funding body Sport England announced a £210 million emergency fund, and why earlier this year the Government stepped in to protect rugby league from the imminent threat of collapse. Both those interventions were on top of the multi-billion pound package of business support from the Treasury that enabled many of our sports clubs to survive.
We have also made sure every step of the way to try to enable as much grassroots sport as possible. Being active and healthy is essential in our national battle against the virus. Reinstating elite sport and, of course, grassroots sport in a covid-secure way was a major achievement, and I pay tribute to all those who made that possible. Behind-closed-doors matches have enabled vital broadcast revenue to flow into elite sport, as well as bringing joy to millions of fans. The Government ensured that Project Restart was shared with everyone by getting premier league football on the BBC for the first time ever.
However, I know that we all want our fans back in stadiums as soon as possible. Sport without fans is poorer in so many ways. We trialled the return of fans with 12 successful pilot events, but rising infection rates across the country meant that the Government had to act, and we could not proceed on 1 October as planned. We have to contain the virus, and, given the backdrop of rising infection rates, we had to press the pause button. I assure the House that we are working at speed, alongside the Treasury, with sports governing bodies and clubs across the country to understand what support they need as a result of the decision to postpone the 1 October return.
For football, we are asking the Premier League to support English Football League clubs—the higher end of the football pyramid. Yesterday, we also provided the national league with assurance that financial support from the Government will be forthcoming so that it can start this season this Saturday. We have asked for detailed financial returns from all major spectator sports to see what support they need. We expect those returns by the end of today, and any club in immediate financial distress should alert its sports governing body.
Sports clubs have proved themselves to be bedrocks of their communities during this pandemic, hosting test centres, looking after vulnerable people, organising food deliveries and so much more. Sports clubs have had our backs during this pandemic. We will have theirs in return.
Tracey Crouch [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I know that his officials are working their socks off behind the scenes, so I thank them for what they are doing, too.
The question relates to all professional sport, because there are fires raging around the whole sector and, to be honest, it has been difficult to see precisely where the support is coming from, but its urgency relates to the national league starting on Saturday. Therefore, the reassurances are welcome, but it is disappointing that there is no specific announcement as yet about what the league will receive or when. However, because it does appear to be coming, will the Minister confirm that the distribution formula will be based on lost gate receipts, and not simply on step? Can he give more details on plans to return fans to stadiums for football and other sports?
While we are talking about fans, can the Minister explain why a step 2 away fan cannot attend an FA cup game against a step 3 club this weekend, but a step 3 away fan can go to another step 3 club for the same type of game? Surely the more we can allow clubs to sustain themselves—[Inaudible]—then it is a bizarre decision—[Inaudible.]
One final question on football: while I appreciate that there is a general view that the Premier League should provide assistance to the EFL, the Premier League, with higher standards of governance, stricter financial controls and its own challenges, would, as would the taxpayer, be cautious about giving money to clubs with poor governance. Will the Minister therefore urgently bring forward the fan-led review of football governance, which may in turn give the Premier League greater confidence in bailing out clubs elsewhere in the pyramid?
Rugby league, rugby union, cricket and swimming are all in a perilous situation, losing millions of pounds in revenue, but so much more in the value that each sport brings to those engaged with it. What discussions has the Minister had with other sports about a support package for them? Given that many use their stadiums for conferences, meetings and dinners to raise revenue, what plans does he have to support the events industry, which is also within the Department’s remit, to return to operations?
Finally, it is always important to remember that professional sport is not the totality of sport, and that millions of people play sport and get active every week. Alongside supporting the professional sports that inspire others, will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate support is provided to keep the nation active in grassroots clubs and leisure centres across the country, at a time when it has never been needed more?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive list of questions; I shall try to address as many as I can. She is absolutely right that the Government support needs to go to those in most need. Therefore, the criteria—which, as she recognised and accepted, are being developed by a fantastic team at DCMS literally as we speak—will be based on those most in need and will absolutely be focused on gate receipts. The purpose of the financial support is to help those who are most impacted by the 1 October decision. Therefore, that will obviously drive the criteria.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right as well that this goes way beyond football. Immediately after the Prime Minister made his announcements last Tuesday, the Secretary of State and I had conversations with 12 of the major spectator sports, which will definitely be included. We are asking for information about where the most exposure is. Again, I cannot give the details today because—I am afraid this may be a recurring theme —we are working on them as I speak.
My hon. Friend raised many other issues, including the involvement of the Premier League. We have had constructive conversations with the Premier League and the EFL, which recognise their responsibility. They are at the top of the pyramid, and it is perfectly fair and reasonable that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden. They understand and accept that, and we are working on the details at the moment.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of grassroots sport, much of which can of course continue. We pressed pause on the plan to roll out elite sport, but we want to get back to it as soon as possible.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for tabling this urgent question. We miss her in this place, and I for one miss her by my side on the football pitch, playing for the parliamentary football team. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. In today’s Daily Telegraph, the chief executive of Chorley FC, Terry Robinson, says that he has to be careful about the future of his club. Nobody knows what matters to your constituents more than you, Mr Speaker, so it is no surprise that you have allowed this question. Sport matters, does it not?
Let me ask the Minister a few specific questions. First, on the principles that should guide us when getting sport through this very difficult situation, does he accept that the test, trace and isolate system needs to work? This issue is affecting every aspect of our life and stopping us getting on with the sport we love. What representations has he made to the Department of Health about the impact on sport?
Secondly, do we not need targeted support, rather than wasteful initiatives? Given the letter to the Prime Minister from 100 sporting organisations asking for help, what representations has the Minister made to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister asking them to prioritise targeting help to sport? Does he agree that our principle should be that no one should lose a much loved sports club just because of this deadly virus? Will he stick to that principle?
Unfortunately, I do not think that the Minister answered the questions from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford properly. She explained that non-league football is in a mess. It is hard to understand why supporters of different clubs in different steps are able to attend when others are not. Will the Minister explain that system to us, and tell us why the mess persists? We all want the fan-led review of football—it will give everyone confidence. Will he announce at the Dispatch Box today when that review will commence and who will lead it? At the grassroots, whether rugby, tennis or athletics, so many sports want to know what the plan is. Having unanswered questions hanging over them does not build sport’s confidence in this Government.
What is the plan for sport? Will the Minister explain how it will work? We need a plan that is coherent and easy to understand and that will provide financial stability over the year to come. The Minister says that the Department is working at speed but for months, all across the summer, it should have known that this situation might arise.
Other colleagues will have specific questions about different sports, but all sports are united in wanting to know: what is the plan? If the Minister wants the help of the official Opposition in creating that plan, we stand ready, but we just want to know that the Government will bring it forward now.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. We have a fair degree of overlap in the intent of what we want to achieve. We want to return as soon as possible to the plan as articulated for months, but I hope she recognises that we have to press the pause button at this moment. We will return to opening as soon as it is safe to do so, based on medical advice. I do not think that that is too difficult for our constituents to understand.
On the broad principles, I repeat: those with the broadest shoulders will be expected to carry the greatest burden, which means that where possible we expect them to contribute to the financial support for clubs lower down, particularly in football. On other innovations, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) will be aware that we have established the so-called STIG, the sports technology and innovation group, which is looking at some of the potential technologies to open sport perhaps sooner than having a vaccine. We will not pursue wasteful initiatives; we are very conscious of the need to ensure that public money is spent carefully. I assure her that we have conversations with the Treasury about those very topics.
On the issue of which sports can have fans in stadiums, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Football Association has produced guidance, and it updated some of that guidance only yesterday. The issue is to do with what is elite support and what is not elite—that can be taken broadly as a proxy for what is professional and what is non-professional. There is clear guidance there: non-elite sport can take place, and fans can go into those grounds, with restrictions of course—it is not an unlimited number. The guidance is for the governing bodies to produce, in this case the FA.
On the fan-led review—I am sorry that I forgot to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) earlier—yes, we wish to pursue it. It is a manifesto commitment and one of my top priorities. As soon as we are able to pursue it—we have had conversations before about this—we will do so. Unfortunately, events have got in the way.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The money for the national league, reported at £20 million—I do not know whether that is correct, so some clarity would be helpful—and any funds that may flow to other sports are extremely welcome, in particular for my local club, Solihull Moors. Mr Speaker, I hope that the invitation is still there when mighty Chorley FC visits Solihull in happier times.
As with the earlier theatre and cultural support package, however, such funds feel like a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. Does the Minister agree that a short, a medium and a long-term plan need to be in place, including a new target date to plan for getting crowds back, rapid testing, tax reliefs to help sports re-market themselves to local communities, and even guarantees for business interruption insurances?
As stated, we urgently need the fan-led review, which I believe should focus on the economics of football. This virus has exposed many fissures in our society, none more so than in our national game.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and the work that he and his Committee have done over the last few months. I always value his contributions, and my door is always open to suggestions and ideas for innovations in terms of tax and other issues. With regard to the bigger picture, I agree that we cannot divorce the issues of governance and finance in sport. When we get the review going, I look forward to having further conversations with him and his Committee, because the two are intimately and intricately linked.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
It is great to hear from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We very much wish her well.
I have often spoken in this place about the power of sport. The truth is that many of our amateur and semi-professional sports clubs—be they football, rugby, shinty or anything else—play a crucial and binding role in their local community, but given the current situation, many of them are under threat. Many clubs, such as Renfrew football club in my constituency, rely heavily on match-day income to survive—particularly in Scotland when it comes to football, where significantly more people attend matches per capita than anywhere else in Europe.
In recent days, the highland league in Scotland joined the national league in announcing a postponement to the start of its season. I welcome the Minister’s comments regarding the national league. What steps is he taking to ensure that all English sport and sports clubs operating outwith the very top tiers are given the support they need to weather the covid storm, which would generate Barnett consequentials to enable the Scottish Government to do likewise? Given that sport is devolved, will he commit to further engagement with the Scottish Minister for Sport, Joe FitzPatrick, on this very important issue?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his focus on the power of sport; I agree completely with him about that. He is correct that sport is a devolved matter, but we work closely with the devolved Administrations. I believe I am meeting my counterpart this Thursday to discuss some of those issues. As I said, we are working on the details of the package of support. If it is a package where there are Barnett consequentials, there will be Barnett consequentials, but it depends on the package, and I am afraid I cannot give him any more details at the moment.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I agree totally with the Minister’s assessment of the role that sport plays in this country. He will be aware that the Henley regatta was cancelled in July. Will he assure me that he is doing all he can to ensure that that and other iconic events will take place next year?
Nigel Huddleston
Rowing is also a very important sport in my constituency, with lots of raving fans. My hon. Friend is right: these iconic events do so much for the local constituency and have a knock-on impact on tourism and so many other sectors that we want to get going. As I say, we want to open these sectors as soon as it is feasible to do so, working with local authorities, which are taking their responsibilities very seriously. We will endeavour to get the Henley regatta and other sports going as soon as it is safe to do so.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I compliment the Government on the work that has been done regarding football coverage on the BBC. What discussions has the Minister had with broadcasting companies about extending that coverage into the weeks and, sadly, possibly months ahead for fans who are unable to attend matches but would wish to do so?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of sport. Of course, we want as many people as possible to see sports in the absence of going to stadiums. We have had success in the past—for example, having the premier league on the BBC for the first time—and we continue to have conversations with the broadcasters. There is a balance to be struck, but those conversations continue, and we appreciate his input.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It has been a difficult time for sports clubs across my constituency, but two individuals have provided a spot of light. Charles Walker, who is 62, ran 28 half-marathons, and Lincoln Callaghan, who is five, cycled 100 km—in stages, I should add—to raise money for Didcot Town football club. They raised several thousand pounds. That is obviously not a substitute for the club’s income, but it is a welcome lifeline. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating them and encouraging others who are thinking about raising money for a good cause to remember their community clubs?
Nigel Huddleston
I am absolutely delighted to congratulate and applaud Charles Walker and Lincoln Callaghan for those efforts. What better example could there be of sport’s pivotal role in the community and the power of sport? They have set fantastic examples and will give hope and inspiration to many more.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Events at last week’s Hull City match at West Ham were another illustration of how the chaotic handling of covid is adding to the problems faced by our major national sports and local sports clubs. In the north, football league and rugby league clubs are an essential part of our communities and significant employers, and they are currently seriously worried about their futures. What more can the Minister tell us about the fan-led review of football that was promised at the election? Will he pay attention to the needs of rugby league clubs, which rely so heavily on gate money?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady raises the vital importance of the money that comes through the gate, which is pivotal to the survival of so many sports. Of course, we did provide a financial support package for the Rugby Football League earlier in the year, but I am aware that it faces ongoing consequences and ongoing struggles. I assure the hon. Lady that we will work as soon as possible with the review, and all the factors that she brought up will be under consideration.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Redcar racecourse is one of just 60 racecourses in the UK and is a huge contributor to Redcar and Cleveland’s local economy. With no paying crowd since March and no further hope of one for the next six months, what support have the Government made available thus far? Will the Minister consider using this time to reform the horserace-betting levy to include international racecourses, and keep British racing world-class?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations about sports, and specifically racing, over the past few months, and I am sure we will continue to do so. I appreciate his input. I should make sure he is aware that we are in conversations with the British Horseracing Authority; we are aware that it has made many suggestions and they are all under consideration.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]
I am fortunate to have several brilliant local sports clubs, among which are Blantyre Victoria, Cambuslang Rangers, Rutherglen Glencairn, Rutherglen Girls FC, Rutherglen lawn tennis club and Blantyre soccer academy. They play a vital role in keeping my constituency fit, active and healthy. Will the Minister commit to supporting not only large, commercial sports clubs and organisations but the small community clubs that are so important for local health?
Nigel Huddleston
I think the hon. Lady wins the award for name-checking clubs—that was fantastic. She showcases the length and breadth of the importance of sport in our community. I assure her that the intent is to make sure that we cover the long tail to the extent that we can. As I have said repeatedly, we expect those at the higher ends to do what they can support themselves.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Aficionados of pub quizzes will know that my local team, Grimsby Town, always plays away in Cleethorpes, where the ground, Blundell Park, seats around 8,000 people. When spectators are allowed into grounds again, I urge the Minister to consider whether a temporary lifting of the restrictions on the unused former terraces, allowing a few extra standing spectators, might boost the income of league two clubs such as Grimsby.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes some valid points about being practical and sensible as we reopen again. Those are exactly the kinds of conversations that we will be having, and I am sure he will be having, with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and others when it comes to opening up. I thank him for his ideas.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Government’s chaotic handling of the pandemic has had major consequences for sports clubs, with some already having been wound up. Clubs such as Slough, which has been in existence for more than 100 years, are much more than a football club; they are a community—a family—providing entertainment, social interaction and community cohesion and supporting people’s mental and physical wellbeing. Despite some last-minute support announced last night, there is still no clear Government plan to enable fans to return, to some extent, to sporting events. That will no doubt bring even more to the brink of collapse. What is the Government plan?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman has articulated the pivotal role of sport in our community and its importance in both physical and mental wellbeing. As I said earlier, we hope to get back to the plan that we already have: we did not get to stage 5, although we went through so many other stages. This is a pause; we want to open as soon as it is safe to do so, but not before. We are working on other initiatives—I have mentioned the STIG initiative and others—to see whether other innovations can help to open up sport.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
It has been extremely heartening for both fans and participants to see the return of sports such as cricket, rugby, football and other fixtures across Basildon and Thurrock. Therefore, although we must always be mindful of the rate of covid-19 infection, can my hon. Friend update the House on what plans there are to ensure that these activities, whether viewed by fans or not, continue, despite the risk of covid-19?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that, although we have a strong focus on football today, there are so many other sports. The governing bodies have done a fantastic job, working with the Government and health advisers, to come up with amazingly forensic guidance in order to ensure that we can conduct sport at grassroots level safely. I encourage everybody to play their part and abide by that guidance, and then we will be able to continue participating with sport to the greatest extent possible at both elite and non-elite levels.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Community ownership of sports clubs comes in all shapes and sizes. It can be a lifeline for a local sports club to have fans who have not only a financial stake, but a say in how the club is run. When we were campaigning in Islwyn to save Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre, it was particularly helpful to have that community ownership element as an option for people to take over the running of the leisure centre. I hope the Minister will look at ways of expanding that scheme. Community ownership can go wider—I am thinking here of football. Has the Minister thought of more innovative ways of raising finance by creating some sort of community trust in which we ask the top earning 100 footballers in this country—some are earning £350,000 to £500,000 a week—to donate just one week’s wages to a trust, which then can be distributed among those struggling clubs to ensure that communities can still enjoy their football.
Nigel Huddleston
Both now and in the future, I encourage all stakeholders in sports to do the right thing and play their part. The hon. Gentleman makes some good points about voluntary donations, as well as what we will be requiring and expecting from sport at various levels. He also highlights some innovative models and business models, which, again, I think should be looked at very carefully indeed. He raises the issue of leisure centres, and we are in discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury. He is right that they are vital to our communities, but we are well aware that not all of them are open yet.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Although it is positive to see the return of fans to grassroots and non-league football, the ongoing battle against the coronavirus has meant that a return to live audiences for elite sport has regrettably not been possible. So although I was fortunate enough to join Radcliffe for their first home game of the season—the results were not to my liking—we do need to think about the wider sport. Can my hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to work with the sector to get families back as soon as it is safe to support not only our clubs, but our communities?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. We have had many conversations about sport, so I know that he is a fantastic champion for sport in his constituency and broader across the country. Indeed, we will work together—with him and others—to ensure that we move as fast as possible on reopening sport. I also understand his point about there being winners and losers in sport. I was not Mr Popular in Norwich when I visited earlier this year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his assurances. Can he confirm what amount will filter through to the smaller clubs, specifically to the youth teams, especially bearing in mind the phenomenal 5-2 victory of Leicester City over Man City, which starred Northern Ireland-born Jonny Evans and Jamie Vardy? Both started out in small teams; Jonny Evans started at Greenisland. My own team is Ballywalter Rec, where young boys and girls aspire to play football in the premier league. Will the Minister say whether that money will be designated to small local clubs to give them a chance?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Member makes an absolutely pivotal point that, particularly in football, there is a pyramid. The top of the pyramid is absolutely reliant on the lower parts of that pyramid. I have to say that the premier league does understand that. It gets that responsibility and recognises that people flow through the lower leagues and then rise up and it wants want to help out, and that is its obligation. Therefore, as I have said, we are looking for the premier league to play its part, particularly with the EFL and then the Government money will be focused on those that are desperately in need.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I start by congratulating Durham Women FC on their new ground at Maiden Castle. Although Project Restart allowed men’s football to return, women’s football was forgotten about, with the top tiers of the game unable to finish their seasons. Will the Minister assure me that, if coronavirus restrictions increase, the Government will provide the necessary support to women’s football to allow their seasons to continue in line with the men’s game?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady shares my passion for women’s sport. I have had many conversations, not only in football but in other sports, to say that I expect and require women’s sport to get the priority that it deserves. I will continue those conversations, and certainly, if public money is being distributed, I expect women’s sport to get its fair share.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Contrary to popular belief, horse racing is not a wealthy sport, and redundancies were announced just yesterday. Racecourses rely on paying spectators coming in for almost 50% of their income. It is the second most popular spectator sport in the country, so it either needs a return of paying spectators or it needs help from the Treasury. I know that the Minister has already been working on this, but will he take it up with renewed vigour because the situation is becoming very serious?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is a huge supporter and advocate of racing, and I completely understand his concerns. I can give him the assurance that we are talking to the British Horseracing Authority and others, and we will do what we can to support the racing sector as well.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
May I use this opportunity to issue another plea on behalf of UK ice hockey? As the Minister knows, the professional season has already been cancelled, as have all the leagues right down to grassroots for juniors. The latest restrictions on indoor sports put local clubs such as Nottingham City Cyclones at risk of shutting down. Not only would that be devastating news for its members, but it would add to the financial pressures on the National Ice Centre. What is he doing to save ice hockey? It is the UK’s most watched indoor sport and it matters to thousands of spectators and participants not just in Nottingham but across the country.
Nigel Huddleston
I assure the hon. Lady that the DCMS team and I are engaging with many sports across the board—there are more than 100 sports with governing bodies that we liaise with from the DCMS. We do not exclude anybody. We are having the dialogue. She points out the particular challenges where indoor restrictions have come into place. I assure her that we understand the issues and concerns, and we will do what we can.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, ground control. In March, Wealdstone football club celebrated being promoted to the national league. The team currently play in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s constituency. As part of their promotion, they were required to improve their ground, and they spent more than £100,000 on providing capacity for up to 4,000 people. They are totally dependent on gate receipts and money taken at the bar and other refreshment facilities. On Saturday, they play their first game and, as a result, that initiates the contracts to pay the players for the entire the season. Given that they have no income and they have spent all that money, will my hon. Friend ensure that any money that is given to the national league recognises the clubs that have paid out for ground improvements and have a surety that they can pay their players during the entire the season?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a detailed but perfectly fair and reasonable point. As I said, because we are currently working on the details, I am unable to give him the assurance that he is looking for, but these were exactly the kinds of factors that we were looking at when we made the request for information to the sports entities.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am very lucky to count Celtic Park in my constituency and its 60,000-seater stadium. I commend to the Minister the report from the Fraser of Allander Institute about the economic contribution of Celtic football club and implore him, when he is having conversations with the Treasury, to be mindful of the fact that this is about not just sport but the impact on the local hospitality sector. When he is having those discussions with the Treasury about financial support, I ask that there is a real focus on the local economy, as well as the club itself.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Member makes an important point about the multiplier effect—the broader economic impact of sport on its local communities. We are all sport fans here, but it is also a major contributor to the economy that employs tens of thousands of people and contributes a huge amount to the Treasury every year in tax generation. He is making a perfectly valid point, and those are exactly the considerations that we are looking at now.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
People of all ages play sport, and they often do so at a leisure centre. We know from covid-19 that it is important that people keep fit and keep well, because those who are not well and fit are at much greater risk of this dreadful disease. The truth is that St Ives leisure centre still has not opened—although we believe that we have now got it opened. Will the Minister meet me and work out how we can keep these vital leisure centres open so that people of all ages continue enjoying each other’s company, keep fit, keep well and contribute to the local community in that way?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and enjoyed visiting his constituency earlier this year. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this issue further, and as I said in response to an earlier question, we are aware of the issues with leisure centres, talking to the MHCLG and others. We want as many of them to get open as possible. They play a pivotal role in the mental and physical health of our constituents.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Barrow AFC on its recent return to the football league? With no clear path for spectators to return to sporting events, however, the financial pressure on local clubs is huge, so can he reassure my constituents, many of whom support other fine Lancashire football teams, that no club will cease to exist because of coronavirus?
Nigel Huddleston
Of course I join the hon. Lady in her congratulations. In terms of the support package, we want to help absolutely as many clubs as we can. As I have said, our focus is on those that have particularly suffered from the 1 October cancellation and the inability to get fans into stadiums. There is a whole host of other global financial issues and considerations for football; our focus at present is on the return of fans and the issues the delay in that has caused, but the hon. Lady raises the point that many other clubs across the country are struggling for a whole variety of other reasons as well.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the remarks about Wealdstone FC from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman); it has many fans in my constituency also. Does my hon. Friend the Minister share my disappointment in the lack of leadership shown by the Mayor of London in getting Londoners back to sport—in particular, football—and does he welcome the efforts by many community organisations and local authorities in ensuring that sport, especially children’s sport, is being reopened, so people have the best opportunities to access that as we recover from covid?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend raises a couple of important points. First, on children’s sport, I agree absolutely, and I had a good conversation with the Education Minister with responsibility for school sport the other day. We are absolutely committed to get school sport up and running, and leisure centres and grassroots sport play a vital role in getting our children active, so I agree exactly with his comments on that. Also, when people are not showing that they are sports fans, I, like him, am disappointed in their comments.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the concern that non-league clubs—major community assets such as Harrow Borough, Rayners Lane and, indeed, Wealdstone football club—will face a very difficult financial future without urgent financial support. The financial vulnerability of all but elite clubs underlines the need for wholesale reform of football financing, so is it not now time to impose a levy on the TV rights income premiership clubs receive, to support long-term investment in sport in all our communities?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and as I said earlier, we will be conducting the grassroots review of sports governance, and that will include some financial considerations.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The iconic Weymouth and Portland National Sailing Academy on Portland in my constituency is being adversely affected by this pandemic, as are all other sporting venues. Its rateable value is so high that it does not get Government grants. Even with the discretionary rate relief, which brings it within the threshold, the Government criteria mean it still cannot get this desperately needed money. Will my hon. Friend look at this case as a matter of priority?
Nigel Huddleston
As is clear from the name, the discretionary funds were, of course, largely discretionary, and I am aware that there were some anomalies, with some areas of the country being awarded in certain circumstances while others were not, but I will follow up with my hon. Friend on the particular point he raises.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool has a very proud history of producing champion boxers, and Liverpool, Riverside has some notable boxing clubs, including Salisbury, Rotunda, Marybone, Golden Gloves and the Belve, providing exceptional support to constituents in some of the most deprived wards in the country, improving physical and mental health, confidence and self-esteem. The Prime Minister has championed the benefits of an active lifestyle, so when will the Government move from rhetoric to reality and provide some funding to support this sector?
Nigel Huddleston
I actually met the all-party parliamentary group on boxing this morning. The hon. Lady makes an important point about boxing in terms of social mobility and the importance of inspiring physical and mental wellbeing. I am happy to continue these conversations with her.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Forestry England has just launched a public consultation on recreational access to its land. Does my hon. Friend agree that British motor sports have a proud history in our forests and that continued access is fundamental to our world-leading £10 billion motor sports industry?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes a range of points. Absolutely, we have to think very creatively about where our sports and recreational facilities where we can be active are—they are not always in the areas or owned by the people we expect. I am glad that such stakeholders take their responsibilities seriously, and I encourage them to open up as much as possible.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
With no clear path from the Government for spectators to return to sporting events safely, the financial pressure on football, including my local team and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—Brentford football club—is huge. Detailed plans were in place, with the local safety advisory groups and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority having worked together to bring reduced numbers of fans back safely, but now Brentford’s new stadium sits empty. How much and how quickly are the Government working with experts on safe spectator return, and when will the Minister bring forward an update? Fans will feel that he is penalising responsible football when football can contribute so much to the wellbeing of our nation.
Nigel Huddleston
I join the hon. Lady in thanking the SAGs and the SGSA for the work that they do. They have done immense work before and during coronavirus, and they will do so afterwards. They play a vital role in ensuring the safety of grounds; they will continue to do so; and we will continue to work with them.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome words of support for the sector, and I echo the words of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). Barrow AFC was promoted into the football league after 48 years away. It should be on the up and celebrating, but instead it is facing a loss of three quarters of a million pounds this year. That would be worse if it were not for the supporters who have stuck by it and bought season tickets. We need to remember that these clubs are not just about 90 minutes of football—they are about the employees and the work they do in the community. When my hon. Friend looks at support for this sector, can he confirm that it will not just be about keeping these clubs on life support but supporting the work they are doing in our communities, too?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I join him in thanking those who have bought season tickets, showing their commitment, both in the short and the long term, to their clubs. We applaud what they have done and thank them for that commitment. In terms of short-term and long-term support, that is exactly what we are looking at through immediate financial support but also with the review of governance.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If I have not yet, I will be purchasing a season ticket for Maryhill FC. Partick Thistle, my constituency next-door neighbour, has, through its charitable wings, helped to provide over 25,000 free meals to some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the local community. Does the Minister recognise that any support the UK Government can provide consequential to the Scottish Government’s investment in sport does not just help the sport and fans but, in many cases, inclusion and help across the wider communities that these clubs are part of?
Nigel Huddleston
I applaud the hon. Gentleman in recognising, acknowledging and thanking all the clubs for the amazing community work that they have done. We have seen them at their best during coronavirus, but for decades—over 100 years in some cases—they have played a pivotal role in their communities through charitable efforts and so on. As I said, we are working on the details of the support package. Until we get those details sorted out, I cannot comment further on Barnett consequentials.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Across my constituency, we are blessed with many fantastic sports clubs that all contribute massively to our wider community wellbeing. Thinking about rugby, we have Keighley and Ilkley rugby union clubs, as well as Keighley Albion, and not forgetting the mighty Keighley Cougars. They all need help because their income streams are desperately strained, as they predominantly rely on ticket sales, bar income and the rental of facilities, which are not happening. What additional support can my hon. Friend provide?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I know he is a huge sports fan; we have spoken many times. It is very important that the clubs look at the existing support measures we have in place to make sure they take full advantage of them. Obviously, there is the furloughing scheme and other measures, such as loans and other aspects—for example, some clubs are able to take advantage of the VAT reduction aspect of hospitality and leisure offerings. I would say that all clubs should please take full advantage of the full suite out there, and of course we are developing an additional package now.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am all for common-sense measures to restrict the transmission of coronavirus in sporting activities, including among the young, but is the Minister as perplexed as I am by the decision of the Welsh Rugby Union to say that junior, youth and mini teams will not be training at all at the moment? This is purely bonkers. It is somebody’s decision, and in the back of their heads they have decided that they have to dot every i and cross every t. Would it not make far more sense to have all the kids in Tylorstown, Ferndale, Maerdy, Pen-y-Graig, Treorchy and Treherbert playing sport, because that is good for them—and it is outdoors, for heaven’s sake?
Nigel Huddleston
I certainly agree with the principle the hon. Member has articulated that if sport is allowed and we are confident it can be done safely, please make sure it goes ahead. However, it is up to individual governing bodies to give specific guidance and recommendations. We do of course work with them, at the DCMS and elsewhere, on that guidance. I would applaud any sports entity or body that, if it is confident it can do so safely, goes ahead. We need those activity levels up.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for securing this urgent question. She is truly a doughty supporter of sport across all sports, professional and amateur.
The Minister perhaps is not as aware of Leek Town as he should be, but it is a fantastic local community club, run by volunteers and the community, and it really does deliver for the community. We have youth teams, juniors, lots of girls and a great women’s first team, as well as the men’s first team; they did not perform as well as would have liked yesterday, but they are still doing very well. Thanks to support from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and the Football Foundation, Leek Town has managed to keep its head above water and, as a step 4 club, it is able to welcome up to 400 spectators, but it does need to start to do other things, such as expanding the hospitality offer, and it would like to be able slowly to introduce more fans into the stadium, which has plenty of space. Will my hon. Friend make sure, when looking at increasing the number of fans and looser hospitality, that we do not have a one-size-fits-all formula, but instead use the common sense that is right for each club?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. Indeed, I know from her previous work in the Department that she is a huge champion of this sector, and obviously locally as well. We will of course work with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and, indeed, the governing bodies of sport—in this case, the FA and other football authorities—to make sure that when we can increase the numbers, we do exactly that, because of the pivotal role of ticket sales in revenues for clubs. She makes the point that other revenue sources are available, and I encourage them to pursue them to the greatest extent possible.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Carshalton and Wallington is also home to some excellent local sports teams—including Mitcham and Carshalton rugby club, which is co-hosting its ground with the fabulous South London Stags at the moment, and Carshalton Athletic football club—some of which I have had the pleasure of visiting in the last few months. Community sport is so important not just for the physical but for the mental health of players and, indeed, of fans. Can the Minister assure me that we will do all we can to keep these local clubs going to ensure that we are looking after these people’s mental and physical health during covid?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes the really important point that sport is so much more than a game. The game bit is really important—we all love it—but it contributes directly and indirectly to the mental health wellbeing and indeed physical wellbeing, as well as the financial wellbeing, of so many people. That is precisely why we recognise its importance today with the plans to provide additional financial support.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I attended Warwick racecourse more or less a week ago, and I was really impressed by the safeguards it has put in place. Some 500 racegoers attended, and it could easily have accommodated 1,500 to 2,000 very safely. However, the point I want to come on to is about general sport, but also about football, which affects so many communities. The Leamington Football Club supporters trust—Brakes Trust, as it is known—wrote to me at the beginning of the week and highlighted the support it needs. The Government have announced such support, and it is welcome, but can the Minister explain how much Leamington FC would get and when it will get it?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Member is correct to highlight the importance of the successful pilots, which proved that sports grounds and racecourses take their responsibilities incredibly seriously. They did a great job of making sure that hygiene, social distancing measures and so on were in place. However, given the backdrop of rising infections, we could not move forward at this stage. Unfortunately, we are unable to do so. Again, I am afraid I cannot give him details, because we are working on the details of the package as we speak.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The scrapping of pilot crowds in rugby league has been described as a hammer blow for clubs like Warrington Wolves. The £16 million package of support in May was welcome, but the longer rugby league clubs are without matchday revenue the more significant the financial hardship, which could ultimately prove fatal, will be. What additional measures will be taken to support rugby league through winter?
Nigel Huddleston
We have had some conversations on this issue. I recognise—I think we all recognise—the vital role that rugby plays in its communities. That is precisely why we took the measures we did back in May. We understand, though, that the financial pressures continue. Conversations are continuing. I am afraid I cannot give any details today, because we are working on the current measures.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Last week, I provided the Prime Minister with a Grimsby Town football shirt to match his woolly hat. The reason I did that was to highlight the plight of lower league teams such as Grimsby Town. Will the Minister please tell me what steps are being taken to allow the safe and speedy return of dedicated football fans like the Mariners back to the stands where they belong?
Nigel Huddleston
I notice that I do not have a Grimsby Town shirt yet, but I am sure it is coming. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I said and will repeat, we have had to pause the plans for further reopening, but we have not abandoned them. We want to get back to that as soon as possible—the whole country does—and we will do so in consultation with medical advice, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and other bodies, including the governing bodies of each sport. We all want fans back in stadiums as soon as possible. If we get fans back in stadiums, there will be less need for financial support from the Government. That makes sense for the Government and it makes sense for sport.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Cas Tigers is at the heart of Castleford. In normal times, the whole town turns out to support the club and the club always supports the whole community. Those are the values of rugby league. The first supporters were due back tomorrow, but of course that now cannot happen. The loans earlier in the year were welcome, but can I urge the Minister to do more now to support our rugby league, to talk with me further about Cas Tigers and the support all our rugby league clubs might need, and to give us a guarantee that none of our important rugby league clubs will end up going under because of covid? Rugby league is vital to our towns.
Nigel Huddleston
The intervention in May was made in recognition of the important role that rugby league plays in its communities and that it was facing an existential crisis. We are well aware that the problems are far from over. Rugby league, along with many other sports, faces many challenges. I have regular meetings with sports governing bodies and others. I will continue to do so, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Lady separately.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Throughout the pandemic, Watford football club has done the right thing: it helped the community and our local hospital, and it followed the guidance. I speak regularly to Glyn Evans, the operations director at Watford football club. He shared the frustration that, despite following all the guidance and all the rules put forward to it over the past few weeks and months to ensure it can get crowds back in the stadium, it is now unable to do so. He and I would like to know whether my hon. Friend will ensure that any new measures take into account the work already done to ensure that crowds can get back into the stadium safely, and that he does not have to undo all the work that has been done over the previous months.
Nigel Huddleston
I know my hon. Friend is a huge fan of sports and we have talked about this issue. He is absolutely right that many clubs went to enormous efforts to put social distancing, hygiene and other measures in place in anticipation of opening. Those efforts will not be wasted. We want to start again as soon as possible. We did not want to stop clubs from opening; we had to in the face of the increase in infections. We want to get back to business as soon as possible.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
The AJ Bell stadium in my constituency is home to both Sale Sharks rugby union club and Salford Red Devils rugby league club. Sale Sharks is the only premiership rugby club in the north-west. It has a women’s team. It employs over 100 people, with hundreds more local jobs reliant on its matchdays. Covid-19 poses an existential threat to clubs like Sale Sharks, to their women’s team and to premiership rugby. Will the Minister therefore seek a targeted funding package to support them as a matter of urgency, and continue with the extra support to rugby league clubs like Salford Reds?
Nigel Huddleston
The recognition of the important role that clubs play in their local community, way beyond just the sport, is precisely why we are looking at these measures and the broader economic multiplier impact. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady details today, but her comments are understood and received.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
One of the most significant ways in which people volunteer is as coaches for many youth sports, including at many netball, rugby, cricket and football teams in my constituency and across Bedfordshire. I was moved by some of the efforts being made by Biggleswade athletics club to provide a safe environment for coaching. So will the Minister liaise with the Prime Minister, as he seeks to build on the volunteerism in this country as we emerge from covid, to ensure that that coaching for youth clubs is supported?
Nigel Huddleston
I wish to join my hon. Friend in applauding the work coaches do, often voluntarily, right across the country in so many sports. I will be happy to work with him in communicating this to the Prime Minister, who I am sure is already aware of the important role that they play. My hon. Friend raises an important point and I am happy to continue the conversation with him.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I was delighted to welcome the Minister to Blackbrook rugby club in my constituency. He will know from that visit just how important grassroots sports are in St Helens, but with St Helens rugby league club and Haydock Park racecourse we also have the thrill of elite spectator sports, which not only add to the colour of the borough but provide jobs and a contribution to our economy through visitors. We cannot just say to these sports, “Wait and see.” So will the Minister, who I know is committed to doing this, bring forward, in a timely manner, a strategy and a plan so that we can get fans back and have our communities thrive again?
Nigel Huddleston
I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to sport; I have seen it at first hand, and it was a pleasure to go to his constituency earlier this year to meet his fantastic constituents. I am afraid that I cannot give him any more details today—as I said, we are working on the details. As soon as we are able to do so, we will announce the support package. Again, I completely understand the points he has raised.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As we know, one of the most brilliant things about football is seeing young talent rise through the ranks from great clubs such as Bishop Auckland, Shildon and West Auckland. The Premier League relies on this young talent; we know that more than 45% of starting line-ups have their origins in the English Football League. As such, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to encourage the Premier League to provide more support for lower league clubs, particularly in these very challenging times?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend raises the important point about the pyramid structure of football and the pivotal role that the Premier League plays at its top. Others put huge value into the pyramid, playing a pivotal role in developing talent across the board, in the numbers that she has explained. It is therefore vital that the Premier League understands that it has responsibilities. It is at the top of the pyramid and we expect and require it to help further down the pyramid. I have to say that that is exactly what the Premier League seems to understand, and I am confident that it will play its part and we will have an announcement very soon.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that national league south sides such as Tonbridge Angels, of whom I am sure he is a huge fan, are at the centre of the community but simply cannot survive without matches being played and fans allowed in? Longmead, the Angels’ stadium, has, I am sorry to say, plenty of room for the normal matchday crowd and could host even more, including with all the social distancing required. I know that that will change as soon as he comes to support the Angels and brings a whole new team of fans with him, but for the moment it could do this. Will the Government work with the Football Association and the national league to ensure that fans can return to grounds now where there is enough room to social distance, in order to support the work that clubs such as Tonbridge Angels do?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Tonbridge Angels and many other sports clubs across the country have shown their pivotal role in their communities during coronavirus and much before. We will continue to work with all relevant stakeholders. We are continuing to have ongoing dialogue, we have working groups and we have day-to-day dialogue through Department officials—all the things he raises about making sure that all stakeholders work together so that we can come to a conclusion and get out of these difficulties as soon as possible. I completely agree, and I assure him that we are doing just that.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Gymnastics clubs such as Drumchapel gymnastics club in my constituency play a huge role in developing good habits for young people, particularly girls. They set up life habits and do a huge amount to tackle things such as obesity. However, they are struggling at the moment due to limited numbers and the fact that they still have to pay rent in indoor facilities. What support will the Minister provide for clubs such as Drumchapel gymnastics club and others, which play a key role in improving the life chances of our youngsters?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the value of clubs, which help with education, confidence, and physical and mental wellbeing. We are encouraging all sports clubs to take advantage of the full suite of opportunities in the Government’s support package. We are constantly talking to all the relevant governing bodies about their plight. I will hopefully be able to make announcements at some point, but we cannot give further details at this stage.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Recent data published by Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust shows that the level of women’s and girls’ sport and physical activity, which was rising, has fallen significantly during covid. I encourage my hon. Friend to lead a national push to get the grassroots going again and engage the likes of the Premier League to play their part. Will he back the development of a groundbreaking women’s and girls’ football centre of excellence in Winsford in my constituency?
Nigel Huddleston
We have spoken previously about the Winsford facility. It sounds like a great idea, and we would like to do what we can to back it. As I have said previously, women’s involvement in sport is a top priority for me. I say again that I expect any entity receiving Government money to ensure that a fair share goes to women’s sport. It is absolutely vital that we put a great deal of emphasis on women’s sporting facilities in this country.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many other Members across the House, I have been doing what I can to support and listen to the concerns of the likes of my beloved Bluebirds, the Cardiff Devils ice hockey team, my local boxing clubs and the City of Cardiff swimming club—I had the pleasure to see its covid-safe procedures a few weeks ago.
The Minister will be aware that today is National Sporting Heritage Day, and Black History Month starts tomorrow. This morning, I had the honour to sit and listen to some remarkable legends of rugby league who originated in my constituency, in places like Tiger Bay, Splott and Grangetown, and went north to play rugby league—the likes of Billy Boston. A huge campaign has been launched to honour and recognise their pioneering work not only in their sport but in breaking down racial discrimination and the barriers that were faced at the time. Will the Minister back that campaign? Will he agree to come and meet those supporting it? Will he say what he is doing to support grassroots rugby of both codes?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I applaud his engagement. I will be happy to talk to him further about where I can get involved. Any and all activities that ensure that sport truly is for all are important. I also applaud the work of Sport England and other bodies, whose initiatives ensure that sport is indeed open to all. That will continue with direct non-financial and financial support. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman further.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
As the Minister knows, it is one thing to say that the Premier League should help clubs in the Football League that face financial difficulties, and it is another to say that it should be solely responsible and pay for all the assistance that those clubs need. Is he saying that there will be no Government support—no public support, including financial support—for clubs in the Football League, and that it will be left entirely to the Premier League to deliver it? The chairmen of many clubs in the Football League have to make very difficult decisions because of the distress that they are in, and they need to know where they stand.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his ongoing commitment to sport. He is very knowledgeable in this field. I cannot comment on the details of the plan because it is currently being developed, but I can say that we expect and require the Premier League to work with the EFL carefully and closely and to make sure that they act sensibly and take their responsibilities seriously. I encourage the EFL and other bodies in all sports to take full advantage of all the other Government support measures. Although I cannot answer my hon. Friend’s question directly today, we are working on all of those details as we speak.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Point of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Government is by consent in this country, and especially so when civil liberties have to be impinged upon, whether for good reasons or any other. I think that the vast majority of Members of this House think that 90 minutes to discuss the continuation of enormous changes to the way we do our business in this country is absolutely ludicrous and does no favours to the reputation of this House. I fully understand that Standing Order No. 16 says that a motion brought forward under an Act can only get 90 minutes; however, it has been the custom of the Government on many other occasions to table a motion to allow the House more time, so that we can debate things properly. There are 62 Members of the House who want to take part in the 90-minute debate; clearly, not half of them will have the opportunity to speak—[Interruption.] No, I am not taking time away from that debate, because it has not started yet.
What I am asking, Madam Deputy Speaker, is whether you can confirm that the Government, had they wanted to, could have allowed more time, so that more people could express their opinion on behalf of their constituents about the things that they do support and the things that they do not; and, furthermore, that the Government could have, had they wanted to, allowed an amendable motion, so that the views of the elected Members of Parliament, speaking on behalf of their constituents, could be heard fully.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
On the first point that the hon. Gentleman makes, I can confirm that, not surprisingly, he is correct in his interpretation of Standing Order No. 16. It is normal that a motion under an Act has 90 minutes for debate on the Floor of the House. That is normal, but as Mr Speaker made clear in his statement to the House earlier, he very much regrets that many people who have applied to be called to speak in the debate this afternoon will not be called.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question quite directly. He asks whether the Government could have tabled a motion that allowed for a longer debate. The simple answer is yes, the Government could have tabled a motion that would have allowed for a longer debate. Mr Speaker said quite clearly earlier that he would welcome other opportunities for the House to consider these important matters through amendable motions, distinct from the narrow statutory purpose of today’s motion. Today’s motion is very narrow and Mr Speaker’s interpretation of it is absolutely clear.
Not every Member was in the Chamber earlier when Mr Speaker made a statement in which he set out clearly his concerns. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has echoed those concerns, which I feel are indeed echoed from every part of this House and every party here in the Chamber. Mr Speaker’s statement has been circulated to all Members, so anyone who did not hear what he said just before Prime Minister’s questions will have a written version of it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important point of order.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I shall now suspend the House for three minutes.
Business Standards
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Business Standards Bill 2019-21 View all Business Standards 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
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an accreditation scheme for businesses that meet standards regarding the treatment of workers, the payment of taxes and environmental practices; and for connected purposes.
The pandemic has made us all think about what we value in life and reassess how our society and our economy operate. Of course our main focus has been on how we tackle and get through the pandemic, but there has been a view expressed by many, including the Prime Minister, that lessons should be learned from the crisis, and he and others have said that, as we come through the pandemic, we must build back better. This Bill is part of that process of building back better. Within our economy the pandemic has exposed much of what is good but also, regrettably, some of what is just not acceptable. I want to cite some examples of companies such as Warburton’s and Richer Sounds, and contrast them with British Airways and Amazon.
Two years ago, the bakers’ union and Warburton’s secured a groundbreaking agreement. It provided the workers with job security, ongoing skills development and better wages and conditions of employment and, as the company and the union both said, put people at the heart of the business. The agreement provided the company with the skills and flexible working needed to compete in a tough market. To deal with the crisis, the company has set up a safety committee, involving union reps, to monitor and review safety, and Warburton’s has paid company sick pay to all those shielding—all those who need to isolate. Or take Richer Sounds, whose owner, Julian Richer, has promoted a good business charter and shared its ownership with its employees. Now they are working hard together in a tough environment to preserve jobs while paying a decent level of sick pay to workers shielding. Of course it is tough, but people are working together to get through as best they can.
Contrast that with boohoo. A recent independent report uncovered, in its supply chain factories, people working excessive hours on illegally low pay of £3.50 an hour, working without face masks in cramped conditions that were described as “life-threatening.” Or take British Airways in my constituency, which has taken taxpayers’ money for furloughing and drawn upon Government lending facilities, while it has used the crisis to introduce a policy of fire and rehire to cut wages and undermine terms of employment, and while its parent company IAG is buying up competitors and awarding its outgoing chief executive £800,000 in a golden goodbye.
Or take Amazon, notoriously exposed this month in another independent report for its oppressive, intensive working practices and for endangering warehouse workers put at risk of contracting covid-19, and then retaliating against the workers who spoke out against those working conditions. A fortnight ago, it was revealed that Amazon paid only £290 million-worth of tax in the UK, despite a 26% surge in its sales, up to £14 billion.
If we are to learn the lessons and build back better, as the Prime Minister has urged us to, we need a system that recognises and celebrates good practice in our economy, and one that certainly does not lend support to those that fail to live up to basic business standards and undercut others that do. This Bill seeks to introduce a system for exactly that by accrediting businesses on their behaviour in a number of key areas: the treatment of their employees; their impact on the environment; and their payment of taxes.
The aim of the accreditation process is to enable the acknowledgement and celebration of good business practice and good businesses. At the same time, it will provide the basis for judging whether a business is upholding its responsibilities to its employees and the community.
It is proposed that an independent good business commission should be established, on the model of the Low Pay Commission, comprising representatives from businesses, trade unions, the major environmental voluntary organisations, and the tax justice campaign. The good business commission will have responsibility for determining the criteria by which a business will be assessed as a good business: its employment practices, its environmental policies and the payment of its taxes.
The intention, of course, is that businesses would be encouraged to seek accreditation. The award of good business status has the potential to significantly enhance the reputation of a business and confidence in its standing. The failure of a business to apply for accreditation, or to achieve it, would tell its own story.
In determining good business practice, the good business commission would examine, on employment, for example, whether the business recognised a trade union, paid a real living wage, banned zero-hours contracts, had gender pay parity, addressed equal-pay gaps for all protected characteristics, provided for worker representation on the board, or had a pay ratio between the highest and the average paid. It would assess, on environmental impact, whether the company had adopted a strategy for achieving net zero emissions within 10 years, and on tax, whether the company was paying its taxes or whether it was engaged in the use of tax havens and clear tax avoidance schemes.
The Bill also charges the good business commission with bringing forward proposals for how the business accreditation scheme could be used to incentivise compliance with good business practice and so establish thresholds on business standards that would determine access to Government financial support and tax reliefs—thresholds that would be capable of being drawn upon by other bodies in their award of support, access or status to businesses, such as listing on the London stock exchange.
During the covid pandemic, the Government have introduced a number of schemes to support businesses to cope financially with the downturn in the economy resulting from the lockdown and social distancing protective measures. Across the House, we have welcomed those schemes; sometimes we have argued that they have not gone far enough, but we have welcomed them in principle. However, concerns have been expressed across the House about the lack of conditions attached to much of that aid.
As a result, there has been no attempt to influence the behaviour of companies—in particular their treatment of their employees. The behaviour of some—yes, they may be a limited some—has been unacceptable, as they have used the pandemic crisis as an excuse to implement sometimes long-held strategies of cutting wages and undermining terms and conditions of employment. A business accreditation scheme would be an effective basis for conditionality in the award of Government support, yes for those schemes established for the pandemic, but also in determining future Government support schemes.
This Bill is the start of a discussion about business standards that I think we all recognise, given some of the examples that we have seen, we really need to have if we are genuinely going to build back better. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Kate Osborne, Claudia Webbe, Apsana Begum, Rebecca Long Bailey, Kate Osamor, Dawn Butler, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne and Lloyd Russell-Moyle present the Bill.
John McDonnell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 190).
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill delivers on an important Government commitment and addresses ratepayers’ concerns by setting in law the date of the next business rates revaluation at 1 April 2023. By doing so, we can ensure that future business rates bills will better reflect the exceptional impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the commercial property market.
Business rates bills are based on the rateable value of a property, which, broadly speaking, represents its annual rental value. Rateable values, in combination with the business rates multiplier and reliefs, determine rates liabilities and are assessed by the Valuation Office Agency independently of Ministers. Since the current system of business rates was introduced in 1990, the Government have had frequent revaluations of rateable values to ensure that they remain up to date. Those revaluations ensure that the amount paid in business rates is fairly distributed among all ratepayers, having regard to the value of the property they occupy.
At the revaluation, all rateable values are based on the rental property market at a set date called the valuation date. The valuation date is set prior to the revaluation taking effect, so that the Valuation Office Agency has time to prepare the valuations. For example, at the last revaluation in 2017, the valuation date was 1 April 2015, which means that current rateable values are based on the market at 1 April 2015.
The next revaluation was scheduled to take effect from 1 April 2021 and would have been based on rental values at 1 April 2019. That was decided in spring 2018 and was the right thing to do at the time, but given what we now know about the coronavirus outbreak and its potential to affect the rental property market, it would not be right to continue with the 2021 revaluation. Continuing to implement the next revaluation on this schedule would have created additional uncertainty for ratepayers at an already uncertain time. It would also have meant that the underlying basis for bills would not have reflected the impact of the outbreak on the commercial rental market.
The Government therefore took the exceptional step of postponing the implementation of the next revaluation in order to give certainty to ratepayers and ensure that the next revaluation reflects the changes to market conditions as a result of the pandemic. The Bill will therefore set the date for implementation of the next revaluation in England and Wales at 1 April 2023. The revaluation will be based on rents at 1 April 2021, a date that we have already set using existing powers in secondary legislation.
The Bill will also change the latest date by which the Valuation Office Agency must publish draft rateable values in the lead-up to the revaluation. That date will be changed from 30 September to 31 December in the preceding year, which will allow us to align the publication of the draft rateable values with decisions normally made at any autumn fiscal event on the multipliers and transitional arrangements for the revaluation.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I understand the reasons why we have postponed revaluations on a number of occasions since 2010. Does that not illustrate the changing nature of the commercial world and the need to move to a different system that is more responsive to the realities of trading on our high streets?
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are currently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates, and as part of that exercise we are considering the frequency of future revaluations. When deciding whether to have more frequent revaluations, we need to strike the right balance between more up-to-date assessments, which would flow from such a reform, and the uncertainty it could create, with more regular changes to bills, while also taking into account the time it currently takes to process changes and the impact that any changes that might be required would have on the current system. I certainly understand, however, the point that he has continually made about annual revaluations and how that could further improve the system. I am sure that will be considered.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the revaluation moving from April 2021 to April 2023, but I wonder whether there is a danger that those properties that might have a substantial revaluation downwards will be paying over the odds on their rates for two further years, at what we all know is going to be an incredibly tough time. I am thinking in particular of retail businesses and a very challenging trading environment. Will he consider changing the date from April 2023 to later in 2021, particularly given the comments he has just made about the need for more regular revaluation?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I know it is a matter in which she takes a personal interest and that she has raised it with Ministers. The point stands that we have to have a system that takes into account the impact of the pandemic and, as is the case with the current system, the time it takes the VOA to go through the process. We think that this is the measure required at this time.
We took the step to postpone the implementation of the next revaluation so as to give certainty to ratepayers and to ensure that the next revaluation reflects the changes in the market conditions as a result of the pandemic. The Bill will therefore set the implementation of the next revaluation date in England and Wales as 1 April 2023. On revaluation based on the rents of 1 April 2021, we have, of course, already set that out in secondary legislation.
Business rates is a devolved policy area, but with agreement from the Welsh Government the Bill does also apply to Wales. As in England, the next revaluation in Wales will be implemented on 1 April 2023, and the date of publication of Welsh draft rateable values will also be changed to 31 December. Entirely different legislation applies in Northern Ireland, which has only recently implemented a revaluation from 1 April 2020, and Scotland, where I understand the Scottish Government have also committed to implementing their next revaluation on 1 April 2023. There is, therefore, a good degree of agreement across the UK that the next business rates revaluation is moved, to better reflect the impact of the coronavirus. Notwithstanding some of the points raised, I hope that is accepted across this House.
As I have said, this is an exceptional step and the Government remain committed to frequent revaluations of business rates. The fundamental review of business rates will look at not just the frequency of revaluations but how they are done, and will report on those aspects of the business rates system in spring. However, this is a step that we can take now to improve business rates bills, and that is why we have brought this Bill forward so quickly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. He has set out why it is essential—I and others in this House believe it is, too—in the current economic situation. We need to do all we can to support our businesses and see them through this so that we can reap the rewards in the years to come. When businesses are better off, they are able to help the local economy and pay their taxes to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, national insurance and council pockets. Rather than seeing this as a bail-out, as some do, I see it as a very sensible investment for the future.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is right that the Bill’s provisions form only part of the support that we have provided to ratepayers as a result of the pandemic. We have already ensured that eligible businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors will pay no business rates at all in 2020-21. This is a relief worth £10 billion, which, when combined with the businesses receiving small business rate relief, means that more than half the ratepayers in England will pay no rates this year. This forms part of the business rates measures introduced in England since 2016, which, when taken together, will be worth more than £23 billion over the next five years. These include the doubling of small business rates relief, changes to the threshold, which mean that 700,000 small businesses—occupiers of a third of all properties—now pay no business rates at all, and switching the indexation of business rates from the retail price index to the consumer prices index. That switch alone will save businesses £6 billion over the next five years.
This Bill forms a critical part of the package of reforms and support that we are introducing to business rates, which will result in a property tax that better reflects coronavirus-related challenges in the commercial rental market and provide support to those who need it most, and which is simple and easy for businesses to administer. I commend it to the House.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for bringing back to Parliament a Bill that will hopefully give greater certainty to businesses and local authorities during this pandemic. Given the existential crises they face, Labour thinks this Bill is a common-sense response to the virus that does not, fortunately, break any laws in specific or limited ways. For those reasons, we will be supporting the Bill.
This is the Government’s third attempt at such a Bill. Unlike the first and second attempts, this Bill makes no changes to the length of time between business rates revaluations. The previous Bill would have replaced the existing five-year cycle with a three-year cycle, which would have implemented commitments made by the Government in their 2017 and 2018 spring statements. The Chancellor, then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, saw the Government’s first attempt through the House, and in doing so made it clear that a five-year cycle had not been responsive enough to changes in the rental market. The Bill contains no such provision, and while I recognise that the Government are considering more frequent revaluations as part of the business rate review, which I will come to in a moment, I would like to place it on record that, outside of these extraordinary times, Labour in principle supports regular revaluations.
I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s plans to deal with the Valuation Office Agency’s backlog of appeals. According to the latest valuation tribunal statistics, there are still 50,000 unsolved appeals from 2010, and councils have had to divert more than £3 billion from services to deal with those appeals—money that could have been spent elsewhere, on schools, social care and keeping our streets clean. None the less, these are not normal times, and we recognise that, in circumstances where the rental value of properties has fallen, businesses may actually benefit come 2023, if they survive.
Historically, postponing revaluations has created serious issues for businesses. Some have faced huge, sudden increases in business rates, rather than more regular, smaller increments. It is far easier for businesses to assume the cost of smaller increases as a result of more frequent revaluations. Also, the Valuation Office Agency will base the valuation on rental values at 1 April 2021, which is curious, because the chief medical officer has been crystal clear that the virus will be with us for at least six months, and April 2021 is less than six months away. Organisations such as Revo, which supports the whole of the retail property market—owners, occupiers and local authorities—are seriously concerned. Given that the economy is likely still to be significantly affected next year, will the Minister please share with the House the rationale behind his decision to base the valuation on rental values in April 2021?
Beyond those points, there is a much wider issue at play here, as I have said. The business rate system is not fit for purpose. It is broken, and Labour has long called for a root-and-branch review of business rates to make the system fair, to help bricks-and-mortar retailers to compete with online tech giants, and to help to protect our high streets. Can the Minister assure the House that the fundamental review of the business rate system will be delayed no longer than necessary once it is concluded next spring, with the interim report expected as early as this autumn?
Many people working in shops, restaurants, pubs and beyond feel that their jobs are hanging by a thread. The job of the Government is to support businesses to survive and to help them to thrive. This Government are already bringing in big changes under permitted development rules for retail premises, and I am sure we will hear much more about that later. That will also have a negative impact on high streets. Getting the business rate system right is essential, and more so now than ever. The Government have been intransigent and too slow to support businesses in the recovery efforts. They must not make the same mistake by being too slow to reform business rates. The system for assessing rates is complex, costly and time-consuming, and businesses have made it clear that reform is overdue.
Before I finish, I would like to turn to local government. Local government finance has been hit hard throughout this pandemic, and Blackburn has been hit harder than most with the extended restrictions. Alongside council tax, business rates represent the largest source of income for councils. Retained business rates contribute around a quarter of their core spending power, and it cannot be right that the Treasury considers support for businesses and local authorities a closed book. Local authorities have been heroic in their efforts throughout the pandemic, despite the black hole in funding that the Government have so far failed to fill. Councils have lost £953 million from business rates income between March in July this year alone, which accounts for more than a quarter of income losses for councils over the same period.
At the Government’s daily press conference at the beginning of May, when asked what his message to council leaders was, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that
“we will stand behind them and ensure they have the resources that they need”.
So far, the Government have failed to live up to that promise. The comprehensive spending review is an opportunity for them to keep that promise. If they do not get local funding right, older people will not get the care they need, young people will be put at risk and, critically for democracy, people will question why they are paying more tax for fewer services. We will support the Bill, but the Government need to stop tinkering around the edges and fix the broken business rate system. They need to support businesses and the millions of workers that are in desperate need, and they need to resource councils that are on a financial cliff edge.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This is a sensible Bill, given the pandemic, and one that I fully support. Basing revaluations on property values at 1 April 2021 rather than 1 April 2019 reflects far better the impact of covid-19 on property values and those businesses that pay business rates. I am pleased that the Government have listened, in order to end the uncertainty, and that the revaluation date for non-domestic rates will now not be until 1 April 2023. It is also right to say on record that the package of measures to help those businesses that pay business rates has probably been one of the best in the world, with almost £10 billion in rates relief throughout the pandemic. I know that many in my constituency, which has a particularly high number of leisure, hospitality and retail businesses, are extremely appreciative.
However, while the Bill might not attract the same level of interest as what is coming later today, I want to draw attention to what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has had to say about it. Since the last revaluation to date, RICS has called constantly for measures that offer improved certainty, consistency and stability. As has been echoed today, rather than tinkering around the edges, we should commit to a full reform of business rates.
That cuts to the crux of what I wish to talk about briefly—business rates and retailing in particular. Approximately £8 billion in business rates is collected by the Treasury from the high street, but in just months this pandemic has changed many of those businesses forever. Coupled with declining footfall in city centres especially, and the acceleration of shoppers buying online, we now have to think about the bigger picture—rather than just delaying a rates revaluation, reform is very much needed.
I welcome entirely the Chancellor’s efforts to increase the business rates retail discount to 100%, which we have seen. It has been a lifeline for so many, as I mentioned. What happens next, however, is really critical. Traditional business rates are an enormous burden to many who are already seeing footfall decline and much tougher trading conditions. For those on the high street in particular, the rates and rent burdens are often the largest fixed cost base for them to contend with, so we now need to think about new, innovative ways to help the high street. In my view, a fundamental overhaul of business rates is altogether part and parcel of what we need to see.
Business rates must be not just responsive to economic conditions, but fit for purpose in a retailing landscape that is structurally changing in an extremely fast manner. Simply, if our high streets continue to deteriorate at the current rate, businesses will cease to trade, with far-reaching adverse implications for, literally, millions of employers, employees and suppliers connected to and dependent on this sector.
High streets provide many more benefits than purely economic ones. They provide a community, and I think we all agree that in this pandemic community is one of the most robust things to come together. Many towns and cities are shaped by an identity stemming from the vibrancy of their high streets. That is why, as the high street changes, business rates as a blunt cost for occupying a unit need to adapt as well. If we get that right and we reduce the cost base of paying rates—at the moment, we take it for granted that rates are part and parcel of operating from a traditional bricks-and-mortar store—we will be able to put the high street on a more equal footing and to encourage high streets to adapt and flourish as technological shifts change.
Flexible rent schemes—why not even flexible rate schemes? —encouragement of pop-up shops to help vacant space before signing leases, and support for smaller retailers who perhaps started online but want a physical presence must all be ideas that we nurture, support and back. We must look at business rates reform and the success of the high street in tandem, bearing in mind a couple of facts before I end.
Last July, the proportion of shops that were empty reached over 10%, the highest level since January 2015. All the indications that we read show that high street footfall is declining at an accelerating rate from 2% year after year. More worryingly, post covid, many consumers have got used to shopping online. That is being exacerbated as people desert our high streets and in particular our city centres. Recent news showed that, pre-pandemic, £1 in every £5 was spent online; during the pandemic, that rose to £1 in every £3. I implore that we use this opportunity to look at business rates in conjunction with how we support our high streets into the future. Never before has reform needed to come far sooner than perhaps we all expected.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I value this opportunity to raise the issue of business rates and their impact on the retail sector. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) raised many similar points, but I wish to talk in particular about the value of retail during this incredibly difficult time.
Our retail sector has been essential in helping many members of my community through this difficult period, which has shown the value of a strong retail sector in every town centre to the building of communities. Many of us who have been holed up at home for an extended period have valued the opportunity to get out and about and have face-to-face contact again. I think more of us value that than ever before. For that reason, although this is a very difficult time for the retail sector, I believe it has a strong future, because we cannot replace the value of that face-to-face contact with an online purchase; it is a tremendous boost to one’s wellbeing. We have all become much more aware of the issues of isolation, people living alone, and how the town centre helps to build a strong local community.
Another point that I wish to make about the retail sector is that it has always been a strong source of employment for many people—local employment is so important for many people who find it difficult to access city centres. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the retail sector is a major employer of female workers; that is so important. Research shows clearly that having more women in employment has a strong impact on reducing the number of children in poverty. That is why it is so important to support the sectors that support female employment.
The rates holiday has been essential to helping retailers survive during the pandemic. Like all Members, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed those measures from the Treasury, but I urge the Government to take the opportunity presented by the Bill to reform the existing structure of rates to better reflect the underlying trading environment that many in the retail sector are having to face. Yes, we should to push the revaluation back for the relevant businesses, but perhaps to later in 2021 rather than 2023. We might assume that more businesses to be found in, for example, the north and the midlands will face a reduction in the value of their properties. It would be better for them to take advantage of the reduction in rates sooner rather than later, especially given the challenging trading conditions everybody is going to be facing. I echo what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said about more regular revaluations and how that would support our retail industries in a fast-moving property market.
As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, this is a critical point for the retail industry, and it would be great to see whether we could take the opportunity to rebalance the burden of business rates away from high streets, in recognition of the fact that the retail market is changing in favour of digital outlets, which militates against those retailers that are still based on our high streets. I mentioned the value of high-street shops and maintaining our high streets; we need to see the Government reflect and support that in their rates policy.
I welcome the business rates review, to which we plan to contribute, but I hope it can be done speedily so that we see rates reform take place sooner rather than later, to better support all those businesses that are relying on rates reform to help them through. Will the Minister consider a reduction in the uniform business rate from 50p to 30p, to better reflect how much lower is the volume of retail going through our high streets as people move to digital and online?
Kevin Hollinrake
That kind of change to the multiplier would probably cost around £12 billion a year. Does the hon. Lady have any idea of where she would get the money to fill that gap?
Sarah Olney
That is an important point and I very much hope that the business rates review will look at it. There is no doubt that online retailers are not currently paying their fair share. Lots of solutions to that problem have been proposed, although I do not think this is the right forum to debate them. There are pros and cons in respect of proposed digital sales taxes, but nevertheless it is a policy area that seriously demands to be looked at. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that high street retail businesses having to bear the brunt of property taxes when they no longer get the lion’s share of the retail market is a situation that cannot continue.
Finally, I just wanted to make the point that we are all expecting a major economic dislocation as a result of the unwind of the furlough scheme and the other measures that the Government have put in place. We are anticipating high levels of unemployment, but one way to mitigate that is through people starting up their own businesses. There are opportunities in the retail sector for those who are looking to start up their own businesses, particularly in constituencies such as mine. We have seen a rise in home working, which has meant that, for the high streets in Richmond Park, there has been a rise in footfall, as people are now at home during the day, instead of perhaps travelling into the city, which is what they would have done previously.
Certainly, speaking to local retailers, I have been quite surprised to find how many of them have thrived over the past few months. They have diversified and found new ways to get their goods to customers. Certainly, the trading conditions are quite strong on our local high streets and, as I say, I believe that that represents opportunities for those who may find themselves out of work in the near future, but I urge the Government to do what they can to lower the barriers to new entrants to the retail markets, so that we can really make the most of these opportunities for new retail businesses on our high streets. That is why I urge the Government to do what they can to address the current rate structure for new businesses.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
What businesses often say they need most is stability and certainty. The current system for revaluation of non-domestic rates has sometimes given rise to sudden changes in business rates payable to reflect how local economic conditions may have changed, so although it can happen that business rates go down, a growing economy will more likely result in an increase in rates. If the time period between valuations is high then this can result in sudden and sometimes destabilising increases in business rates.
The Treasury, as we know, has been heroic in its support of businesses across the United Kingdom. The downturn that we have seen would have been much worse without it. We also know of the Treasury’s call for evidence for the consultation on the fundamental review of business rates as well as the call by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors for the Government to commit to full reform of the system.
There is, therefore, demand for change. However, it is clear that the best thing that we can do at this uncertain time is to provide additional stability. I have no doubt that companies such as Thomas Dudley, all the businesses in the Trident and Churchill shopping centres in Dudley and, of course, businesses across the country would welcome the postponing of the revaluation date to the 1 April 2023, as indeed would—probably—the mayor of the west midlands, Andy Street.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Obviously, this proposal is an understandable one and one that we broadly support, although I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) that its late implementation only exacerbates a problem that is rife. If we are desirous of creating greater equity in this country—the party in power refers to levelling up—we would have dealt with this years ago and the imbalance in terms of property and land values. My party would go further and say that business rates are more than just not fit for purpose; they are ripe for abolition and replacement with a commercial landowners’ levy. We can operate that in a way that would not only be fairer, but would motivate the owners of land to use that land for the best and most appropriate purposes. Therefore, if we are levelling up, we would implement this sooner, though I understand that the assessment is delayed for all the correct and reasonable reasons that the Minister set out.
I have two quick points, which are strongly related to that. Members from all parts of the House have talked about the benefits to struggling businesses of the business rates deferral scheme. That exemption has been renewed by the Chancellor for a further six months, which is hugely welcome and will make a massive difference. Of the businesses surveyed, 42% of them said that it made the difference between them being able to continue or to collapse, so it is a welcome support.
I will not be the only Member present who has been lobbied regularly by people who are not helped by that. I am talking about a range of people who, under the banner of the excluded, have received no help from the Government whatsoever. That list is lengthy, and it includes people who have been self-employed, but for less than 18 months now. It includes people who are managing directors of small, limited companies—taxi drivers, personal trainers, hairdressers and many other small companies—and people who were just unlucky and did not get themselves onto the payroll cut-off just at the right moment in March this year. Many of those people are without any support whatsoever and have had to live off what few savings they might have or have overrun credit cards to pay their rent or mortgage and feed their kids. While the exemption from and extension of the business rate relief is massively welcome, will Ministers please give thought to the, we believe, 3 million people, including 4,500 people in my constituency, who have not been helped?
Finally, this is surely a moment for the Government to consider other amendments to business rates and alterations in their structure. This would be the moment for the Government to do something about an issue that they have sought to engage with for some time now: the loophole that allows people who own a second home—I am not talking about a holiday let, but a second home—to avoid paying any form of taxation. In my constituency, it is estimated that about 3,000 to 4,000 second home owners use the loophole so that the property technically qualifies as a holiday let. However, they are not letting out the property at all. They are not breaking the law; they are taking advantage of a loophole. That means that those people are not paying council tax and, as a small business, they are paying no business rates either. A quick back of the fag packet estimate for my constituency is that it costs the council tax payers of South Lakeland £6 million a year to subsidise very wealthy people who can afford to have a second home.
If we add that to the Government’s unintentional, but nevertheless given bung of £10,000 each through the stamp duty relief extension the other month, we have a picture where, in communities such as mine, where excessive second home ownership robs those communities of life, community and demand for local schools, local shops and bus services so that those services end up being under threat and sometimes closing, the Government are encouraging an excess of second home ownership. That is particularly the case in rural communities such as the lakes and the dales, where they should be doing the opposite. I urge the Government to do what the Welsh Assembly Government have done and close that loophole. The Government had a consultation on this, to give them credit. They closed that consultation in January 2019. Twenty months on, is it time, maybe, for us to find out what they are planning to do? Will they stop playing into the hands of those who have plenty, and therefore disadvantaging communities such as mine in the south lakes who do not have enough?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have quite significant interests in the business rates system, in terms of my own business, so hon. Members should take that into account.
To touch on the comments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I absolutely agree with his point about the business rates loophole for holiday cottages, and I hope that the Treasury is listening to that. It is an obvious loophole to close, and it affects North Yorkshire like it affects the Lake District.
I very much support the Bill. I sat on the joint Treasury Committee and Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into business rates. We looked very carefully at the frequency of revaluation. We took evidence from a number of different sources. Some nations do the revaluation annually, not three yearly, and that would be better from a business perspective. It would give a more current perspective on the trading environment, although we should bear in mind that all business rates revaluations are fiscally neutral. Some people would benefit from a reduction in their business rates valuation, but that would have to be made up elsewhere by the multiplier changing to come back to the £30 billion a year that business rates raise.
I do not know whether hon. Members have a solution to that problem— I have heard a couple of speeches from Opposition Members who say that the business rates system is not fit for purpose, yet only one solution, from the hon. Gentleman. He suggested, potentially, a land value tax, but that has other inherent difficulties because it is, again, a value-based tax. Business rates are a valued-based tax. It has a correlation with the rental value of a property, which is, of course, inherently tied to the capital value of the premises. As Ronald Reagan once said, “There are simple solutions, but there are no easy solutions.” We might all want reform, but finding reform that works and is fair is difficult—I will, however, suggest something before I sit down. The other issue with the current system is that reliefs and changes brought in as a transitional phase mean that those who should benefit from the revaluations do not do so for some time, in order to try to help with people who are “going up in value”. It is far from a perfect system at the moment.
My first hustings took place in the village I have lived near all my life. One question from the audience was about a local retailer where many of us had shopped—Craggs electrical, a good local white goods retailer selling TVs and the like. It had just closed down after many years in that community. Mrs Craggs was in the audience and the questioner said, “Mrs Craggs’ business has just had to close down because of the situation. She cannot pay her business rates. It is just unaffordable. What are the Government going to do about it?” The reality is that Mrs Craggs’ business was closing down not because of Government business rates, but because of the different shopping trends of all the people in that room; all those people were applauding and saying we should take some action, but the reality is that fewer and fewer of us are buying that kind of stuff from shops. So it is not about what the Government are or are not doing; it is about shopping trends.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) mentioned, before the crisis, 20% of shopping was done online but that figure has risen rapidly to 35%, which is making the whole system difficult. Most businesses look at the rent and the business rates when they first take on a premises, and then plug that into their cash flow and decide what they can afford to pay. That is what a good businessperson should do. It is not that the business rates system is anachronistic; the pace of change is the problem. At some point in future, when all this has settled down, businesses will say, “We can afford to pay this rent and these rates”, but the difficulty is being caused by the pace of change.
Sarah Olney
I am listening carefully, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise on this subject, as I know he has studied it long and hard. We have talked a bit about the divide between digital and high street retail. Does he agree that there is a social good to be achieved in supporting high street retail and that the Government should perhaps express a preference for it over digital through the tax system?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, I absolutely agree with that. Community is very important to me and our shops are part of those communities. It is dangerous when the Government start picking winners—I do not think that should happen. The forces of free markets and a market economy are the best things to ensure that prices are kept low and levels of services are high for consumers. That is what is most effective. So what we have to try to do, of course, is create a fair and level playing field, and let businesses come in to fill that gap and provide services that people want. That is what we should be looking to do.
In its review of business rates, the Treasury talks about different options, including an increase in VAT, changes to corporation tax and an online sales tax. It seems to land on the online sales tax as the solution, so let me talk about a couple of things that it sets out in that consultation. It sets out not that an online sales tax will replace business rates, but that it will exist alongside them—that is a key thing to understand—and that it will potentially lead to a reduction for retail. So there will be two systems coming together.
I have heard a few Members talk about retail in this debate, but the changes in consumer behaviour are not just about retail. Uber Eats and Deliveroo, for example, deliver to people’s houses often not from takeaway premises on the high street but from mini-establishments off the high street. Travel agents, insurance brokers, banking—all those things are changing because of consumer habits; people do not visit shops anything like as much as they used to. Looking at the problem purely from a retail perspective is wrong; doing so does not understand the problem.
Another issue is what is online? One of my fantastic local butchers in Thirsk is Johnson’s, an order-in butcher’s, which has wonderful meats, but does not seem particularly the type of business that would go online. I visited them during the crisis, because they had set up a delivery service and offer click and collect, as well as traditional shopping. They have even set up a little bot from which you can order, which talks to you using artificial intelligence—very clever stuff and really innovative, which was great; but how would you assign an online sales tax to those different categories? It would be hugely complex for a business to work out what was bought purely online, what was bought on click and collect and what was bought by customers walking into the store. It would make the system more complicated. The more we try to simplify the tax system, of course, the more complicated we make it. There are some inherent flaws in an online sales tax; it is so very difficult. The problem of distinguishing between online, click and collect and physical shopping is inherent in lots of different businesses, John Lewis being an obvious example. It is not clear how such a tax would operate without making the system more complex.
Simple and easy are two different things. The simple solution, which will not be universally popular, is to look at sales tax. We already have a sales tax; it is called VAT. The simplest thing to do would be to raise VAT. We could not just put a hole in the business rates system—some 30 billion quid—without replacing it with something, certainly not given where the public finances are today. Putting 2p on VAT, would raise £12 billion a year; 4p on VAT would raise £24 billion a year. We could also look at the threshold system of VAT, which is a real deterrent for businesses to grow. If we want a simple solution that is effective and crosses all the different sectors, it is there. It is fair and would keep the tax system as simple as possible.
I urge my very good friend the Minister on duty, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and the Treasury to think about the full extent of the problems, as well as the potential quick wins. When compared with an online sales tax, VAT is a much better system to operate.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I too refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Business rates have been discussed very many times in this Chamber, and I am sure that many of us have had multiple conversations with many businesses across our constituencies. The debate around business rates—how they should be implemented, whether we should have a complete revamp and overhaul of them, or even whether they should be adopted at all—has been going on for a significant period. Business rates impact many, many businesses, both large and small, across my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley and throughout the country. I mentioned the impact on small businesses because, as we all know, business rates relate to the size of the property that the business occupies rather than its turnover, or any other fiscal measurable that relates to the financial performance of that business.
Under the current system, the valuation office should regularly review rateable values to ensure that they are broadly in line with prices paid in the rental market by the businesses that pay business rates, to provide more certainty over bills, but I must say, having had some knowledge as a chartered surveyor over the past 12 years, that the review process can be slow, bulky and inefficient in its delivery. I very much welcome the fact that, since the last revaluation delay, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has consistently called for measures that offer improved certainty, consistency and stability to the UK property market. Instead of continuing to tweak the rating system and introducing impromptu delays, we need to start thinking about much more of a full reform and a complete overhaul of the system, to provide consistency through a fairer property taxation system, which works better for businesses and is targeted at offering, and able to facilitate, extended business planning. Of course, it must work for our friends over at the Treasury.
I am pleased that this Conservative Government moved incredibly swiftly and presented the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill to Parliament earlier this year, and I welcome the immediate support to business owners provided through that relief. Across Bradford district, about 5,000 premises will benefit from that rate relief, and of course many of them are based in Keighley and Ilkley. That is a pure demonstration that our Government are on the side of hard-working businesses right across the country. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and other colleagues in Government for moving swiftly.
Although I support this Bill and the relief that it provides for many businesses, I would like to see a revolutionary approach to the business rates structure that revamps and overhauls business rates so that we have a nimbler and fairer system. I do not want the business rates structure to be removed altogether, but it must adapt much more to the property and business market, which continues to change drastically.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I welcome this short Bill and the change that it makes to the revaluation date. It means that business rates payable from 2023 to 2026 will be based on post-pandemic property prices, as of April 2021. Clearly, it makes sense. I also welcome the Treasury’s fundamental review of business rates, which I believe is essential. High streets in my constituency are suffering very hard. They were suffering pre-coronavirus as a result of the very high burden of business rates and, as has been mentioned, the move towards online shopping.
Kensington pays a very heavy burden of business rates. Two small boroughs in central London—Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster—account for a whopping 10% of all national business rates. Greater London accounts for a third of national business rates, but has only one sixth of the total properties. In the last reappraisal, rateable values in England as a whole went up by 9.6%, but in London they went up by 23.7%. My high streets simply cannot tolerate that burden. Clearly, it has got worse as a result of coronavirus. In central London, we feel that particularly acutely because footfall has yet to return. The survey of footfall that was carried out a few weeks ago showed that London was bottom of the list for the uptick in footfall.
Many central London businesses did not benefit from the £25,000 Government grant for retail, leisure and hospitality because it was based on rateable value, not on profitability or cash flow. The rateable values in my constituency are three times the average, so many businesses in Kensington did not get the grant, whereas equivalent businesses elsewhere in the country, even some of a greater size, did. Clearly, my businesses did benefit from the business rate holiday, and for that I am grateful.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) alluded to, we cannot be naive here. Business rates are important to the Exchequer—they provide more than £25 billion to it annually—but I believe that the high street is bearing an unacceptable burden of business rates. While I welcome the Bill, I look forward to the Treasury’s review of business rates, and I believe that we need a fundamental review.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The reform of business rates and revaluation has been in a holding pattern for many years, and those of us who have spent time in local government will be conscious that the expected impact of that reform on local authority finance has been hotly debated. I think that we are still of the view that business rates in their current form are the worst possible solution to financing local government, with the exception of all other available choices. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made that point strongly in describing the hard choices we need to make in identifying alternative sources of finance. It seems clear that, in the Treasury, the business rates billions remain a key building block of our national budget. As a consequence, there has been a long-held reluctance to tinker with them, for fear of the wider impact on the bigger fiscal picture.
Business rates have been in existence for a long time. For many of our citizens, they used to walk in lockstep with residential rates, long abolished. Even today, the variation in business rates income at local authority level is reflected in the grant funding—the traditional revenue support grant that was the basis of most local authority funding—and in things such as school funding. When schools were first set up as a local authority responsibility, local authorities funded them according to their incomes from business rates and domestic rates, and that differential has been carried forward into the funding rates of our schools today. That long-standing impact and the fiscal picture across government of linking day-to-day expenditure on these services to the income we can rely upon coming through business rates remain in place. That goes to the heart of the point that a number of colleagues have made about the need for reform, but we need to address it as part of that complex formula.
I would like to add my voice to the request from many colleagues for greater flexibility in the way that business rates are deployed. I am fortunate to represent a constituency that has a great diversity of local businesses and very vibrant high streets. Many of those new businesses have grown up to take the place of more traditional activities, some of which have seen their departure mourned by local residents, and others perhaps less so. For example, a sports club has closed and been replaced by a children’s soft play area, because the baby boom means that there is now a much greater market for that kind of activity. The bank that I used to be responsible for is now a bookshop and coffee shop on Pinner High Street, reflecting the fact that our high streets can remain vibrant.
This is not about saying that the Government or the local authority need to pick the businesses that they think should be winners on the high street. It is about reflecting the fact that the challenge of online versus bricks and mortar retailing, the changing nature of the high street and our ability to keep it vibrant on behalf of our communities means that we need flexibility.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He alluded to the point I made earlier. If we had a business rates system that purely provided discounts for retail premises, what would we do with premises that were not retail and became retail or were retail and became another business category?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend reinforces the point robustly. I declare an interest, as a father of young children. The development on our high streets of more community-focused business opportunities, due to there now being many more young children in my part of the world looking to access soft play, clothing retail and other things, is a reflection of the fact that our communities change—they are vibrant. That is what their nature should be, and those market forces are a welcome part of responding to the changes in our communities.
When we see challenges that come along, whether they reflect the national economic position or indeed wider issues on a local level, we need to be able to respond effectively. A really good illustration of that is the impact on the local authority that serves most of my residents and Heathrow airport—the London Borough of Hillingdon. Heathrow is the largest single payer of business rates within the Greater London area, but the challenge for the local authority that collects those business rates is that the revenue it collects and the proportion retained locally is far less than the cost to the local authority of dealing with the consequences of having the airport in its local area.
That brings me on to my final plea to Ministers as we begin to look to what the future of business rates may be beyond this revaluation. Too often, there is little or no upside for local authorities in supporting the development and growth of businesses, because so much of the money goes into the central pool and the community sees the disbenefits such as congestion and pollution—sometimes, in the case of airports, in the form of air pollution—and needing to provide services to people such as refugees and those who find themselves stranded at the airport. All those are direct costs to local taxpayers as part of the statutory frameworks; they simply are not met by the share of the income that lands locally.
We need to have a much broader discussion about how we ensure that local authorities that see these opportunities to develop local businesses, jobs and a vibrant local economic strategy can see the benefit of doing that coming directly into their local community. In the United States, for example, it is a very common part of considerations of any infrastructure development that local politicians can say to the local community, “Yes, you will have to put up with a downside, but you will see this enormous benefit as a consequence of this development or this project going ahead.”
We need to see this as part of a much broader and more strategic review of the way in which we fund public services in this country. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) pointed to the impact on local authorities of a reduction in revenue support grant. That is part of this complex picture, but over the same period, we have seen significant growth in levels of business rate income that have been retained by local authorities. When the Ministry makes its calculation of spending power, the reduction in spending power does not simply reflect a reduction in the revenue support grant: it then needs adding back into it the additional revenue that is coming from other sources.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton explained so clearly, this is not simply a matter of being able to offer everyone out there who would like to see a reduction in their business rates such a reduction, because if we do that, we need to decide which other taxes will go up to pay for it. We must make sure that we consider that decision fully in this House before it is made, because we have a responsibility to local authorities and residents to make sure that the services we commit to provide for them are financially sustainable.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
It is wonderful to hear so many Members recognise the need for reform of business rates—and of course, in fairness, right across the patch. I want to return to two points very briefly.
There are many ways that the Government can support businesses, and making the next business rates valuation a smoother transition for them, as this Bill does, is one way to do it. However, as the Government know all too well—the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has spoken about it at length from this Dispatch Box—they have consigned businesses and jobs to the scrapheap. The Government are failing to give businesses that could be viable, although they have been closed for a few months, the support they need. If we are to rescue businesses, there is an urgent need for the Government to support them through this difficult time. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk. We are talking about rates and how people pay into the system. If people are unemployed, of course there is a cost to that as well, not only financially but emotionally and socially.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member makes a very good point. On the jobs at risk and the Government support she is criticising, if this is such a big issue for her party, why are no Labour Back Benchers willing to speak on this very important issue that affects millions of businesses around the UK?
Kate Hollern
I am sorry that the hon. Member does not understand that this debate is for today. There have been a number of debates on the lack of support for businesses from this Government, and quite a few Conservative Members have recognised that some businesses have had absolutely no support at all, so perhaps we do need another debate on that subject.
On local government funding, councils face a multimillion- pound funding gap. Of course, local government works hand in hand with local businesses to create a sense of place to create vibrant town centres, as well as to encourage community sites and economic growth. I do recognise that the Government are covering 75% of the income loss incurred by councils, but that still leaves them hugely out of pocket and less able to support businesses.
The Bill is a first step to supporting businesses and local authorities, but everyone who has spoken agrees that business rate reforms need to be an urgent priority for the Government. If we are to protect jobs in high streets, this must be dealt with fairly and quickly. I hope that Ministers and their Department will keep these comments in mind as we look ahead to the comprehensive spending review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, but also for the ideas and the clear passion that Members across the House have on this issue.
I want to pick up on just a few points, because I know time is short. While I have great respect for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) from our previous dealings, this country has been facing one of the most significant pandemics, and the response from this Government in support of business has been significant. Over the next five years alone, there will be over £23 billion in support for businesses. We have taken steps quickly and in an agile way, and we have been able to protect those jobs, as our constituents quite rightly look to us to do.
I would like to touch on retail, which has been mentioned a lot today. Quite rightly, when people think of rates and when people think of our communities, they look at our town centres and our high streets. Of course, in my previous role, where retail was very much a focus, this issue was not lost on me. One of the things we need to recognise is that, during the pandemic, we were able to double the amount of retail relief. The Chancellor expanded this to 100%, enabling more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses to make use of those discounts.
We also need to recognise, as hon. Members have highlighted, the changing nature of our high streets. Of course, my Department has launched the £1 billion future high streets fund, particularly to work with local authorities to make sure we can take our high streets to the next phase. We are working with local authorities and communities to develop the thriving high streets that we sorely need.
The Bill may be narrow and technical in scope, but in practice it does deliver on an important Government tax commitment by setting in law the date of the next business rate revaluation on 1 April 2023. Business rates are a local tax, rather than a national tax, which is why this small Bill is necessary. However, for many businesses, this Bill is as important as a national tax measure. We hear from rate payers that the accuracy of rateable values is important to the fairness of the business rate system. Frequent valuations ensure that business rates bills are up to date, and accurately reflect rental values and relative changes in rents. That is why we remain committed to frequent revaluations and why we had previously decided to have the next revaluation in 2021. That revaluation would have been based on the rental market at 1 April 2019, before coronavirus. I trust hon. Members understand the exceptional circumstances in which we decided to no longer proceed with the 2021 revaluation, and I very much welcome the support that has been expressed from across the House.
I would like to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We recognise the issue he raises relating to holiday lets. We have consulted on possible changes to the criteria which could enable more holiday lets to be registered for business rates. We will set out a Government response once we have considered that in more detail.
I also want to pick up on a point expressed by many hon. Members today about the fundamental review of rates. The Treasury has set out the scope and launched a call for evidence. It has been great to hear from hon. Members in this debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi). I very much hope they participate fully in the call for evidence and feed in their ideas, so that the Treasury can evaluate them. The scope of the fundamental review includes reducing the overall burden, improving the current system, and considering more fundamental changes in the medium and long term. Hon. Members have rightly called for that. We do hear in our constituencies that the burden of that single bill is large for so many of our businesses.
These measures are particularly important for local authorities. My Department has held discussions with representatives from local government, including the Local Government Association. For local authorities, we intend to make any adjustments to the rates retention scheme that are necessary to ensure that locally retained income is, as far as practicable, unaffected by the revaluation. That will give local authorities the assurance they need regarding locally retained income and revaluations. We will also ensure that local authorities have what they need to issue the new bills in a timely manner.
The Bill sets the next revaluation in 2023, but ratepayers do not have to wait until then to benefit from the reforms we have made to the rating systems. They are benefiting now from the small business rates scheme, which has removed 700,000 small businesses from the rating, and from a £10 billion package targeted on the businesses most affected by the pandemic, which means that more than half of all ratepayers in England will pay no rates at all this year.
I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate and look forward to the House supporting the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise provision for, or in connection with, changing the dates on which non-domestic rating lists must be compiled.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
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 shall now suspend the House for three minutes.
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 24 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire.
When we first introduced the Act in March, I said that coronavirus is the most serious public health emergency that the world has faced in a century. Now, six months later, it is still the most serious public health emergency that the world has faced in a century. We have worked hard, overwhelmingly across party lines and sometimes at great pace, and come together to slow the spread of this virus. With the help of this Act, we protected the NHS, we built the Nightingale hospitals, and we welcomed thousands of clinicians back to the frontline. The Act helped people to get more appropriate care, faster; it helped the NHS and social care to harness technology like never before; and it has allowed the Government to deliver unprecedented economic support in troubled times. Although we have made huge strides in expanding testing and huge progress toward a vaccine, with the virus still at large, the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the measures within it remain as important as then.
Our strategy is to suppress the virus while protecting the economy, education and the NHS until a vaccine makes us safe. The Act is still needed to keep people safe. I understand that these are extraordinary measures, but they remain temporary, time-limited and proportionate to the threat that we face. Some of the measures we seek not to renew; some have, thankfully, not been used, but it is imperative that we maintain the ability to use them if needed; and some of the measures have proved critical to our response and are now used to keep people safe every day. To stand down the Act now would leave Britain exposed at a time when we need to be at our strongest.
This virus moves quickly, so we need to have the powers at our disposal to respond quickly. It is deeply important to me that we strike the right balance between acting at pace and proper scrutiny. I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, I believe that scrutinised decisions are better decisions, and I believe in the wisdom of this House as the cockpit of the nation.
This has been an unprecedented time. This House has had to do many unprecedented things, many of which have been uncomfortable. I have listened to the concerns raised about scrutiny. As you pointed out earlier, Mr Speaker, there have been times when this pandemic has challenged us all and we have not been able to do this as well as we would have liked. I therefore propose that we change the approach to bringing in urgent measures. I am very grateful to all colleagues we have worked with to come forward with a proposal that will allow us to make decisions and implement them fast, yet also ensure that they are scrutinised properly.
Today, I can confirm to the House that for significant national measures with effect in the whole of England or UK-wide, we will consult Parliament; wherever possible, we will hold votes before such regulations come into force. But of course, responding to the virus means that the Government must act with speed when required, and we cannot hold up urgent regulations that are needed to control the virus and save lives. I am sure that no Member of this House would want to limit the Government’s ability to take emergency action in the national interest, as we did in March.
We will continue to involve the House in scrutinising our decisions in the way my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week, with regular statements and debates, and the ability for Members to question the Government’s scientific advisers more regularly, gain access to data about their constituencies and join daily calls with my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I hope these new arrangements will be welcomed on both sides of the House, and I will continue to listen to colleagues’ concerns, as I have tried my best to do throughout.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for being prepared to listen and for the constructive conversations that we have had over the last couple of weeks. As he said, Members on both sides of the House understand the importance of Ministers having the freedom to act quickly when it is necessary, but we are grateful that he and other members of the Government have understood the importance of proper scrutiny in this place and the benefits that that can bring for better government.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him on the point about scrutiny. I am very glad that we have been able to find a way to ensure that we can have that scrutiny and that colleagues on both sides of the House can have the opportunity to vote, but in a way that still does not fetter the Government’s need to act fast to keep people safe from this virus.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has set out and the manner in which he has done it, and I thank him very much indeed. He said earlier that he would not be renewing some of these provisions. May I just invite him to say something about mental health, and also something about schedule 21 relating to potentially infectious persons?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have been working together to try to find a way through this that works both for the House and for the circumstances. There has been a change in the way that schedule 21 is used, and I believe that has reduced some of the concerns in this area, but we will continue to keep it under review.
I will say something about mental health later in my speech. There are measures on mental health in the Act that have not been used and that we are not seeking to renew. I hope that reassures colleagues that we take a proportionate approach to these measures and that although we want to make sure we have the measures we need, when we do not need them we will set them aside.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for all he has done. I have spoken to him many times about these issues. I am sure that he, like me, has received lots of emails outlining concerns about the stripping back of health and social care. The Government must ensure that such powers can be used only when absolutely necessary and not to save funding while leaving people without appropriate care. Will the Secretary of State please reassure the House as to how the power will be regulated and reassure us that people’s health and social care rights will be protected?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The powers in the Act have allowed us not only to ensure that people get the care that they need and that that care is targeted where necessary, but to allow people to get better and faster access to care when they are in hospital and have to leave, by ensuring that a care package is there. In their totality, the measures on care in the Act have without doubt helped us both to protect the NHS and to support social care, and crucially to support the patients who need that care. We will therefore of course take them forward, because of that positive overall effect.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Has the Secretary of State seen the evidence that many disabled people and people who need care have not received the care that they need? If he listens to the organisations that represent disabled people, he will hear that they are extremely worried about schedule 12 in particular and the easements on the duties of local authorities to assess and meet care needs. Is he telling the House that the Government are not renewing that schedule—yes or no?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are renewing that schedule, because it is very important for ensuring that we prioritise care for those who need it most. The concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises now were raised during the passage of the Act, when we had a good discussion on the subject. I believe that the way the Act has worked has, overall, improved access to care for people both in hospital and in our social care system, which has, of course, been an area of great scrutiny throughout the pandemic.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for the sensible measures the Government have taken today on the involvement and ongoing consent of this House. There is widespread public concern out there about consent and the measures we are imposing on their lives. Just to be clear for the public, and some sectors of the media, watching this debate: many of the restrictions that we are reluctantly having to place on our constituents’ lives do not come through the Coronavirus Act 2020; they come through many other pieces of legislation, but primarily the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.
Matt Hancock
Yes. What I have said relates to measures to do with the pandemic response. As my hon. Friend says, the vast majority of the measures in respect of social distancing restrictions were introduced under 1984 Act; only a minority were introduced under the Coronavirus Act. Nevertheless, the point about scrutiny is an important one no matter what the origin of the statutory instrument. In essence, we have managed to innovate with parliamentary procedure to find a way that we can move both quickly and with the proper scrutiny of Parliament. That is what we have been seeking to do. In these unprecedented circumstances, many innovations have had to be made, not least in Parliament, and this is another one. There were two contrasting needs—the need for proper scrutiny and the need for very speedy action—and I am really pleased that we have been able to find a way through that, I hope, commands the support of the whole House.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the business managers for the work they have done in reaching this solution, and I hope, Mr Speaker, that you will think that, following your stern words earlier, the Government have listened and come forward with some measures that have responded appropriately.
May I just press the Secretary of State? He said in his remarks that the Government will bring forward votes in advance of the measures coming into force on national measures covering the whole of England or the whole of the UK. Obviously, some of the measures that have come into force so far have been quite significant, covering large parts of the country and millions of people. I accept there is a judgment to be made here; can he say a little more about where the line will be drawn about what is brought to this House in advance?
Matt Hancock
In a way my right hon. Friend, who has huge experience in these matters, answers his own question, because of course there is a judgment to be made. We have made a very clear commitment to the process that we will follow, and I hope that over the weeks to come we will demonstrate through our actions and through what we bring forward that we are true to that commitment, which essentially will become a new convention.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given the number of cases in which schedule 21 has been inappropriately used, can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what the definition is of a “potentially infectious” person? How is a police officer meant to know who is potentially infectious, and in the middle of a pandemic does that not include every single one of us, and are not the powers that the police have been given to detain us really quite worrying? Will he undertake to look at this again?
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the guidance has been looked at again, and the Crown Prosecution Service has issued new guidance that has rectified the concerns raised at the start. I am satisfied that that new guidance is appropriate and proportionate, and therefore I am satisfied that we should renew schedule 21, because, to answer his point, it is crucial that in circumstances where it is necessary to act to keep people safe we have the powers to do so, but they must be proportionate, and I think that the guidance has answered that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Hancock
If I may, I will make a bit of progress, because otherwise I will take the whole 90 minutes myself.
The central point is that we need to ensure that we strike a balance so that we get the scrutiny right and also meet the need to act fast. The vote tonight is about whether to renew the Coronavirus Act, and I emphatically urge Members on both sides to vote in favour of that Act because of the broad range of powers without which it would simply be impossible to have an effective response to this virus.
First, the Act has helped us boost the health and social care workforce. One of the achievements in this crisis is that we are able to protect the NHS, and one of the reasons we were able to do that was that we were able to support people on the frontline. This Act allowed the emergency registration of health and social care professionals—nurses, midwives, paramedics, social workers —who wanted to return to the national effort. Skilled and experienced staff were able to return to work and add capacity at a time of emergency.
Secondly, this Act does not just support the NHS frontline: the second part of the Act protects all public servants who keep the UK running safely and securely. Over the past few months we have seen huge changes in the way our public services have operated. This Act allows for remote working and for moving meetings online, and it is about acting quickly to prioritise essential activities. The Act supports vital temporary measures that have allowed public services to keep their work going. This includes courts keeping running in a covid-secure way through the use of virtual hearings; up to 65% of hearings each day now involve somebody joining remotely, so it is integral to maintaining the rule of law that we keep these measures in place. The measures have also kept local democracy going by allowing councils to hold their meetings virtually. These are sensible and pragmatic steps that have helped us keep vital institutions operating in the midst of the pandemic.
The Act gives the Home Secretary powers to close and suspend operations at UK ports and airports if there are insufficient staff to maintain border security. This is one of the powers that has not yet been used, and I hope we will never have to use it, but it remains an important tool at our disposal.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s earlier statement. My constituents are incredibly concerned about the powers given in this Act, but I would argue that this debate is not only about scrutiny and allowing the House to debate and vote; it is also about giving the Secretary of State the credibility to continue the work he is doing. It also exposes the difficult decisions and trade-offs he has to make, balancing the spread of the virus against all the restrictions we have to face, so I welcome the opportunity for further debates—much longer, I hope—and votes, too.
Matt Hancock
We are absolutely open to further and longer debates—for instance, the debate we had on Monday. Under the Standing Orders of the House, this debate is 90 minutes, and neither the Speaker nor we had the choice over that, but we introduced a full day’s debate on Monday, and there will be many more debates to come.
I turn to a measure that we will not be renewing. I have said that we will keep measures in place only for as long as is necessary, and I can tell the House that in one area we will revoke a power that was part of the original Act. When creating the Act, we included provisions to modify mental health legislation to reduce from two to one the number of doctors’ opinions needed to detain someone under the Mental Health Act 1983 and to extend legal time limits on the detention of mental health patients. These were always powers of last resort, and I was not persuaded, even in the peak, that they were necessary, because our mental health services have shown incredible resilience and ingenuity. I have therefore decided that these powers are no longer required in England and will not remain part of the Act. We will shortly bring forward the necessary secondary legislation to sunset these provisions.
The third part of the Act contains measures to suppress the virus. As a nation, we have succeeded in suppressing the virus once, thanks to so many sacrifices by so many people, but with cases on the rise, we know that more needs to be done, and we need to do it together. Our central strategy of suppressing the virus while protecting the economy, education and the NHS until a vaccine arrives is underpinned by this part of the Act. It gives us stronger powers to restrict or prohibit events and public gatherings, and where necessary to shut down premises. It gives police and immigration officers the power to isolate a person who is or may be infectious, and it allows us to close educational settings or childcare providers. Again, these are not measures that anyone wants to use, but we must keep them in place for the moment, because we need every weapon in our arsenal to fight this virus, and these are a proportionate response.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As the virus clearly behaves according to how each and every one of us behaves, will the Secretary of State join me in condemning what we saw on the news this morning at Coventry University, where some students were behaving in a shameful way, up close and personal, partying?
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say that the Secretary of State said that the time could not have been extended. Yes, it could, and I would have agreed to it.
Matt Hancock
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend’s comments are absolutely right. The need for all of us to exercise responsibility in a world where the virus can pass asymptomatically, without anybody knowing that they have it, is sadly a feature of life during the pandemic, which I hope will be over sooner rather than later.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the correspondence that the Secretary of State and I have had on a specific issue relating to local restrictions in Wales, which have quite rightly been imposed by the Welsh Government, that do not allow people to travel outside their county borough area except for a reasonable excuse, which does not include going on holiday. That means that lots of people have lost every single penny on their holiday, because lots of companies have refused to pay out on insurance or change the date of their holidays. They say that Welsh Government rules are just guidance and do not have the full force of law. I hope the Secretary of State can stand at the Dispatch Box now and say very clearly to those companies that they should be reimbursing people because those restrictions have the full force of law. The Welsh Government are of course the legitimate body that makes the rules in terms of the local measures in place in Wales. That is the devolution settlement, as we have discussed many times in the last six months, and people should respect that.
Matt Hancock
Of course the companies involved should be making recompense where that is appropriate, and I hope that we can come forward with a resolution to this issue sooner rather than later.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Matt Hancock
If I could just make some progress.
The fourth part of the Act contains measures for managing the deceased. This is a devastating virus that has caused pain and suffering for many and, tragically, has taken away many loved ones before their time. We have worked hard to treat them with the utmost dignity, along with protecting public health and respecting the wishes of the families of the bereaved.
The Act expands the list of people who can register a death to include funeral directors, and sets out that coroners only have to be notified when a medical professional is not available to sign a death certificate. It allows death certificates to be emailed, instead of physically presented, removes the need for confirmatory medical certificates in order for a cremation to take place and relieves coroners from the need to hold inquests with a jury in suspected covid-19 deaths. Over the past few months, those powers have eased pressure on coroners, reduced distress to the bereaved and allowed funerals to take place without delay. We therefore propose to keep them.
Finally, the fifth part of the Act includes measures to protect and support people through this crisis. The financial support provided by the Government has proved to be a lifeline for so many. These measures in the Coronavirus Act made that support possible. The Act provides for the furlough scheme, the temporary increase in working tax credits and making statutory sick pay payable from day one. Without the Act, we would not have furlough or the job support scheme. The Act also includes measures to protect both business and residential tenants by delaying when landlords can progress evictions.
I know the burdens that the virus has placed on the livelihoods of so many, and we have worked to give as much protection as possible. I think that the whole House will want to keep these powers in place so that we can continue to help people in future. Without the passage of this motion, the financial support for people that is provided for and legally underpinned in this Act would not be legally possible. I understand that many colleagues may have concerns about individual parts of the Act, but a vote for this Act allows many of the necessary legal powers that have been required, including underpinning the financial support that has kept so many people afloat during the crisis.
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he agree, though, that the inconsistent and sometimes nonsensical application of some of the rules is doing damage to some of the businesses that he talks about? In particular, I am thinking of the wedding industry and the many families who have been affected by that. The rule of six surely can apply so that a place that can take many multiples of six could host weddings and give people their special day, and so that it does not kill a vital industry not just in the lakes and the dales, but across the country.
Matt Hancock
I think we have shown throughout that we are always willing to try to improve the way the rules operate in a way that is safe. At weddings, of course people tend to come together physically. It is a time of celebration of love, and that is in its nature, so we make restrictions with huge regret, but we always keep an open mind on the public health evidence.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
If the Coronavirus Act were voted down today, would the Minister not have 21 days to bring forward to the House another Act, which the House can then agree?
Matt Hancock
The principle of the Coronavirus Act is that it underpins so many of the actions that are necessary. To vote down the Act and not to renew it would lead to an undermining of the actions that we need to take to keep this country safe.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I have a lot of sympathy with what the Secretary of State is saying, but may I also support what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), not only about the wedding industry but about the exhibitions and events industry? Will my right hon. Friend at least bear in mind that good sense from careful people who seek to be covid-sensible and compliant would enable him to exercise some flexibility in the very inflexible rules that currently govern those two important industries, which are flat on their backs?
Matt Hancock
We are always happy to look at the evidence on how these things can be done—absolutely. I would be very happy to talk to my right hon. Friend about how we can take this forward.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On the 15-person limit at wedding venues, it would help a lot of those in the industry, which is struggling desperately, if they could see the public health evidence and anything else taken into consideration in coming to that judgment. The difference between them and the rest of the hospitality industry does stand out, and they are going to be in a further desperate state for the next six months.
Matt Hancock
I will ask my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to take up that point. The Business Department is responsible for making sure that the business rules are right, and I know that it looks at them very carefully.
The Coronavirus Act remains as fundamental as it was when introduced to this House six months ago. We will beat the pandemic, but we are not there yet. I urge the House to approve this motion, so that we can keep responding with speed and with strength. As we have heard during the opening of this debate, we are always looking to listen, learn and improve the response as much as possible, but without this Act our response will be harmed very significantly. At a time when this nation is being tested like never before in peacetime, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
I remind Back Benchers that, unlike Front Benchers, they will have three minutes each.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, having taken the Bill through its Committee stages back in March.
We come to the House today to debate the renewal of the provisions of the Coronavirus Act, in the gravest of circumstances. Here in the United Kingdom, we have seen over 42,000 deaths, lives altered in ways unimaginable a year ago, and our economy facing one of the worst recessions on record. We accept the challenge that presents, which is why we have recognised that, in a pandemic, any Government need extraordinary powers available, and why, with a heavy heart, facing this highly unsatisfactory situation of an all-or-nothing motion, we will not block its passage.
We have supported the Government when it has been right to do so, and the British people, who have sacrificed so much in the national effort to address this virus, deserve nothing less. But today we say to the Government that things cannot go on as they are. The incredible efforts of the British people have not been matched with competence and grip by the UK Government. Announcements about measures have been made overnight, with no proper notice and no proper power of review, and Government Ministers have appeared on national media with absolutely no idea of what the rules are. The public are being let down on a grand scale.
The Government have had virtually all the resources and brilliance of our remarkable country on demand for over six months. They have been able to call on the UK’s remarkable frontline workers, who have shown incredible skill and bravery through this crisis. Yet we have ended up with one of the highest death rates in the world and on the threshold of one of the deepest recessions.
At the same time, the road ahead is anything but clear. Our testing system is inadequate, at the very moment we need it most, and this is having a devastating impact. Losing control of testing means losing control of the virus. It is that loss of control that makes further restrictions necessary. It is restrictions that are having a devastating effect on families and businesses up and down the country. This dire situation was not inevitable. It is the result of a chronic failure of Government. Today we must take stock of where we are and the urgent need for the Government to get a grip.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are attempting to shift blame on to local councils? The councils quite rightly want restrictions, but what is happening is that they are asking for things but not being given them. There is also no consultation at all on how the restrictions should be implemented locally, which is leaving the councils with the confusion that we have had over the last few—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK Government need to get a grip and work with the other Governments and local councils around the United Kingdom on an equal basis.
Right at the start of the pandemic, the World Health Organisation said that we should “test, test, test”, and it was clear that that would be a vital element in regaining any form of normality. The Government had the country’s full resources on hand, and on 20 May the Prime Minister promised a “world-beating” test, track and isolate system by 1 June. I am not asking for a world-beating system; an effective one would do just fine. But shamefully, this has not been achieved all these months later. Is not this the problem with the Prime Minister? He always promises a better tomorrow, but he never delivers today.
Mr Steve Baker
I said on Monday that I was actually quite pleased with the app, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the app and whether he has installed it and switched it on.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I have indeed installed the app. It has taken a significant time and a significant amount of wasted money to actually appear, but it has finally appeared and I would encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to download it.
Chris Bryant
I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that the app actually works better in Wales, because all the tests can be properly downloaded in Wales, unlike in England. And while my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is at it, can he just point out that the so-called concession that the Government have given to Members such as the hon. Member for Wycombe, with whom I agree on many of these issues today, is nothing? It is not worth the paper it is not written on. We would like to see something in writing about what the consultation with the House will really look like.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lesson with promises from this Government is that we always need them in writing, and even then they are not necessarily delivered.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Moving swiftly on.
In England, the number of tests, the availability of tests and the turnaround time simply are not good enough. So dire is the situation that the Prime Minister is arguing with the Health Secretary over whether testing even matters. The Health Secretary has said that
“finding where the people are who test positive is the single most important thing that we must do to stop the spread of the virus”,
and I agree with him. I agree with the Health Secretary. The shame is that the Prime Minister does not appear to, because he has said the complete opposite. The Prime Minister has said:
“Testing and tracing has very little or nothing to do with the spread or the transmission of the disease.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 822.]
Yet again, the Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for his own actions and his own failings.
The testing of care home residents and staff is critical to saving lives, yet in England there have been repeated delays to the roll-out of testing, and people have waited days for their results. We are also witnessing chaotic scenes at our universities as students are locked down for the want of testing. The Prime Minister has been talking about a “moonshot”, but it is time he stopped looking up at the sky in vain hope and focused instead on what is happening in the everyday lives of families and businesses up and down the country. The failure to show that grip and strategic leadership has severely hampered the way in which the UK Government work with other Governments, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said. Some have not even been properly informed of lockdown plans for their own areas. Let us take yesterday as an example, when we had the chaos of the Prime Minister himself unable to outline what additional restrictions his own Government were implementing for the north-east of England. It is, frankly, an embarrassment, and people deserve better. If the Prime Minister actually bothered to communicate with some of the devolved Governments, he might learn something. In Wales, the tracing system is significantly better. The percentage of contacts that has been reached has been consistently higher than in England, and the Prime Minister ought to follow that best practice.
Let me turn to some of those most at risk in our society. The Health Secretary claimed to have thrown a “protective ring” around care homes in England. If that is what the Government call the shambles they presided over, I would hate to see what they consider a mess to be. Again, the Prime Minister tried to shift the blame, insultingly suggesting that
“too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures”,
and that was when the Government’s own advice at the start of the pandemic said that people in care homes were “very unlikely” to be infected. The truth is that too many care homes were left high and dry. There was not enough support, insufficient personal protective equipment and a lack of testing. I am sorry to say that some of the most vulnerable paid the price and, sadly, paid the ultimate price. Yet again, care workers, who should be lauded by the Government, were denigrated.
That failure on care homes is particularly relevant as we discuss and debate this legislation and its renewal, because the Act contains provisions that allow for the so-called “easement” of legal safeguards. The Health Secretary said that he thinks those are still necessary, but why are they still necessary? I read carefully the analysis that he published, which did not answer the question. He tried in his speech to make a positive case for it on the basis of prioritisation, but he must realise that that does not deal with the deep concern there is about the situation in our care homes, and he must surely understand that every vulnerable person, throughout this pandemic, must have the standard of care that they need.
We also have significant concerns about the curtailment of the use of GPs to sign death certificates. Again, the Health Secretary said that he wanted to continue with that provision. What assessment has been made about the use of this power? Why does it need to continue? Will he also tell us what its impact has been? Ministers have no excuse for being caught unawares, as they have had months to get to grips with this. We cannot afford for action to protect our care homes and other services to be as slow and chaotic as it was at the start of this pandemic.
On a more positive note, I welcome what the Health Secretary said about the easements under the Mental Health Act; they have not been used and I welcome his assurance that they will not now be used. But what about the easements under the Children and Families Act 2014? He did not mention that Act, and I assume from the silence that they will be continuing. He must bear in mind those with special educational needs and vulnerable children, whose rights should not be rolled back as a consequence of this pandemic. Some of the most vulnerable people have borne the brunt of this virus and this Government’s failings.
We have also seen, across our communities, that the impact has not been evenly felt. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities have been some of the worst-hit by the virus itself and by the economic fallout, Disabled people and those with underlying health conditions have made up 59% of the covid deaths to date. Despite that, the Government have not done enough work on equality impact assessments on measures or made the necessary evidence available so that we can openly debate and vote to address these deep inequalities. Today, we are faced with an all-or-nothing motion, but let me put the Government on notice that we will not tolerate any discrimination in our society as a consequence of the implementation of these measures. That is why I say to the Government today that they should not be waiting another six months; they should be publishing a monthly review of the impact of this virus on individuals and groups, together with those detailed impact assessments. If the Government continue with the easements under the Care Act 2014, as they say they will, or under the Children and Families Act 2014, they must report regularly to this House about the impact of what they are doing,
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the way the Secretary of State has approached this matter today is disappointing. Many of us sit on Select Committees and have scrutinised the way in which this Act has come forward, and are willing to spend more time doing that properly. That is our job as legislators. The approach has been most unsatisfactory, so I completely support my hon. Friend when he says that we need it to be better. There are recommendations in many Select Committee reports, and my hon. Friend should press the Secretary of State to take note of them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She saves me from coming to another part of my speech. Quality scrutiny is available across the House on a cross-party basis, and we have had no credible explanation for why this debate is limited to 90 minutes.
The rights that I have referred to, relating to the easements that the Government are pushing forward, protect vulnerable people—those who need care, those with mental illness and children with special educational needs across the country. We cannot simply put their rights to one side.
On rights, there is a real issue with schedule 21. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put his finger on it: the power to detain “potentially infectious persons”, which, as far as I can make out, could include virtually anybody. So far, it has been used for 141 prosecutions, each and every one of which was found to be unlawful when it was reviewed. I cannot think of any other piece of legislation in parliamentary history that that could be said about. All the Health Secretary said was that the guidance had changed and he would keep it under review. With a provision like that, he needs to speak to the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary and do so much better. A provision that has resulted in 141 unlawful prosecutions cannot be right.
I say to the Health Secretary that the Government have to be transparent and accountable. They must come back not in six months’ time, as set out in Act, but every month to answer for the use of these powers.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I agree that 141 unlawful prosecutions—100% unlawful prosecutions —is completely unacceptable. In Scotland, the police have not been using the powers in schedule 21, so we have not had the same problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need fewer widely drawn powers, and that schedule 21 needs to go?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. The problem comes with “potentially infected persons”. It is a very poorly drafted schedule, and that is why we are seeing these consequences. I urge the Health Secretary again to look at it.
As we tighten restrictions and ask for more sacrifices from people, the economic support is being lowered. The Government claim that jobs are unviable, but the reality is that the restrictions made necessary by their failure on testing are causing the problem. The jobs crisis was caused in No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street. The support offered is inadequate. It cannot be right that it is easier to retain one worker full time than two on a part-time basis. Frankly, the Chancellor is offering a cocktail umbrella for the pouring rain.
I say this to the Government: work with the Opposition in the national interest. Create new targeted support that can replace the job retention scheme and prevent devastating mass unemployment, keep workers safe by protecting workers’ rights, boost sick pay, make workplaces safe and give our NHS and care services the resources they need.
Mr Speaker, you gave a very clear direction earlier about the role of Parliament. Across the Parliament there is, quite rightly, a desire for more parliamentary scrutiny. Six months ago, I raised the issue that the motion is unamendable for precisely that reason. I said to the Paymaster General in that debate that it should be amendable so that we would not be in the position we are in today, but she simply said:
“We do not wish to do that.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 134.]
Today, we find ourselves with 90 minutes to debate this unprecedented set of powers. There is no credible reason whatever why that could not have been extended. The Government may not wish to face scrutiny, but they need to accept that they will make better laws for everybody if they do accept scrutiny.
I heard what the Health Secretary said about votes, but it was qualified because he said “when possible”. He needs to realise that, with such strong powers on the statute book, the need for accountability is even more acute than it would be in ordinary times, not less. A strong Government would come to Parliament. A strong Government would accept the need for votes. A weak Government would run away from scrutiny and hide their own incompetence, which is precisely what the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister are doing.
The British people are making an incredible contribution to tackling this virus. Our country has huge resources, brilliant scientists, our NHS and our remarkable frontline workers. They have all been at the disposal of this Government, yet six months after this Act was last considered in this House, we find ourselves in a perilous situation, critically undermined by the failures of this Government. I say to the Government: get a grip on test and trace—there is no excuse at all for not having a fully functioning system now—communicate well with the public, because the mixed messaging helps nobody; and act to prevent mass unemployment now, because the British people can no longer afford to pay the price for this lack of strategy and grip. Frankly, they deserve so much better.
Mr Speaker
As I have said, there will be a three-minute limit, starting with Mr Graham Brady.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I begin by thanking you? Although you gave your reasons earlier for not selecting the amendments in my name and that of 80 other colleagues across the House, you also made your expectations of Government crystal clear. No one could doubt your commitment to upholding the Standing Orders of this House, Mr Speaker, and nor have you left any doubt about your resolve in defending parliamentary democracy and the right of this House to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account.
I am also pleased to be able to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Throughout my discussions with him, he has accepted the need to find a better approach to scrutiny and parliamentary approval of coronavirus measures. The new procedure that he has committed the Government to follow shows a genuine understanding of what has been wrong in the past and a real promise of transparency and engagement in the future. I believe the outcome we have reached is in the interests of Parliament, in the interests of better government and, most importantly, it gives the British people reassurance that measures that restrict their liberty, interfere with their family life, and very often threaten their livelihoods will not be implemented without important questions being asked and answers given in advance.
Mr Harper
Because it is not clear necessarily outside the House, will my hon. Friend agree that what the Secretary of State has effectively confirmed at the Dispatch Box with just the one change of the word “practicable” to “possible” is exactly what he put forward in his amendment, which we understand, for very good reasons, the Speaker was unable to select.
Sir Graham Brady
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is important to say that those of us on both sides of the House who put our names to that amendment were seeking to be eminently reasonable and accept the difficult constraints under which the Government are operating, and it is important that the Government accepted that in those terms. We believe that it was in good faith, and we will, of course, hold the Government to that.
It is also important, following this change of approach signalled by the Secretary of State, that the public—the people whom we represent—will rightly be in a position in the future to judge us, as Members of this House, on the balance that we seek to strike in the protection of their liberty, the safety of the public and their ability to support themselves and their families.
Mr Mitchell
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done an extremely good job, and a great service to our constituents, in the work that he did in respect of his amendment. Will he confirm that the aim of this amendment was not to confront the Government in any way, but to try to ensure that the Government use the wisdom across this House in tackling this very serious problem?
Sir Graham Brady
I absolutely agree. Those were two wonderful interventions from former Chief Whips; I wonder whether there are any more in the House. That is precisely the point: it is our belief that this House can work with the Government, and that our collective knowledge and the difficult questions we will ask will improve the quality of the Government’s actions and governance.
Sir Graham Brady
The hon. Gentleman is an expert on procedure, and he will soon get to grips with it. It is the made affirmative procedure, which entails the setting of a commencement date in the future for measures, which will allow for a debate and vote to take place in advance of commencement. The House will therefore have that crucial ability to refuse consent.
Sir Graham Brady
These things will be brought forward. We have had the assurance, and we will hold the Government to it. The hon. Gentleman will see it very soon.
I will close by thanking those Members across the House who, by supporting my amendment publicly or privately, have helped to achieve what I believe will be an important step forward for all of us.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I regret the fact that this is only a 90-minute debate. The Government should have ensured that a more appropriate amount of time was given. In that context, I will not do what I normally do; I apologise to Members, but because of time, I will not be taking interventions. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!] That is utterly pathetic.
In preparing my contribution for the debate, I revisited the remarks that I made when this legislation was introduced in March. It seems a long while ago, but it is worth remembering the shock of the initial wave and the speed with which all our lives were changed. As we all know, that sudden shift in our collective lives was accompanied by the tragedy of losing too many of our citizens far too soon. Talk of a new normal has set in fast since the virus first took its grip, but at times, it is important to reflect on the scale of the sacrifice and the adjustment that all of us have been asked to make necessarily because of the pandemic. Even back in March, on the eve of lockdown, it was clear that the fight against this virus would not be temporary and would not be short. We knew then that we were only in the foothills of what is a mountainous challenge. Back then, just as now, there remained a long way to go.
Setting out that context is crucial as we reconsider the powers in the Act. Many things have changed since March. A new normal has evolved. Society and people have adapted and shown remarkable resilience. We should be grateful that, in the main, the public have followed Government guidance throughout these islands. For all the sacrifices that folk have made, they should have our thanks and appreciation. Sadly, one thing remains very much the same since March: the virus remains in our midst, and it remains as deadly as ever. It is worth noting that we are considering these measures in the week that humanity has reached a terrible milestone: 1 million covid-related deaths worldwide, and that is only those officially defined as covid-related deaths.
The emergency and the extensive powers in this legislation have naturally and rightly raised questions and concerns. The nature and the imposition of measures that significantly alter individual liberties deserve full and frank scrutiny no matter the context. In that regard, it is really unhelpful that we have been given only a 90-minute debate today. My party has always made clear our serious concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the powers in the UK Government’s Coronavirus Act. That is why, on the Bill’s Second Reading, we raised our concerns alongside others in this place. The UK Government need to listen to those concerns, voiced long before Tory Back Benchers started having trouble with the Government’s moves.
These six-monthly reviews cannot be a rubber-stamping exercise. They must have the teeth to provide meaningful scrutiny, to protect human rights and to promote public health. It is vital that this elected House has its say on these measures, which impact all our constituents. That is the proper way to maintain trust, in order that we can have stronger regulations in place to tackle the biggest health emergency that any of us have seen in our lifetimes.
We fully acknowledge and appreciate that all elements of this Government and every Government are under huge pressures as a result of the pandemic. This deadly virus presents unparalleled challenges to all of us entrusted with governmental powers, but that is all the more reason why these decisions need the insight of scrutiny and the legitimacy of parliamentary oversight. No one, at least no one on the Opposition side of the House, is calling for the scrutiny to hamstring the UK Government on essential public health measures, but it is right that the House is afforded the democratic means to have its say.
The recognition of such a need and the steps to address it were taken early on in the Scottish Parliament. The Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 contains a range of measures to ensure scrutiny of decisions made by the Scottish Government. Scottish Ministers have responsibility under section 15 of that Act to publish two-monthly reports for the Scottish Parliament on the use of emergency powers. There is a recent requirement of the Scottish Parliament to consider regulations to extend the expiry date of part 1 of both that Act and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No.2) Act 2020 from 30 September to 31 March 2021. Scottish Ministers also have a duty to report on all Scottish statutory instruments made for a reason relating to coronavirus. As part of debating this motion today, we are calling on the UK Government to consider how similar scrutiny and accountability processes can be introduced in this House.
It is right to reflect on the principles of democratic accountability and transparency, but today it is equally important that we collectively remind ourselves of the principles of protecting our people for however long this pandemic inflicts itself upon us. We must stick rigidly to the principles that we all set out to uphold when this virus became a reality in our everyday lives—protecting our NHS, protecting livelihoods and, most importantly, saving lives. The health regulations under this Act and their impact on the economy cannot be separated, and we have all seen that each has a fundamental effect on the other.
It is crucial that we press the Government on these issues today. Back in March, the UK Government promised the public that, no matter how severe the economic effect, no one would be left behind. Only six months later, this UK Government are now completely failing to uphold the principle of supporting livelihoods and jobs. It is now the shameful policy of this Tory Government that, just as health restrictions are strengthened, they are weakening economic support. They cannot claim to save lives and protect people by imposing additional public health measures on people, while at the same time allowing unemployment and deprivation to soar.
This week, expert after expert has been queuing up to warn that the Chancellor’s significantly less generous replacement for the furlough scheme will not prevent mass redundancies. The Resolution Foundation warned that it will
“not significantly reduce the rise of unemployment”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned:
“It is clear that many jobs will be lost over the coming months”.
The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed described it as “woefully inadequate”, and the Scottish Tourism Alliance warned:
“The reality we must all face now is that within the coming days and weeks, businesses owners will lose their livelihoods, thousands will lose their income and the effects on the economy and people’s lives will be nothing short of devastating.”
That is the reality.
It is a disgrace that millions of families now face a bitter winter of rising unemployment and squeezed living standards. This is all the direct result of the Tory Government’s reckless decision to scrap the furlough scheme and impose an extreme Brexit during a second wave of coronavirus.
Ian Blackford
I can see the Secretary of State frowning, but, Secretary of State, that is the reality. People are going to lose their jobs and their livelihoods, and this Government are not prepared to do what they promised— to get their arms around those who were going to be affected.
The Tories have made a deliberate choice—a political choice—to let unemployment soar, just like Thatcher did in the early 1980s. Just like back then, the scars of that economic inequality will ruin and last a generation. Either the Tories have not learned from the devastation of the Thatcher years, or they simply do not care. It appears they are willing to inflict the Thatcher years all over again.
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the damage that the 1980s did to communities. I used to live in Lanarkshire, where the steel and coal industries were devastated, and many of those communities have never recovered from the devastation that was visited upon them by Thatcher and her Government at that time.
This Tory Government are repeating the failures of the 1980s and they simply do not care. They do not care about what is going to happen to people and businesses as a result of the measures that have been put in place.
The Government’s renewal of these health regulations today while failing to renew economic support simply is not acceptable. If the Tories continue with this policy, many good businesses will be forced to close or reduce their activity, through no fault of their own. Millions will face the dole. We already know that 61,000 Scottish employees face the risk of unemployment, given the Tories’ removal of the furlough scheme. For many looking on, it is the same old story from the Tories. Yet again, Westminster is proving that it cannot be trusted to act in Scotland’s interests. The Government are withdrawing support for jobs, blocking the devolution of financial powers and threatening to impose a low-deal or no-deal extreme Brexit in the midst of a pandemic. If the Government and the Chancellor are to abide by the promises that they made in March when the Act was passed, they need to think again. They need to reinstate a full job protection scheme and devolve the powers that Scotland needs to protect our economy. Only then can we collectively get on with the job of protecting public health while also protecting jobs and livelihoods.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I will support the Government today because, although I fully understand the concerns about parliamentary scrutiny eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), the biggest threat that we face as a country is not the erosion of liberty but the explosion of the virus. We now know, as we go forward into a second wave, that for every death directly caused by covid there is at least one death indirectly caused by the disruption to cancer services, the interruption of emergency care and people being discharged early from hospital.
I wish to ask the Government about measures that could reduce such indirect deaths, particularly the introduction of the routine weekly testing of NHS staff, which we have discussed many times in the House—I see the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) smiling. In fairness to the Government, they have moved on this issue. In July, Chris Whitty told the Health and Social Care Committee that he supported the routine testing of asymptomatic NHS staff in hotspots. I would like there to be such testing everywhere, including in my constituency, where recently we seem to have seen live cases trebling, but even in the hotspots it is not currently happening with any consistency. That is a worry, because up to a fifth of staff in hospitals got the virus during the first wave and up to 11% of deaths of coronavirus patients were caused by patients having caught the virus in their own hospital. That is the context.
I recognise that some hospitals are trying to do routine testing, but it is very difficult for them to do it on a weekly basis when they cannot access pillar 2 testing, so will the Secretary of State ask all hospitals to make weekly testing happen, under their own steam if they can, or with the support of NHS Test and Trace supplying the reagents, or using pooled testing?
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend has done a lot of campaigning to highlight that issue, as have Select Committee members from all parties. The Select Committee will publish a report tomorrow that considers that very issue and will be coming back to it.
The Government’s own figures show that at least a thousand additional cancer patients died because of the interruption caused by the pandemic. As we go into a second wave, it does not have to be the same again. The Government have rightly introduced weekly testing for people in care homes; the arguments are exactly the same for our hospitals. Patients need to know that their NHS hospital is safe and NHS staff need to know that they are not infecting their own patients. As we go into this very difficult period, please, will the Government act and make this happen?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The lack of scrutiny throughout this pandemic has led to sloppy decision making on the part of the Government. That is demonstrated in the U-turn after U-turn that we have seen. We have another example today at the Dispatch Box from the Secretary of State, who seems to have scrabbled together a deal with his Back Benchers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is the second signatory to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and has lobbied many Labour Members to put our names to it, to put pressure on the Government. Did the Secretary of State consult my hon. Friend or any other Labour Member? Does this deal that he has got together have support across the House? Who did he consult? Will this House have the opportunity to stop Government decisions that it does not agree with before they are implemented?
We have seen the Government making decisions and implementing them, and then we in this House—maybe, if there is a statement—are given an opportunity to ask questions after the event. That has just not been good enough. We need to be able to influence what is taking place before the Government act, because lack of accountability enables them to make up the rules as they go along. They make snap announcements; then they need not worry about the implications because they can make another announcement and move on, and tomorrow’s headlines will cover their tracks.
It is small wonder the Prime Minister does not know whether he can come and go, with how many people, or whether it is indoors or outdoors. But one “gotcha” moment for the Prime Minister is not the issue. We are seeing a pattern. Throughout September, the Government have been unable to answer questions on testing of domiciliary care workers. The BMJ, back in April or May, concluded in a report that as many deaths were taking place among people who were receiving domiciliary care as were taking place in care homes, yet we never hear anything from the Government on this issue. Then there is the lack of involvement in local authorities in track and trace, where local knowledge could be used to track and deal with people who need to be isolated. These are issues that we could have raised in this House had we had the proper opportunity to scrutinise the Government. It is time the Government listened.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Yesterday, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, I signed a letter to the Prime Minister to focus the scrutiny of the various Select Committees on two issues: one was the need to galvanise test and trace, and the other was the need to improve the scrutiny of coronavirus measures that we are discussing today. The latter point reinforces the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady). I am grateful to the Government for at least making some gestures in the direction of better scrutiny. The Government have nothing to fear from scrutiny. Good scrutiny improves government, as my hon. Friend said.
I wish to make only one other point, apart from the role that the Liaison Committee can play in improving scrutiny. The Government have made something of a rod for their own back by heaping a certain amount of derision and contempt on what Parliament is for, what we can do and what we can contribute to this. I do not suggest for a moment that that comes from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or even from the Prime Minister, but there are some people around the Prime Minister who do not seem to value what Parliament has to offer, and, indeed, what Parliament’s function should actually be. I do not believe at all that this is a Cromwellian Government who want to abolish Parliament, but there should be some lessons learned from this in that there is a fundamental principle in our politics that the Government cannot govern without the consent of the House of Commons.
I would go further, on a slightly more party political point. The Prime Minister cannot lead his parliamentary party unless he has its consent, and therefore will find the act of governing very much more difficult and complicated if the consent of the party in office, among Members of Parliament, is not gathered together and led. I think the Prime Minister has gone to some lengths to bring back some consultation with the parliamentary party in recent weeks, but let there be some lessons learnt from the previous attitude that seemed to be coming from the team around the Prime Minister.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In the face of pictures from hospitals in Italy and reports from China of the number of people who were dying from this disease, this House gave the Government untrammelled power in this Act to take action to protect the public; but I have to say, Minister, that that power has been used in a way that has frustrated many people across the country. Their ability to work, to socialise, to go to school and to travel has been affected. Often the measures taken have been seen as illogical, inconsistent, contradictory and unnecessarily damaging.
Jim Shannon
Very quickly, one of the issues that has come to my attention—the number of emails has been enormous—is to do with the enforcement of vaccines on those people who do not wish to have them. I personally would take such a vaccine, but others will not. Does my hon. Friend agree that when it comes to vaccines, it should be by choice only?
Sammy Wilson
Well, of course, that is an issue that the Government will have to address in the future, if ever a vaccine is found.
The important thing is the frustration that many in the public are experiencing at present. It might not have been totally wiped out, but I believe there certainly would have been far more scrutiny if this House had not just had the ability to listen to statements or ask questions, but had actually had the real sanction that if the Minister did not make a consistent and competent case for the measures that he was introducing, they could be voted down. That is why the demand that there be effective scrutiny by this House is important.
We have listened to what the Minister has said, but I am not convinced that we will see that effective scrutiny; because if I heard him right, first, it would only be for matters that are significant. Now, who will make the judgment on whether the issue is significant? I can tell the Minister that, if I own a business and it is decided that it could be closed down, that is significant; yet we do not know who will make that final decision.
The scrutiny will only be for issues that are national. Sixteen million people are currently affected by a range of local decisions and local restrictions. That, to me, is as bad—half the nation, half the country, is affected—yet according to the Minister’s definition today that would not be covered because it would not be a national decision. And, of course, scrutiny will happen where possible. I suppose if the Government wished to escape scrutiny they could always say, “But this has suddenly emerged,” even though the data could have been collected days and days before. So who will decide whether it is possible to have the time to do this?
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes the most powerful points. Does he agree that perhaps a special committee to decide what is significant—do lots of locals make a national?—would be a good way forward, so that we can decide what should be debated in this House and what can be left properly to Ministers to decide on a regular and rapid basis?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is significant to me to try and get as many Members in as possible. Please let us try to make sure we leave time for others.
Sammy Wilson
It certainly should not be left to those who have wanted to rush through decisions and those who in the past have wanted to escape scrutiny because the decisions have been illogical and inconsistent, and people cannot understand them, and even some of those who have made the decisions do not understand them and sometimes have a different interpretation.
This is not just about MPs having a sense of their own importance. This is important if the measures are to have acceptance among the public, because with that kind of scrutiny, with a final vote, at least if we were not convinced that the measures were necessary, if we were not convinced that they would not have disproportionately damaging effects, if we were not convinced that they would actually work, if we were not convinced that the public would understand them, we would have the right to say, “Minister, you cannot proceed with them,” and have the opportunity to vote them down. I do not think we have had a convincing assurance from the Secretary of State today about when we would have that kind of role, and if we do not have that kind of role, I do not think that we should support the continuation of these kinds of measures.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his concession today to greater scrutiny in this place. All Front Benchers have been working flat out at an incredibly difficult time since March, and I have supported all the measures that we have taken so far, but the fact is that we are no longer in that first flurry of panic; we know much more now than we did then.
I gently say to the business managers that I wish they had given more time for this discussion. I totally sympathise with you, Mr Speaker; I love this place, and annoying as many of my beloved honourable colleagues right across the House are, nevertheless we have already heard, just in this short debate, some things that we all have in common. There is no monopoly on good ideas.
The one thing that I came here wanting to say, which I have heard hon. Members from every single party say in their own words, was “events and weddings”. I just want to give an example. My constituent Jerry Stephenson runs an events business in South Northamptonshire specialising in hosting weddings. Since March, it has held two small weddings with up to 30 people; everyone else postponed until next year. Since we went back to 15, they have all been cancelled and postponed. The Government need to answer the question: what is different between a wedding and a funeral? My constituents have a right to know the answer.
In this House, we can bring forward suggestions about how to make things easier and more logical for our constituents. Importantly, when we bring questions forward and get answers, we can stand up and be counted, and tell our constituents, “I know why this is happening, and it is justifiable and in the best interests of the nation.” There just is not a monopoly on good ideas, no matter how hard the Government are working—and they are working very hard.
Finally, I want to raise the fact that it is so frustrating for all of us in this place because so few of us can be in the Chamber. We have to ballot for every single question we put in for. As individuals, we get very few opportunities to speak or intervene, so it is more important than ever that the Government and the business managers enable us to contribute to these incredibly important debates. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for listening, but I urge him to listen as much as possible not to the party political points but to the real wisdom and questions of our constituents.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a patron of the Disability Law Service.
This pandemic is taking an enormous toll on people across our country. The pandemic is hitting everybody. That is why Liberal Democrats have worked constructively with Ministers, backing every measure to keep people safe, from lockdowns to face coverings. In March, when the Coronavirus Bill was rushed through, we were willing to take Ministers at their word that the Bill was essential, despite reservations about its impact on people’s wellbeing, freedoms and rights, but with the benefit of six months’ experience of the Act, we must today oppose its renewal.
As I raised on Second Reading in March and with the Prime Minister two weeks ago, this legislation undermines the rights to care of disabled people, the rights to care of some of society’s most vulnerable people and the rights to care of children with special needs and disabilities. That is wrong, and it breaks international law. We know that the Conservative party does not care about breaking international law. The fact that the Act breaches our legal obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities may not matter to Conservative Members, but it should. How a country treats its most vulnerable people in an emergency is one of the most critical tests of its character.
I am pleased, but not surprised, that polling shows the true character of the British people. Two thirds of the public believe that the Act’s social care reductions are unacceptable. Liberal Democrats agree, as do more than 150 organisations campaigning for the rights of disabled people that have called for those sections of the Act to be withdrawn. It is no good Ministers saying that these powers have rarely been used. The experience of disabled people during the pandemic should shame this Government. Inclusion London published a report, “Abandoned, forgotten and ignored—the impact of Covid-19 on Disabled people”. It has horrifying reports from disabled people across the country about cuts to their care packages, food shopping not done, personal washing not done and vital care at home not done. Speaking as the father of a disabled child, huge numbers of parents of disabled children have been hit. A survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership showed that for 76% of families with disabled children, vital care and support previously relied on had been stopped altogether. This House should speak up for those families, for those carers, for disabled people and vote against this measure tonight.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I first thank the Secretary of State for everything he has done to get us to this stage tonight, but 90 minutes to debate the renewal of an Act that has fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between the state and citizens is not good enough. If this is the portent of the promises to come, it is not good enough. I need, at some stage, more than three minutes to discuss the fundamental hardships that are going on in my constituency—the jobs that are being lost, the opportunities that are being lost, the young people struggling to find work, to get back to university and to come back from university. Ninety minutes is an utter, utter disgrace. It is actually disrespectful to this House and it is disrespectful to colleagues.
I am sorry, Secretary of State, if I sound—actually, I am not sorry that I am angry, because a lot of people in this place are angry. We want to see this virus beaten, of course we do, but it would be nice—just nice—if this House were shown some respect.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I have listened to the Secretary of State’s comments and the revocations that he has set out have been welcome, but they are cosmetic and they certainly do not go anywhere near restoring the safeguards that those suffering from mental health problems, disabled people and those in need of care deserve. As for his promise for parliamentary scrutiny, frankly, it is nothing more than a gentlemen’s agreement.
The Act in its current form allows clumsy and asymmetric authoritarianism. Powers to restrict mass gatherings might well have been necessary, but broad police powers under schedule 21 to detain potentially infectious people have led to unlawful prosecutions 100% of the time. Where were the extra powers—the resources to inspect or restrict unsafe workplaces or to requisition private lab space, healthcare or other facilities for mass testing? Where were the powers to take charge of food supply in the event of future lockdowns to avoid further panic buying and ensure that shielding and vulnerable people receive the food that they deserve?
The Government demand that their citizens give up their liberties and livelihoods in the pandemic, yet they do not stand beside them. The Secretary of State’s comments today certainly do not deal with the issues that many of our constituencies face, and some of us begin to worry that the Government’s confused and often contradictory public messaging is not mere incompetence, but a studied chaos, designed to blame ordinary people instead of taking democratic political responsibility for some of the worst pandemic management in the world. The Government are at real risk of squandering public sentiment and public good will, and, at the very least, they must set out to revoke the most insidious parts of this Act tonight.
Matt Hancock
I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate, and I would like to reinforce once again that we will keep listening to and working with the House and put in place, in good faith, the procedures that I outlined earlier and that were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and others.
To respond to some of the points of substance, I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, that control of the virus will lead to better and more life-saving cancer care. Sometimes it has been reported and discussed as if controlling the virus hinders cancer care. On the contrary, controlling the virus helps us to deliver better cancer care. He was quite right about that. We will continue to expand testing capacity, which came up from a number of quarters.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said in support of the Government’s strategy. I welcome his comments on the changes we are proposing today to how Parliament operates.
I listened with care to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I urge him to support the Coronavirus Act this evening, not least because he knows, from the commitments I have given, that there will be further chances for both scrutiny and votes on measures in future thanks to the discussions we have had today.
I am grateful for the comments from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I commit to her to listen as much as possible to the views she expresses and to work with her.
Finally, I want to reassure those who might have been concerned by the comments made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). Under the Coronavirus Act, local authorities are required to follow the European convention on human rights, so the point he made about international law is wrong. The Coronavirus Act delivers a stronger package, in a pandemic, for the support of those who need care.
I put forward to the House the need to vote to approve this motion to put ourselves in the strongest possible position to defeat the virus, and to keep protecting lives and livelihoods and the things that we love. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put.
Mr Speaker
I will now announce the results of the deferred Divisions. On the motion relating to the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020, the Ayes were 348 and the Noes 250, so the Ayes have it. On the motion relating to the draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020, the Ayes were 347 and the Noes were 249, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
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 sitting for three minutes.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Town and Country Planning
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the three motions on town and country planning, which will be debated together.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 632), dated 23 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2020, be revoked.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 755), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 756), dated 20 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July 2020, be annulled.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the Minister for finding the time for this debate in response to the prayer motions that Her Majesty’s official Opposition have laid against these regulations.
I will start by telling Members a story, one that is real and with which some across the Chamber will be familiar. It does not have a happy ending, and given the Secretary of State’s radical extension of permitted development, it is about to get a whole lot worse for many people in many of communities up and down this nation.
Over the weekend, the Minister may have read an article in The Observer about permitted development. It began by talking about the experience of a woman, Katya, who lives in a block of flats created under the existing permitted development regulations. All Katya wants, like many of us, is a place to call home, to bring up a young family and to feel secure, space for her children to play safely, somewhere to shelter during this pandemic and to be able to travel to work from, and some communal green space. Yet Katya is one of thousands of residents who are crammed into former offices and industrial units that were not built for human habitation. Some have no or few windows, some are as small as 10 square metres—the average car parking space is 11 square metres—and many are on the outskirts of towns, with few amenities such as shops and schools.
Katya is not alone. Up to 60,000 units have been built under the previous extension to permitted development, many of which are unfit for human habitation. I am certain that neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State would like to find themselves or their families in them.
This debate is about three further ways in which the Government want to create poor-quality housing by bypassing the local community, local democracy and local control: by adding new units on top of flats; by allowing developers to demolish and rebuild empty buildings; and by allowing people to add multiple floors to their homes in a village, town and city near you.
Let me take Members on a visual journey up north to Leeds, where Abbey, a young professional, bought her leasehold flat only to discover that it had been cladded with flammable material. She is one of many thousands affected. She cannot sell it. It is zero-rated for a mortgage and she has to pay thousands in waking watch and insurance fees. There are also massive problems, with which the Minister and the Secretary of State are very familiar, with the EWS1—external wall survey—forms.
What is the Government’s solution? Instead of building back better, safer, healthier and greener for Katya and communities up and down our nation, the Secretary of State will go down in history not only for his unlawful planning direction in Tower Hamlets, with the Westferry affair, but as Bob the bad builder, coming to wreck a village, town and city near you.
Instead of having a relentless focus on making people like Abbey safe in a cladded building, he has rammed through a negative statutory instrument to lob an extra two storeys on blocks of flats, overnight giving some freeholders and overseas investors a multi-million pound windfall of up to £42 billion.
At the same time, this very SI has added an additional cost for leaseholders who may want to buy the freehold. No need for donors to attend the Carlton Club dinner circuit anymore and exchange chummy texts—just sneak the windfall through Parliament via an undebated instrument. What does that instrument deliver a year? Just 800 flats per year; that is 8,000 over a decade.
To make matters worse, because permitted development bypasses the planning system, we could have a ludicrous situation where high-rise buildings extended by two floors do not go through gateway 1 of the draft building safety Bill. Have the Government learned nothing just three years on from Grenfell? Oversight, regulation and rules protect lives.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Amesbury
In a moment.
In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I happily quote the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who strongly advised the Prime Minister to get a “better housing adviser”. I find it difficult to disagree. Permitted development has been disastrous for our towns and cities since its introduction by the coalition Government in 2013 and things are about to get a whole lot worse. That is not me saying that—it comes from the Government’s own advisers. In fact, on the day that the Secretary of State laid two of the three statutory instruments that we have prayed against, his own commission’s review of permitted development was published—and it was damning.
The review found that only 22% of permitted development dwellings met the Government’s own space standards, fewer than 4% have access to a private amenity space and a vast majority have only single-aspect windows. These are not beautiful homes—in the words of another Government commission report—these are the slums of now, the slums of the future.
The Royal Institute of British Architects president, Alan Jones, put it like this:
“The arrogance and lack of understanding is breathtaking.”
It is not just RIBA that think the extensions to permitted development are a bad idea; they are opposed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Town and Country Planning Association and many more. Aside from some developers looking to make a quick buck out of shoddy housing, who supports these pieces of legislation?
With a slight nod to the fact that windows for people in flats might be a step forward, all three SIs allow councils to challenge developers if there is inadequate lighting provision.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s tone. He and I got on very well as co-members of the Select Committee, and he will know from his experience on that Committee that the problems with Grenfell, which he lays at the Government’s door, were decades old in the building regulations system. This is not something he can lay at the door of this Government—there were decades of failure. The issue in relation to the £40 million Westferry windfall for the developer is factually incorrect; there would simply have been a reduction in the amount of affordable housing on that development. On the space standards, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, today the Government set out clearly that space standards will be included in future permitted development rights.
Mike Amesbury
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of Grenfell, I referred to the draft building safety Bill and gateway 1. Certainly in terms of planning permitted development, there is an issue there—it is an issue that we will undoubtedly discuss beyond the debate today. With regard to the concession to the rebels, and the fact that we have laid the motions today, of course we welcome baby steps forward—finally, there is a concession that actually people deserve space as well as windows. That is a step forward, undoubtedly, but major problems remain with permitted development.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings that sits in this House. We carried out an inquiry two years ago and made recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the importance of homes having the heating, quality of life and lighting correct, and having environmental amenities throughout. A home is not just four walls; it is much more than that. Does he agree that that has to be part of what the Government bring forward?
Mike Amesbury
I wholeheartedly agree with those powerful and pertinent points.
The quality of housing—the minimum standards required from Government—should be guided by a moral compass, one that puts health and wellbeing at the heart of housing provision, rather than the profit margins of some of the more unscrupulous developers in our country. Rather than bypassing local residents and councils, why not resource and fund local planning authorities properly and maximise that civic voice to create healthy communities and housing that people are proud to call their home? Ministers wax lyrical about the need for more affordable housing, yet this massive extension of permitted development bypasses the requirement for section 106 contributions and in many cases community infrastructure levy payments too, robbing communities of decent affordable housing and local infrastructure. The Conservative-led Local Government Association estimates that 3,500 affordable homes have been lost due to the current regime of permitted development. This centralisation of our planning system is a Stalinist power grab, bypassing local democracy and creating a developer’s charter, while vandalising the character of our villages, towns and cities, hollowing out our high streets, flattening industrial estates and concreting over green space. It is ideological claptrap with bells on. I worry that the Secretary of State is spending far too much time with his Russian oligarch friends—Private Eye is even referring to him as “Moscow Bob”.
If these statutory instruments are passed today, when more of these unplanned monstrosities start to appear in our communities, residents will no longer be able to voice their concerns to local councillors, their MPs or the local planning departments.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
On the point about local democracy, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as me to note that the plans for local development codes and local style codes, which have to be drafted by local councils—set by them, with local standards—ensure a valid local voice; it is just doing it in advance, rather than retrospectively. Surely he must accept that his points about a lack of local democracy are without foundation.
Mike Amesbury
Labour and Conservative councillors, parties of all political persuasions, are expressing major concerns about this. The Tory shires are on the march about it. It is a fundamental attack on democracy. It hands too much power to unscrupulous developers—that is a fact and we will consistently challenge on it. When MPs vote on these measures today, I know that Katya, Abbey and many thousands more who desperately need decent, safe and affordable homes will be looking at us all to know which side we are on. A vote to annul these SIs and to stop this chaotic vandalism coming to a town or city near you is a vote to stop this power grab from our local communities, which will create a bad developer’s charter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
A number of colleagues want to get in on this debate. I will start by having two speeches with a limit of five limits and then reduce the limit to four minutes in an attempt to get as many people in as possible.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I have an email from someone from a constituency outside my own who bought a flat 13 years ago and has received a letter saying that two more storeys are going to be put on top. He is living in a block of 15, and it is going to be a block of 25, with apparently no consideration for the leaseholders whatever.
If I were part of a Government, rather than just a supporter, who said they were for the many, not the few, how could they possibly put a four-year blight on every leaseholder in virtually every one of the 1.2 million flats? It is possible for more homes to be built in four years’ time under a statutory instrument that has “coronavirus” in it, as though it will have a short-term impact on the construction industry. It will not.
During the time of my speech, I invite the Secretary of State—through his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), I invited him to Worthing to see how he could invent more land between the South Downs and the sea—and the Minister of State to say why the impact assessment does not have a section on leaseholders. The Government consulted on that two years ago and then went in for technical consultations with the public and the industry, but not with the leaseholders. Did they invite the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, led by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), me and the Liberal Democrat, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)? No. Could they have done? Yes. Did they not think of it or did they forget about it?
In St Andrews Gardens in Tarring in my constituency, the tallest building is the church and the second tallest is a 1960s block that should not have been built, which is three storeys high—higher than any other house. An application to put an extra floor on it a year ago was turned down flat by the council and flatter by the inspector. I ask the Secretary of State, through the Minister and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to look at what the inspector said and then write to me to say: if the developer, which has had their second application turned down, appeals again, the inspector has the same power to say that it is totally unsuitable for the neighbourhood.
My point, really, is this. Let us not be concerned about leaseholder blocks that are owned by the leaseholders—they are freeholders, as I am in my small block in Worthing. Let us take the ones that are not. If the leaseholders want to form a recognised tenants association—another place where the Government can make an improvement—any freeholder or their agent should recognise that. The property baron William Astor, with his Long Harbour, spent years and years resisting this. The Tchenguiz interest in housing, which has done things that many would describe as crooked and others would describe additionally as improper, has been given a gift of tens of millions—potentially billions—of pounds, and who is paying? The leaseholders. Absolutely nobody else can.
The occupants of 6 million lease-rented homes own nothing except the responsibility to pay for cladding removal and other things—although I am grateful for the help that the Government are giving on that. Any benefits go to the landlord and freeholder; none go to the ordinary people who are probably on their first home. We can talk about the people whose homes are blighted by cladding, but think what it is like for those who have a home blighted in a block where they can be pretty sure the developer will not get around to getting the permission or doing the building for five or six years, and they cannot sell until the work has been done.
How did this happen? If I were on the Front Bench, my face would be red, and I would stand up at the end of this debate and say, “We apologise—we got it wrong.” The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 is one of the worst things that has got through Government in my time here, which has been quite long. I say to the Government: revoke it. Even if they do not lose the vote today, they should put in a provision so that, if there is to be an application, a condition is that the freeholder landlord gives the freehold to the leaseholders, and they can decide whether to go for the application. The Government could additionally add a requirement that means that, in going to the local authority for pre-approval, the landlord shows what they are prepared to give to the leaseholders whose lives will be blighted, at least during the time of uncertainty and building.
This House should rise up and say to the Government, “Come with us. If not, we are going to make you, if not today, then in the days and weeks to come.” Six million households and 10 million voters are losing a great deal of money and who gains? It is not that many homes, but it is an incredible amount of money for the people the Government are trying to make an improvement for in the leasehold reforms.
Have the Law Commission reports been enacted? Not yet, and they need to be. How about getting the property tribunal to work properly? How about getting the Leasehold Advisory Service to work in the interests of leaseholders? We need to do better, and I ask the Government to join me in doing it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The planning system is there so that individuals and organisations can develop sites and buildings appropriately. It is also there to protect the community from inappropriate development. Permitted development rights confer rights on some individuals but take away rights from others to have their say on developments. They take away community rights to object and to have an application turned down. That is a very important and serious issue that we all ought to be addressing.
I want to talk about space standards. Shortly after the Government produced their independent review of conversions under permitted development, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) drew attention, I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions whether it was reasonable that flats of 16 square meters were allowed to be built, which was 1 square metre larger than the footprint of his car. Clearly, it is not a reasonable size for properties. The Prime Minister’s response to my question, which was welcome, was that the Government will
“give people the space they need to live and grow in the homes that we will build.”—[Official Report, 22 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2149.]
Given that response, I wrote to the Housing Minister on behalf of the Select Committee on 4 August to ask what he was doing to put the Prime Minister’s commitment into effect. I have not had a reply to that letter. I thought the Minister had either forgotten about it or was waiting to reveal a significant change of policy. It appears that it is the latter. At least on that issue, we now have some recognition that local authorities can take into account the issue of space standards, along with the right to light and the impact on the wider environment from permitted development applications. That is welcome, because properties of 16 square metres or even smaller are nonsensical and not fit in the modern age for anyone to live in.
In terms of section 106, this is a serious matter. If the Government are seriously going to allow more development without 106 commitments, that will simply mean we have fewer affordable rented homes built, because the reality today is that the majority of affordable rented homes come through 106 commitments. That will have a significant impact on communities up and down the country. Why are the Government excluding permitted development from that obligation? I have not seen any justification for that. That is what happens, and it is important, so we ought to take account of it.
The Select Committee produced a report in 2019 on the future of the high street, “High streets and town centres in 2030”, which we are going to update in the light of the covid situation. We looked at permitted development. There are some odd properties that had been for retail use and can be converted for residential use perfectly reasonably, and those should be encouraged and helped. That can be done through the planning system now, if the development is appropriate. The problem is that some of our high streets and town and city centres need more radical reconstruction. They need to be redeveloped significantly and cleared. That is why we called for improved compulsory purchase order powers for councils in our report. However, we can find in a couple of years’ time that the local plan proposing the clearance of a derelict and underused retail area is made more difficult to construct and implement, because it seeks to get a CPO and demolish derelict retail properties that have just been made into residential homes. Trying to put together rights to convert—and properly convert—in the light of wider local planning situations simply is not taken account of.
Our 2019 report therefore said:
“The Government should suspend any further extension of PDRs, pending an evaluation of their impact on the high street.”
Other organisations have gone further. The Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the Chartered Institute of Housing have all called for an impact assessment of the PDRs that have been allowed and changed over the last few years and those proposed for the future. Indeed, the Select Committee first called for an impact assessment back in 2012. If the Secretary of State and the Minister believe there are just benefits and no disbenefits from expanding PDR, why will they not commit now to do a full impact assessment of the changes made previously and the changes proposed now?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We are now moving to a four-minute time limit.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I believe in liberalising planning regulations in the sense that I want more affordable housing for my constituents in Harlow, where we do have some exemplary PDR conversions—Edinburgh House has been developed to an extremely high standard—but, as the House will know, Harlow has paid a high price for the prior extension of PDRs. Office blocks never intended for residential dwellings have been brought up on the cheap by developers and converted rapidly into rabbit-hutch housing.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that quality is just as important as quantity?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right, and that is the kernel of my argument today. What has happened is that the homes, some of them smaller than my office in the House of Commons, and the relatively inexpensive rent charged by property management companies have proved an attractive and lucrative model for social housing, and, I am sorry to say, it is predominantly London’s Labour borough councils have that seen this as an opportunity for what can be described as social cleansing: moving vulnerable residents from their own boroughs into our town of Harlow.
The redevelopment of Terminus House in particular is a blight on our town centre. Antisocial behaviour sky-rocketed. Essex police have attended 238 recorded incidents at or near the site. Another office block, Templefields, has been converted in an isolated part of town on an industrial estate with no proper transport links or amenities for residents.
The crucial issue is how we avoid this in the future. I have had long meetings with the Minister and have been reassured that today’s extension of PDRs, allowing for additional stories to be built on top of purpose- built flats, will not have the same consequences for my constituency, particularly because the Government have announced that they are putting a stop to matchbox houses. All new homes developed under PDRs must meet the nationally prescribed space standard. A one-bedroom apartment will need to be a minimum of 37 square metres.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the 300,000 dwellings per year target is indeed delivered, and that, as part of that, some innovation in the planning system, with the right controls, is needed? Does he also agree that we would not be in such a challenging situation if it was not for the failure of the Mayor of London to deliver housing in the centre of London, and our businesses are paying a terrible price for the failure to make London a proper live-work city?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We need interventions to be short. Lots of Members want to speak, and they will not be able to do so if there are lots of interventions, and long ones.
Robert Halfon
I go back to my previous argument: we need quality housing. We need a lighter planning regime, because I want affordable houses for my constituents, but I want them in the right place. I therefore welcome what the Secretary of State said to me in our meeting yesterday: the introduction of a prior approvals process for these new rights, and local planning authorities and the community will now have a say over any new redevelopment, with the ability to object to plans. Local authorities can also now consider the external appearance of the building, the development’s impact on transport and neighbouring premises, as well as the provision of adequate natural light.
I understand—I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of this—that a time-limited PDR allowing for the conversion of warehouses and buildings on industrial estates lapses today and that the Government will not be renewing this right. It was noted by the shadow Minister that the rights introduced today are so limited that this is just to deliver around 800 homes per year.
On the basis that the Secretary of State is putting an end to rabbit-hutch housing and creating a level playing field by prohibiting unwanted through-the-backdoor developments, I will support the Government. However, as I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I ask that the Government hold to account those councils that are socially cleansing their boroughs by moving people to strange areas without any links to their families and friends. If councils must make out-of-area placements, they should contribute financially to the receiving councils’ associated costs, so that Harlow does not bear the brunt financially.
Extended PDRs have caused irreparable damage to Harlow’s landscape, social cohesion and reputation. There are unintended consequences to the drain on our local resources, which is why I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s moves. I note that we will be able to repair some of the damage because of our £25 million bid for the Government towns fund, and I very much welcome the £1 million of accelerated funding for Harlow, announced last week, to regenerate our town centre and make sure that what has gone wrong in the past can never happen again.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I follow that excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by saying that I am worried that the tone and tenor of this debate have assumed that quantity and quality cannot come together. We should put that false dichotomy aside, because it is perfectly possible. We should take together not just the three statutory instruments before the House but the whole raft of the Government’s planning reform proposals, because that is what we should get and what I expect we will see.
I say all that because, as I mentioned in an intervention, the development codes will mean that we end up with good-looking local development that is locally appropriate, uses local styles and materials and is set by local councillors and local councils, meaning that local democratic voices are properly heard. Taken together with space standards that were reaffirmed today, that means we can have good-looking and high-quality housing while at the same time opening the floodgates to a far higher overall rate of housing construction than we have ever managed under any Government of any particular political persuasion for decades and decades in this country.
Ultimately, the quantity of new housing, whether to buy or to rent, is what will dictate, over the medium term, the affordability of housing to buy or to rent. That is the long-term answer. The fundamental problem we have had in this country over decades is that we just have not been building enough homes of any kind of tenure. That is what has driven up housing costs to their current unaffordable levels.
I welcome the total package of reforms, of which the three SIs form part, simply because it resolves this dichotomy—this false choice—between quantity and quality. However, I make one plea. A number of us—many Members from all parties, I suspect—will be getting all sorts of concerned emails from residents and councillors alike who are worried about what someone colourfully called the mutant algorithm that is being used to calculate the number of homes that need to be built in each local authority area. I have written to the Housing Minister with a suggestion about how we might be able to resolve this important local democratic concern: if we can allow large numbers of permitted development rights for homes built under high-quality development codes in town and city centres right the way across the country, we should allow the permissions that have thus been created and the homes that will therefore be built to count against the housing targets.
The average height of buildings in a town such as Weston-super-Mare, in my constituency, is roughly two storeys. If we allow them to go up to four storeys, it will take years of steady construction and conversion to get there. We will end up with good-looking local terraces, crescents and mews homes and mansion blocks, every bit as good as the best in any part of this country, but they will have local character and, more importantly, we can create thousands and thousands of new homes. It makes no sense not to allow a proportion of those thousands and thousands of new homes to be set against the new housing targets. With that will come far greater local democratic acceptance of the overall package, including some of the concerns about the overall housing-build rate.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
When I raised concerns about the permitted development rights at Prime Minister’s questions a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister waved away my concerns with the promise that they would result in “beautiful” houses on brownfield sites for young people. We do not have to look far from Westminster to find that the opposite is true. In Balham, a developer has turned a two-storey commercial building on an industrial estate into 26 flats measuring as little as 18 square metres. That is smaller by more than 3 square metres than a typical Premier Inn hotel room. Four of the flats have no windows, just a skylight. All of the flats fall far short of the national space standards that say that the minimum floor area for a new one-bedroom, one-person home, including conversions, is 37 square metres, and for a one-bedroom, two-person home it is 50 square metres. That is not the only example. Are they really the beautiful homes that the Prime Minister said the rights would bring: no windows, no outdoor space, no room to swing the No.10 cat let alone to bring up a family?
Removing the requirement for planning permission to convert offices into residential properties will produce uninhabitable rabbit hutches. In the five years from 2013 to 2018, the number of such living spaces, which are below the minimum recommended size, has increased five times. The UK can now claim the dubious title of having the smallest rooms and the second smallest homes to be found across all of Europe, with some micro-developments as small as a single garage at 8.3 square metres, and others without windows or ventilation.
Research conducted by University College London and the University of Liverpool found that only 22% of dwellings created through permitted development met the nationally described space standards, compared with 73% of units created with full planning permission. Even the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s own report just months ago acknowledged that there were considerable negative differences in space standard, adequacy of natural light into homes, and access to amenity space, and that the immediate location of homes built under permitted development are less likely to meet basic minimum requirements than those that went through the existing planning process.
My city, Liverpool, is a university city. It is home to four universities, three of which are in my constituency, and to more than 60,000 students, many of whom live out in the community in their second and third years. There is great demand in some parts of Liverpool Riverside for student homes and the local planning lists are dominated by requests for extensions to allow houses to be registered as homes of multiple occupation to house students.
My fear and the fear of Liverpool city councillors is that permitted rights to allow two-storey high extensions on what are primarily terraced houses as well as extensions to the side and rear will create poor-quality housing for the occupants, as well as overcrowding and the environmental problems created by more people living there than the houses were originally designed for. It may give a windfall to landlords and developers, but it will distort the housing market by pricing out local people and families. Yes, Liverpool desperately needs new homes for 30,000-plus people on the waiting list, but the answer is to invest in good-quality homes that are genuinely affordable. I am proud that Liverpool City Council is building its first tranche of council housing in more than 30 years.
Back in 2015, this Government promised 200,000 affordable starter homes for young people. They have built none. Shoeboxes are not the answer. What we need and what the people of this country deserve are 100,000 genuinely affordable, decent quality homes built every year. Permitted development rights will undermine that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The scrutiny provided by the local planning process is a core part of our democracy and a vital means for people to have a say over their local environment. The process should never be disapplied by permitted development rights unless proper safeguards are in place. I recognise the need for new homes. Indeed, the borough of Barnet, where I live and part of which I represent, has been delivering more new homes than almost any other London borough, but the Government’s rush to build must not come at the expense of our environment, or at the expense of the quality of homes produced.
I accept and welcome that Ministers have listened to the concerns that I and others have put to them strongly about these statutory instruments. I very much welcome the concession that legislation will be brought forward to ensure that space requirements apply to homes created under PD rights. This is much needed, as are the provisions on entitlement to natural light. It is also a relief that the new right to add two storeys will be subject to a prior approval process that requires neighbours to be notified and allowed to object.
The new process does not cut out the council scrutiny process altogether, but I want to ask the Minister whether the provisions in paragraph 3.2 of condition AA.2 on the external appearance of upwards extension will allow prior approval to be denied where bulk and massing mean that the plans are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. That is a crucial protection. I also hope the Minister will confirm that people who are allowed to add two storeys under these provisions cannot turn them into a separate dwelling without planning permission. I also urge him to find a solution for leaseholders, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).
With the concessions that Ministers have made, I am sure many of us will feel comfortable abstaining rather than backing the Opposition motion today, but we also want to see real change in relation to other planning reforms, particularly the housing algorithm. The new algorithm would more than double the housing target in my constituency and require the equivalent of a small new city somehow to be crammed into outer London. That would see the suburbs change forever. There is simply no way the algorithm’s numbers would be achievable without the major urbanisation of the suburbs, and in the covid era, when the importance of homes with gardens and space to breathe has become ever more apparent, do the Government really want to be cramming East Berlin-style tower blocks into thousands of neighbourhoods across the country? We do not want future generations to look back on this era in the same way that we look at the architectural disasters of the ’60s, which left many people living in poor-quality homes in blighted communities. So today I am asking the Government to act in the way they have on the statutory instruments, to listen to the concerns and to drop their housing algorithm in the same way they dropped their A-level one.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I rise to oppose these plans. What have we learned since the war? When we think back to the new towns developed in Hertfordshire, Essex and elsewhere, and the great planning that went into them, we realised that we really did some fantastic stuff. These statutory instruments would remove the ability of people in Warwick and Leamington and across the country to have their say in how their neighbourhood is being developed—we have seen a degree of that over the past 10 years—and instead hand over power to the big housing developers while communities and councils are emasculated. Shelter, the Local Government Association, Crisis, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors are among the bodies to have expressed serious misgivings about these changes.
SIs 632 and 755 have been spoken about around the Chamber, so I will not dwell on them. It is actually SI 756 that most concerns me. Developers will be able to demolish housing and offices and rebuild them as denser and taller blocks of flats—as tall as six storeys and containing up to 60 or 70 flats—without making a full planning application. We already know that the previous permitted development regulations, which allow for the conversion of empty office blocks into new homes, have led to modern-day slums. This was forcefully exposed by BBC “Panorama” earlier this year, and the Government’s own report has concluded that
“permitted development conversions do seem to create worse-quality residential environments than planning permission conversions in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, well-being and quality of life of future occupiers.”
There is also a lack of control over where the homes are placed. Naturally, many previous PDR developments have ended up on industrial estates and other unsuitable places. This leaves residents without essentials such as access to public transport, local services, shops and amenities. Whatever happened to our communities and town planning? It beggars belief, therefore, that the Government are seeking to expand these rights at the cost of the most vulnerable members of our society and our communities, who will end up living in these appalling homes. It is the developers who are gaining significantly. I think about the multimillionaires and billionaires who have made so much money out of development in south Warwickshire, south of Warwick and Leamington, but they have provided no amenities or facilities there.
One of the most serious problems running through all the statutory instruments is that they allow developers to avoid obligations to build affordable housing. Last year, just 6,300 new social homes were built in England. When sales and demolitions are accounted for, we lost more than 17,000 social homes over the course of last year. We have had only 21 new social rented council homes built in Warwick district since 2010—and we wonder why we have a housing crisis. Section 106 obligations are now the main way to get new social rented homes built. According to the most recent year’s stats, 10 times as many social rented homes were built through section 106 as were built with money from Government grants. These SIs mean that developers are not obliged to contribute to affordable housing through section 106.
Instead, the Government must make building social rented council homes their No. 1 priority. Look at places such as Goldsmith Street in Norwich: built under a Labour council, it shows us what social rented housing can be—beautiful, well designed and environmentally friendly; reminiscent of the great developments in the post-war period. We know that building social rented homes is popular: 268,000 people have signed George Clarke’s petition to build 100,000 council homes a year for the next 30 years.
These statutory instruments will strip away power from local communities in favour of big housing developers. They will lead to poor-quality unaffordable homes. I am afraid that these changes are a foretaste of the full reforms proposed in the planning White Paper. They are a developers’ charter, giving them sweeping power to build poor-quality homes and, importantly, avoid commitments to build truly affordable social rented homes.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, secured by my Front-Bench colleagues.
As others have laid out, the regulations have been subject to widespread criticism. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns that they would result in a lighter touch prior approval process and that the changes could lead to the construction of low-quality housing. In fact, there has been report after report, piece after piece of evidence, in that regard. Even the Government’s own research, published in July, shows that permitted development rights lead to lower quality development and worrying impacts on space and overcrowding. It noted that only 22.1% of dwelling units created in this way would meet the nationally prescribed space standards, compared with 73.4% of units created through full planning permission. Furthermore, in January, the Local Government Association found that thousands of affordable homes had been lost through permitted development rights. It called for permitted development rules to be scrapped and for local communities to have a vital say on new developments in their area.
It is obvious that the consequence of removing the requirement for planning permission results in the removal of the requirement for affordable housing at the worst possible time—all in the name of the Government’s planning reforms, which have already been aptly described as a developers’ charter. Many are concerned about the watering down of what some perceive to be already limited requirements for developers to build affordable housing, known as section 106 requirements. The housing and homelessness charity Shelter points out that the majority of social homes being built now are being built under those requirements and warns that we desperately need to build more social homes, not to put the already pitiful trickle at risk.
What the Government call red tape is what housing experts recognise as important protections against unsafe and low-quality housing. Will the Minister explain why he has seen fit to pursue measures, such as the regulations before us today, that are likely to result in poorer quality housing and a reduction in affordable housing?
It is no surprise that the planning reforms were announced just weeks after the controversy surrounding the Westferry Printworks development in my constituency, which many saw as further evidence that the Government are more interested in serving billionaires than the interests of local people. Tax haven-using Northern & Shell’s ongoing clash with Tower Hamlets council has shown that the system is not fit for purpose and that we need more transparency and accountability in planning processes, not the deregulation that the measures today represent.
Although approval for the Westferry Printworks development has been withdrawn, I understand the case remains live and is to be decided soon. Will the Minister commit to publishing viability assessments in future relevant cases where affordable housing and site values are contested? Will he commit to do so for the Westferry Printworks development before the case is decided by another Minister, and confirm that he will not simply let companies do their own viability assessments, untested?
Local people really need assurances. Many people in Poplar and Limehouse cannot understand why luxury development after luxury development continues to pop up, given the local housing crisis and the fact that the borough is so overcrowded and densely populated. It is utterly incomprehensible that, at this juncture in time, the Government are further empowering developers at the expense of local people.
When will the Government ensure that developers make their buildings safe, given that there are still 300 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings with unsafe cladding, including in my borough, and not offload costs unfairly on to residents and leaseholders? Perhaps the Minister can explain how on earth recent history has led to the decision that further deregulation of the housing sector is needed, along with less scrutiny of developers. I would also like the Minister to explain to me how these regulations will impact on the BAME community in particular.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I need to ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close now, I am afraid.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I invite all Members, especially the Ministers, to come and have a look at an example of permitted development that is probably the worst and most shocking that I have ever seen over my 40 years working in housing and then as an MP. It is a warehouse in the middle of an industrial estate, where the neighbour is a tip yard, a skip lorry site or a factory that processes food. It is a warehouse converted into 86 flats in the middle of one of south London’s busiest industrial estates—far from the train, far from the buses and nowhere near a school. These flats were never intended for people who had an alternative. These flats were always intended for homeless families as temporary accommodation, and they were intended as bait for desperate councils. I say to the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), whom I greatly admire, that councils are not housing people in these places because they want to cleanse them; they are doing it because they are desperate and they have nowhere else to put people.
If Ministers would like to see permitted development at its worst, they should come with me to Connect House. They should come and see the flats, which are so small that babies cannot learn to walk because they simply do not have the space, and children have nowhere to play because outside is the car park of the factory opposite. Ministers should come and watch the juggernauts run up and down the main streets of this industrial estate. If they have children, they would be terrified at the prospect of their children being on that street, and it is no different for any of the families forced to live in Connect House. The developers will tell them, “We were allowed to do this, and therefore it must be okay.” They should come and have a look, and see if they think that it is okay.
It does not matter what planning regime Ministers have, for if they do not have a view about how people live and where they should live, it is not going to work. I am not a nimby, but I would like to suggest to Ministers that they start considering building on the un-green green belt. I know it is easy for a Back Bencher to say that, because we are not going to take the abuse that Ministers will take, but there are plans where they could build up to 1 million new homes on old green-belt land, close to London train stations, to give people the real opportunity of a home to buy or a home to rent.
The only way this Government or any Government will ever get to the target of 300,000 homes is by ensuring that at least half of them are built by councils and housing associations. We have not met that target since 1964, when half were social housing units. That is not just my rabid, Labour view, but the view of Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission. Why would the private sector build 300,000 homes when they cannot sell them and when property values have reduced? If the Ministers want to see the numbers, they have to intervene, and if they intervene, it has to be with homes they would be willing to live in.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made some very fair points on space standards that we looked at in the Select Committee when I was a member. She will be aware that the Government have brought forward these new proposals to make sure that there are space standards in permitted developments. That is why I support the proposals in principle, although there are one or two points of detail that I would like to raise.
The hon. Lady painted one side of the picture, but I have seen many developments in my constituency and just outside it that are conversions of redundant office buildings that are not being used any more into perfectly adequate, nice apartment blocks for young first-time buyers. Clearly there is a lot of merit behind permitted development, which has delivered 60,000 homes in the past few years in terms of additional stock. That is partly how this Government have doubled housing delivery since the lows of 2009. There is a lot to commend in the Government’s action on this.
Statutory Instrument No. 755 seems to say that any two-storey property, pretty much anywhere in the country —there is no geographic restriction, as I understand it—be it a three-bed semi in Thirsk, Malton, Harrogate or wherever else, can have two more storeys put on top of it as long as it is no more than 3.5 metres higher than the neighbouring property. I worry about the street scene in that situation. It is the same for terraced houses as well. It may be appropriate in some parts of London where it would not impact adversely on the local street scene, but I wonder whether it would be appropriate in some parts of the country. I urge Ministers to consider whether more controls should be put in place in relation to certain parts of the country where that would not be appropriate.
Similarly, paragraph AB.2 allows a commercial property such as a takeaway or shop of two storeys to have two more storeys put on top of it, with, again, the 3.5 metre height restriction. Again, that could impact the street scene in certain parts of our towns, cities and suburbs. Another point is that lot of these kinds of properties are owned in self-invested personal pensions. They are commercial properties. Ministers will be aware, as I have raised this on a number of occasions, that residential property, even a rented property, cannot be put as a separate dwelling on top of a commercial property if it is owned in a personal pension and held in a pension wrapper, which is restricting supply in many towns and cities. We should change that to allow it to be the case as long as the properties were delivered for social rent at half market value to encourage development of such properties on their upper floors. If I look down the streets in Thirsk, I will see lots of instances where this is the case. This is a real opportunity to deliver more housing above shops in our city centres.
On the other planning reforms that are being brought forward, I very much support the zoning element. I do worry about some of the underlying assumptions, though, which are driving the high number of properties in certain locations with low affordability, and therefore expensive house prices. I am not convinced that simply building lots of houses in expensive areas is going to lower prices to the degree that Ministers obviously want.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
This set of SIs is an answer to a massively important question about how we build more homes that are fit for communities, but the answer is blindingly obviously the wrong one. There is no evidence that planning logjams such as those to which the SIs are meant to be a solution are the problem. Some 40% of homes with planning permission over the past 10 years have not been built.
We need to look instead at some of the other reasons we are not building the houses that we need. It is about, for example, the lack of funding for local authorities—the lack of understanding that we need to directly intervene through council housing and social rented housing to provide the homes that we need. It is also about the fact that the price of land is so utterly prohibitive. It would be much more sensible in this time of rapid and urgent legislation to tackle the Land Compensation Act 1961 and reduce the value of land as a whole so that we get more houses built that are affordable.
The relaxation of permitted development rights has, as we heard from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), already reduced quality. The Government’s own commission reported that seven out of 10 buildings built under the existing rights lacked adequate light and ventilation, and were, as the hon. Gentleman said, creating the slums of tomorrow.
That was not always the way the Conservative party approached social rented housing, by the way. Harold Macmillan, when housing Minister, did tremendous work. He was the one behind the Parker Morris standard: really good quality council houses, with lots of good space around them. Council houses can be good houses, and that is what they need to be. [Interruption.] If I have got something wrong there, I will give way.
Tim Farron
I am delighted to take the correction. And there was me praising a Conservative! What Macmillan did do was build numbers, and the estates of the ’50s were certainly better than the estates of the ’60s, but I do indeed stand corrected.
The biggest concern I think many of us will have is the undermining of democracy: communities having what will be done to them dictated to them, without them having the ability to contradict or to say otherwise. If you are somebody who represents two national parks, the lakes and the dales, and the wonderful communities within them—Grange, Kendal and others—you will be particularly worried about what that means. We are not nimbys, by the way.
Andrew Griffith
As someone who also represents an area of national beauty, if we do not build houses in brownfield sites where dwellings already are, where does the hon. Gentleman think we will build those homes?
Tim Farron
I am grateful for that intervention, because I am about to talk about that.
The key point is simply this. South Lakeland District Council, a Liberal Democrat majority authority, has built well over 1,000 social rented homes. What we are talking about is not saying no to development; we are talking about saying yes to the right kind of development, and being able to have power and community control over where those houses are built and what kind of houses are built. Local control means better quality.
That is what worries me most about not just these proposals today, but the suite of proposals they sit alongside in the White Paper. We need to able to build the homes we need. It is absolutely infuriating that we have to say yes to private developments of executive homes that we do not need in order to crowbar in a handful of affordables. The average house price in my constituency is £260,000. The average household income is £26,000. It is obvious why we lose a third of our young people. Our communities, our council, our national parks want to be able to build houses, but build the right houses so that there are homes for local people in the lakes, the dales and the rest of the south lakes. The replacement of section 106, as proposed separately by the Government, risks, as has been reported to me by our local housing associations, at least 50% of their developments. That will not do anything to meet the needs of people in my communities.
There is also a particular concern—I will finish with this—that the Government are planning to say that developments of up to 50 units would not have to take any affordables as part of that proposal. I can tell hon. Members that in our communities we very rarely get developments of larger than 50 units. This set of proposals would lead to the removal of any affordable homes being built in the south lakes for the foreseeable future. It seems to me that there are many stakeholders the Government could have listened to when bringing forward these and similar proposals. The only stakeholders they have listened to appear to be the biggest of the developers. They have carved out our communities and caved into the big developers.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I start by endorsing what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). We both represent London suburban seats. I give the Ministers credit for having moved to meet some of our concerns in a number of areas, but I have to say that they have not gone far enough. There is a real problem here and a broad-brush approach does not meet the needs of the particular pressures faced by many London suburbs. I welcome, for example, that we are limiting this to post-1948. That is some protection for the between-the-wars semis and terraces, which are a great feature of much of suburban London and many other cities, but there are still many streets with good-quality post-war developments that could be damaged, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, so we still have further to go. That is why, although I will not oppose these measures, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, I cannot join the Government in the Lobby tonight to support them either, because we have concerns.
The big rub will be that we cannot go down the route of linking these measures to the wholly unacceptable growth in the housing requirement, be it through an algorithm or a formula. Bromley is already building to its current requirement and simply cannot take the wholly unrealistic numbers that are proposed. My concern is that diminishing local control will not assist in that. I was glad to see the reference to Harold Macmillan. I am a great Macmillan fan—after all, he was MP for Bromley for the second half of his career—and he got it right in building 300,000 houses. I gently say to the Secretary of State that Harold did that while respecting the local rights that were provided for in the Housing Act 1949. He did not do it by relaxing development controls; he did it through other means and determination, so this is not the route we have to go down. That is why I think that the extension of permitted development is a false route for us to be taking. It has its place, but it needs careful constraints, and I do not think we have quite achieved that.
I also endorse what my hon. Friend Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said about the serious failure—from my point of view, perhaps the most serious—of these SIs, which offer no protection for leaseholders in flats. Constituents of mine in Northpoint, which I have raised in the House on a number of occasions, suffer from having the freehold owned by an offshoot of the Tchenguiz property empire, whose behaviour towards those people has been disgraceful. The idea of enriching them is, I am afraid, simply not something that I can countenance. I cannot support a set of orders that do not yet give adequate protection to leaseholders.
What we really need in Bromley is affordable family housing. That is where the pressure is. People want to move to the London suburbs—they will endure the commute in and out—because they want space for their kids, gardens, and easy accessibility to parks and so forth. The trouble is that these SIs are making it easier to build yet more flatted units, which is not what we need to maintain the proper social mix in outer London suburbs such as ours.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved on space standards. I give credit for that, but again there is still a real concern about whether the prior approval regime will be sufficient to maintain high standards, because in both Bromley and Beckenham town centres we have seen too many instances of low-quality development. I have a real problem with the idea of taking a semi-detached house and putting two storeys on top, as a separate, self-contained dwelling. That is creating a separate house effectively, turning it into flats in all but name, which should not be done through a waiver of the permitted development process. There should be a proper planning application for that.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I would like to briefly address my remarks to both the SIs and the wider changes that the Government propose to make to planning policy. I also endorse the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about some unscrupulous developers.
My first concern is about the proposals to increase the number of houses that can be built in many parts of England, which could lead to a significant growth in unwanted developments on green land, such as the countryside near Woodley and Earley in my constituency. I should add that, as other Members have pointed out, there is a plentiful supply of brownfield land in many towns and cities, including in the Thames valley, and in Reading there is a great deal of brownfield that could be developed.
The sheer size of the increase in house building numbers in the countryside could cause significant problems for our community, from both the loss of green spaces and the knock-on effects, in terms of increased traffic and pollution, and pressure on schools, doctors surgeries and other local services. Some of these problems are indeed all too obvious already in Woodley and Earley, where there has been a great deal of development.
Secondly, to make matters worse in the longer term, the Government have announced that they want to deregulate the planning system, making it far easier for developers to build exactly what they like. These SIs include a foretaste of exactly those measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) mentioned earlier. I am particularly concerned about the measure to allow two-storey redevelopments without planning permission, which my hon. Friend the Member Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) mentioned. Just imagine the likely impact of that on neighbours in terraced streets in Victorian neighbourhoods around the country, where there will be serious concerns about people being overlooked and their whole quality of life turned upside down by unwanted development led by the needs of developments, not local people. Surely that is why we have planning in the first place—to give everybody a fair say and to let local people raise reasonable concerns about planning, not to allow developers to ride roughshod over residents.
Thirdly, in my opinion, the Government are not doing anywhere near enough to encourage the right mix of development, and Berkshire is a prime recipient of that poor mix. There are far too many executive flats and expensive houses, and there is a limited supply of family housing, which has been mentioned by colleagues from across the country. I believe that there should be a major programme of investment in council house building and in other forms of affordable rented properties and homes to buy, and that renters should be protected from the unscrupulous nature of some landlords to ensure proper standards of quality and affordability.
These three areas of policy where the Government are letting the public down amount to a serious failure for residents in Reading and Woodley and, indeed, across the country. I am afraid that the Government are simply heading in the wrong direction, and I urge Ministers to think again.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to oppose these three SIs. The planning system exists specifically to address and balance often conflicting demands: public versus private; local community versus national requirements; environment versus the economy; and financial capital versus human need. Every planning application is judged against clear policies and clear demands, and every planning decision considers quality as well as quantity. It is a transparent and accountable process that enables community involvement. Permitted development rights were introduced to reduce bureaucracy in specific, clearly understood circumstances, but these SIs put a coach and horses through the normal system of judging and determining a proposed development.
I had 30 years of involvement in the town planning system before being elected to this place, and these instruments give me a terrible sense of déjà vu. In 2013, the Government introduced an extension of permitted development rights; then, as now, there was cross-party and cross-sector opposition. Why? Because extending PDR created, and will create, new slums of substandard housing, over which local planning authorities have little or no control and there is little or no opportunity for community input.
Now the Government have come back for more, ignoring the conclusions of their Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Although they have conceded, after a lot of pressure, on minimum light and space standards, there are still major concerns about issues such as neighbour impact, access, parking, play and amenity space, and of course the proposals remove section 106 contributions from larger developments to the community on things such as affordable housing, traffic and transport improvements. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I also share the concerns of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), and of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) about the implications for leaseholders.
Where is the evidence that these SIs will deliver more homes? There are 318,000 homes granted planning permission between 2011 and 2018 that remain unbuilt. The Government say that these measures will provide affordable housing for younger people, but there is no evidence that suggests they will. In my west London constituency, even a substandard rabbit hutch would still be affordable only to a young person working on a City of London salary who has a chunky deposit from the bank of mum and dad. As usual, families on UK average and below-average incomes remain invisible to Ministers.
There is, of course, inconsistency between the high-falutin’ intentions in the White Paper about sustainability and quality, and what will actually happen when these SIs are implemented. Speculators and owners will be able to use these regulations to avoid all the normal conditions that are to be expected when someone goes through the normal application process, which are there to address the principles of planning that I listed at the start of my speech, and of course they will avoid community engagement.
If the Government think that we are worried unnecessarily about these issues around standards and that it will all be all right, why do this in the first place, when we have a perfectly adequate planning system? We will see yet more homes that are bad for those living in them now, bad for their neighbours, and bad for those living in them in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Rachel Hopkins—I need you to sit down at 6.27 pm.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak as a local councillor in Luton, and I and many of my constituents have considerable concerns about the impact of permitted development rights on housing in Luton and the Government’s proposed changes that we are debating, which mean the problems will only proliferate. Whether we are talking about a young person trying to get on the housing ladder, a family on the council housing waiting list, or a renter stuck in an unfit flat, the plans to extend permitted development rights will not improve their situation. These statutory instruments, alongside the planning White Paper consultation, amount to a developers’ charter that will give developers increased powers to build poor-quality housing, permanently remove shops from high streets, change the shape of our town centres and build towering extensions, all at odds with the interests of local people.
We do need to increase the quantity of housing, but that should not be at the expense of the quality of housing. I have heard much said about beautiful terraces and crescents. Well, look at what has happened already, and I was very taken by the description from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) of children not being able to play. That happens in my constituency. Children kick a ball down the high street because that is the only place they can go. That is not good enough for the children in my constituency, which is why I am here today.
Bypassing planning permission and section 106 obligations means that local communities are unable to object to inappropriate developments, and developments can escape any contribution to the delivery of affordable housing and local infrastructure needs. In fact, the Local Government Association stated this year that 13,500 affordable homes were lost through office conversions. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and expanding PDR is not the antidote. Today’s motion demonstrates that the Government do not understand how PDR is impacting on our communities. Reforms are leading to the wrong homes in the wrong places. In Luton, a number of office buildings have been converted into temporary accommodation, housing a variety of individuals with complex needs, within an air quality management area along a four-lane inner ring road. This was allowed only under PDR, and it will only increase if we can then freely expand by two more storeys, and that is not good enough.
The Government should listen to the report that they commissioned, which stated that
“permitted development conversions do seem to create worse quality residential environments than planning permission conversions in relation to a number of factors widely linked to the health, wellbeing and quality of life of future occupiers.”
If they will not listen to their own report, they should listen to the local councillors on Luton Borough Council, from three parties, who all voted unanimously to oppose PDR.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful for this wide-ranging and interesting debate and to the hon. Members on both sides who have contributed to it. I hope that I shall be able to cover most of the points raised during my remarks, but I am always happy to discuss the points that colleagues wish to raise beyond the Chamber.
In June, the Prime Minister announced the most radical reforms to our planning system since the second world war, making it easier to build better homes where people want to live. These regulations that we are debating tonight are important levers in our ambitions to build, build, build as we recover from the economic effects of covid-19. They encourage developers and property owners to see the opportunities that already exist to increase housing delivery by the more imaginative use of existing buildings. That includes building in airspace or demolishing and rebuilding vacant buildings.
During these difficult times, we want to ensure that the construction industry continues to increase the delivery of the new homes that our country so sorely needs. We cannot sit back, as the Opposition seem so fond of doing, and just wait. We have to be fiercely proactive in helping communities and developers to bring forward these much needed new homes through carefully controlled permitted development rights. Removing red tape from the application process will encourage developers to step up and build out, providing a real boost for the construction industry while also delivering new homes in our existing towns and cities.
The three statutory instruments being considered today introduced new permitted development rights to allow the upward extension of buildings, creating new homes and extra living space, and they came into force in August. They also allow for the demolition and rebuild of vacant commercial, light industrial and residential buildings, enabling decaying properties to be redeveloped for a new generation of good-quality housing. This builds on our national planning policy to boost housing density and make effective use of existing land and buildings without the need to use and build on greenfield sites. We encourage these moves toward gentle densification.
Bob Stewart
I am really worried that in my constituency, lessening red tape also lessens approval from the local community, and it is very important that we do not lose the approval of the local community.
Christopher Pincher
Through the prior approval process, communities and local authorities will have rights to say yes or to say no, and I shall say more about that. Existing permitted development rights for the change of use to residential properties already make an important contribution to housing delivery, helping us meet our ambitious plans for 300,000 new homes per year, but we have no intention of reneging on that ambitious commitment. That is why, in June, we introduced rights to allow an additional two storeys to be added to free- standing residential blocks of flats, and in July we extended that to allow for two storeys to be added to a range of existing buildings in both commercial and residential use to create new homes.
It should be remembered that landlords, including registered providers and local authorities, are able to use that right to add additional homes to their existing blocks, making it easier to increase the supply of affordable housing as well as market-rate homes. That will unlock over 8,000 new homes—not 800 but 8,000—every year. Eight thousand new dream homes for their residents, every one of which Labour is planning to oppose. By speeding up and simplifying the planning process, the permitted development rights will green-light schemes that might not otherwise come forward.
However, we must all acknowledge that not all existing buildings will be suitable for conversion, and so, to make it easier to reuse sites occupied by redundant and vacant buildings, we have introduced the new permitted development right to allow such buildings to be demolished and rebuilt as residential blocks of flats within the existing footprint, and to make better use of the site. The right also allows an additional two storeys to be added to the height of the original building. That right will support regeneration by delivering additional homes and redeveloping vacant, unused and unloved brownfield sites, which blight local communities. New homes, new opportunities, new dreams—hopes that will be dashed if Labour votes against these measures tonight.
Christopher Pincher
I will not give way. As a further safeguard, the local planning authority must advertise the prior approval applications and consult the owners and occupiers of any block being developed, as well as adjoining premises, to ensure that local voices are heard. We recognise, however, that further local consideration of all these proposals is needed, so the rights require prior approval by the local authority on a number of key planning matters before permitted developments can proceed. That ensures that local amenity effects can be considered. The look and the design of the new additions are also taken into account. The age of the building can be taken into account. In these cases, the rights provide for the local authority to grant or refuse prior approval. Conservation rights, listed buildings and scheduled monuments, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are also excluded from these rights.
Theresa Villiers
My right hon. Friend refers to the right to refuse prior approval on the basis of the external appearance of what is planned. Does that include the right to turn down developments that are considered to be out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood? That is a key pillar of the planning system, and if that was part of the prior approval process, it would provide a lot of assurance to people who are worried about what is proposed.
Christopher Pincher
Character and aspect are important, and if the proposed building were to be out of character with what is already there, the local authority would be quite within its rights to deny prior approval.
To ensure that homes delivered under permitted development rights are of the quality that people want and expect, the regulations we have introduced include a requirement for adequate natural light to be provided in all habitable homes.
Christopher Pincher
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will carry on, but I am always happy to speak to him beyond the Chamber, as we have done on several occasions in the recent past. If I have time, I will give way to him at the end of my remarks.
While independent research by my Department shows that the vast majority of homes built through permitted development rights are no different in terms of quality from those that come through ordinary planning applications, I have heard powerful representations from Members across the House—including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who have been tireless advocates on this issue—that there are a small number of developers who abuse these rights to build homes that are unacceptably small.
Those bad developers are damaging the credibility of these rights, which are crucial for regenerating brownfield land across our country. That is why I am pleased to confirm today that the Government will stamp this out once and for all. We will legislate so that all homes built through permitted development rights must meet space standards. They will be required to meet the nationally described space standards that the Government have already published, which will mean that permitted development rights can no longer be seen as a route to undercut housing standards. This Government will fight for increased standards and improved quality of design. We want to build more, we want to build better and we want to build beautiful.
We want to support local authorities through this change. That is why we have separately introduced a fee for new homes created under these rights of £334 per unit. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) knows that, because he sat opposite me when we debated the SI, and he did not say no to it. The money is there to help local authorities.
It seems that Labour has already decided—it has decided to say no. It is turning its back on the people it used to represent. It does not want to build homes for hard-working, aspirational owners and renters because it failed to build them, and it is ashamed to admit that. Look at the failure of Mayor Khan in London. Look at the failure of the Labour Administration in Wales, where in 2018 they built just 57 council homes. Could they do worse? Yes, they could: last year, they built just 12—not even enough to house a Welsh rugby team. That is the failure of the Labour party to build decent homes for people in this country.
We will not follow Labour’s route. We will continue to support and build the homes that this country needs with an unwavering commitment and priority. We will build homes for first-time buyers. We will build affordable homes for renters. We will reimagine and rebuild our brownfield sites and town centres. These regulations are an important tool in helping us drive up delivery by simplifying and speeding up the planning system. I call upon the House to reject the negative views of the Labour party and support our determination to build and build and build again for the people of this country, who deserve good homes.
Mike Amesbury
I thank Members from across the House for all the powerful contributions made today. I am sorry that I cannot acknowledge them all, but I am limited in time. Although we recognise the Government’s last-minute concession on space, resulting from our motion, and the work of campaigners from across the country in the housing and planning sector, the fact remains that this is a developer’s charter. It will enrich them, freeholders and overseas investors to the tune of billions. As has been said eloquently by Members from right across the House, it will create vandalism in our streets, communities, villages and high streets; lobbing two storeys on semi-detached houses and on flats—flats cladded with flammable materials—is nonsense. It is not building back better, building back safer—it is nonsense. As for affordable housing, 6,400 social houses last year—
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the presentation of public petitions. There are four petitions on the same subject, so I ask each Member to speak for no more than a minute. I remind the second and subsequent hon. Members that they do not need to read or summarise the text of the petition if it is in the same terms as the petition already presented.
Flooding Preparedness: Yorkshire
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, not least because you have been such a long-standing champion for Yorkshire, but also because I know you take a close interest in the issue of flooding.
In November last year, I was standing in Lang Avenue in Barnsley. I had often been there before, but this time was different. In the freezing cold, around 70 homes had been flooded. Among the residents there was the quiet desperation of having been made effectively homeless in the middle of winter, of having lost precious possessions, of seeing Christmas plans lying in ruins.
There were many scenes like that last winter. Very early one morning I arrived in Fishlake, near Doncaster. That quiet village had the feel of a disaster movie, with waters running perilously high, the Army on the streets, and the emergency services working tirelessly to save lives and homes. I remember one couple who had lived there for 50 years; they were ferried out of the village on a tractor, their house waist deep in water. The husband was fighting cancer, and as they struggled with hospital appointments, they also had to deal with endless complication and delay from their insurance company. It was many months before work on their house even began.
I remember visiting a house in Bentley with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, all of us standing together in the home of an 83-year-old woman, with her ground floor flooded and almost everything destroyed. Her insurance had been cancelled through no fault of her own. She had lost her husband not long before, and now she was faced with losing much of what was familiar and precious to her.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making an eloquent, passionate and moving speech. Does he recognise that, for many of my constituents who have been affected by the floods, 10 months on, this is not something they have recovered from because they are still fighting with their insurance companies? Even if they are back in their homes, they are worried about what the future will bring; in particular, they are concerned that although £170 million has been announced for flood projects, not one of them is in Doncaster. They are deeply angry about that. Does he share their anger and recognise that they want the Government to show that they understand the need to help them, not just last November, but now, and to secure better protection for them?
Dan Jarvis
My right hon. Friend is completely right to raise his constituents’ concerns, which I absolutely do share. What his constituents require is a plan, and we are doing a lot of work at local and regional level, but what we need is support from national Government. I will say a bit more about what I think that should involve.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a chilling speech. It is a reminder of Storms Desmond and Eva, in which my constituency experienced significant flooding, as it did in February this year. Five years on, those residents are still waiting for their property level resilience to be put in place. Does he agree that that is completely unacceptable and that we need a better system in place to support residents ahead of floods arriving again?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, which will form the basis of the remarks I am about to make.
We need to acknowledge the scale of the problem. About 1,000 homes in South Yorkshire and 565 businesses were directly affected by November’s floods, but the impact of flooding goes far beyond the material and economic damage. It carries a human cost—lives disrupted, homes abandoned, futures made uncertain and full of hardship. This is a growing threat: a once-in-a-lifetime disaster in South Yorkshire was followed weeks later by further flooding in West Yorkshire. Calderdale, for example, has suffered three major floods in the last eight years. Hull was badly hit in 2007, and York—my hon. Friend’s constituency—was hit in 2000, 2015 and again earlier this year, as she just described. Other parts of the UK from Scotland to Cornwall have suffered from flooding.
We are lucky to be a rich country with the means to help people and to respond to this danger, but that requires us to recognise the challenges we face, to deploy our resources as we need to, and to confront the longer-term causes of the crisis. I deeply regret that this Government have so far failed to do that. It is not that they have done nothing—indeed, I acknowledge and appreciate the efforts the Minister and her Department have made; the Environment Agency in particular has done sterling work in Yorkshire—but it was only yesterday that the Government gave a date for the flooding summit we discussed with them back in November last year.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I congratulate and commend my hon. Friend on the leadership he has shown on this issue. I also commend him on having secured the South Yorkshire flood summit. If I am not mistaken, though, a Yorkshire-wide flood summit was promised, not least following the devastating flooding that we experienced in Calderdale, which he has mentioned, as well as in areas of North Yorkshire. Although I really welcome the progress my hon. Friend has made on the South Yorkshire summit, does he agree that we need the same conversation for the rest of the region?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. The original concept was that the flooding summit would cover the county of Yorkshire. I work closely with the Yorkshire Leaders Board and know that there is a real desire to work closely with the Government on this issue. I would appreciate the Minister clarifying precisely what the attendance of the summit will be. If it is just for South Yorkshire, what are the plans to ensure that the rest of Yorkshire gets the support that it needs from the Government?
To be fair to the Minister and to the Government, of course we understand the disruption that covid has caused. But the people of Yorkshire should not have had to wait all this time for this meeting. To quote Lord Stark from “Game of Thrones”—not from the other place—“Winter is coming”, and there is every possibility that floods could strike again. If they do, potentially amid a second wave of covid infections and challenges relating to the Brexit transition, the effects of that flooding will be ever more devastating.
It is not that the summit will be a silver bullet—of course, it is no substitute for the hard strategy and funding commitments that we need—but it will be an important way of focusing minds and bringing the Government and stakeholders together to co-ordinate a coherent long-term response. That is why I very much hope that the Prime Minister will accept the invitation, which I warmly extend to him again today, to take part in person. His presence would be an important sign to the people of Yorkshire that he recognises the scale of the threat and is working to address it.
As I said, the substance of the response is ultimately what matters, most immediately in relation to the ongoing aftermath of 2019, because 10 months on many people are still in temporary accommodation. Kilnhurst Primary School in Rotherham remains closed until the new year, with families facing additional stress on top of the difficulties caused by covid. We need to get communities the help that they need, and the Government must play their part. Councils have faced extraordinary costs at a time of hardship, and existing support has not filled the gap. Many of the people affected will face problems with insuring their homes, even when they move back into them.
The Blanc review is rightly considering this issue, and I trust that Ministers will act following its imminent completion, but we need to prevent the next flood, not just react to the last one, and that requires investment. In collaboration with local authorities throughout South Yorkshire, we have developed a detailed £271 million priority flood-resilience programme, to protect more than 10,300 homes and 2,800 businesses. The projected return on this investment, just in terms of avoided damage, is £1.7 billion, but funding for the plan remains in doubt. The grant in aid allocated to it under the Government’s medium-term plan has yet to be confirmed. Assuming that it is, and taking other sources into account, there is still a shortfall of £125 million.
As another flooding season begins, we do not have the resources that we need to protect our region. I ask the Government not just to confirm the current draft MTP, but to provide an exceptional boost above and beyond it to fully fund our proposals. That would follow the precedent of the £115 million in exceptional funding that Yorkshire received after the 2015 floods. I hope the Government will go beyond that and give local authorities the revenue—not just the capital—that they desperately need to get flood-prevention projects shovel ready.
This is not just about money; we need to fundamentally change not just the amount that we invest but the way that we do flood prevention. We need to shift away from engineering solutions towards natural flood management and a catchment-wide approach, which can reduce the threat of flooding at its sources, rather than shift it from one place to another. Our priority programme includes £2 million to support catchment-wide modelling as an essential step towards that approach. We warmly welcome the Environment Agency’s support for nature-based solutions in South Yorkshire and the draft NTP’s inclusion of almost £38 million for those schemes in the Don catchment.
We cannot, however, build our way out of this with concrete. Working with nature, rather than against it, will ultimately be much more effective and affordable, and will allow us to preserve and expand critical habitats such as wetlands, moors and forests. The pioneering work of the Environment Agency, with the Woodland Trust and others, shows just how effective this slowing the flow can be. I have partnered with the Woodland Trust as part of an ambitious wider programme to plant millions of trees in South Yorkshire, with flood prevention a key goal of a plan that will also help communities, wildlife and our climate. I hope that the Government will back the effort—I say that in good faith to the Minister—and adopt my amendment to the Environment Bill to require a dedicated tree strategy for England.
As floods like last year’s increasingly become common, natural flood management must be not just one tool among others, but the core of our strategy across the whole country. The Government need to make that shift as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has spoken in favour of natural flood management. He needs to ensure that it is rolled out quickly and comprehensively. That needs to come hand in hand with greater flexibility. I hope that the Minister will heed the Local Government Association’s call for a more flexible funding model for flood prevention and for capital and revenue funding to be devolved into a single place-based pot to allow greater local control. We must also further reform the Green Book to allow a wider set of values to carry weight in investment decisions and end the dominant focus on residential properties and property values.
Those flooded houses in Lang Avenue, Bentley, Fishlake and right across Yorkshire are connected to a much wider crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that climate change could increase the annual cost of flooding in the UK almost fifteenfold within 60 years in high-emission scenarios. A portion of the hundreds of millions of pounds we are asking the Government for is part of the cost of our collective inaction on climate change over the past decades. This is a small taste of just how false an economy that inaction was. The idea that it costs too much for us to decarbonise is madness. The only thing worse than not having acted then would be not to act now.
The Government have promised a green recovery from covid. We appreciate that intent, but so far they have not delivered anything resembling the transformational change that we should be aspiring to in this once-in-a-generation moment, a moment when massive public investment is not only possible but essential to save our economy. To take just one example, the £3 billion allocated nationally for building retrofits, one of the most obvious and essential ways to decarbonise, as well as to create skilled jobs, is roughly what we need for retrofitting South Yorkshire alone.
The Committee on Climate Change is unequivocal: we are not making adequate progress. The Government have agreed a 2050 target for net zero, but they are not yet doing what is needed to reach it. The challenge of course is real, but so far their actions do not reflect the catastrophic threat that we face. For my part, we have a plan for South Yorkshire to reach net zero by 2040 at the latest, and immediate proposals to plant millions of trees, transform our public transport and carry out £200 million of green infrastructure investment, but we need Government support if we are to make more than a fraction of those plans a reality.
To conclude, we have the opportunity to act now on flooding in Yorkshire, on natural flood prevention right across the UK and on global climate change. I ask the Government to respond to the threat highlighted so powerfully last November in a way that reflects its scale and its urgency and the fact that it is at once a local, national and global challenge, and at every one of those levels to make the investments now that will ultimately save us from paying a much greater price in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this very important debate. He knows how seriously I take flooding. He spoke passionately, as he always does, for his constituency. However, he will know that we have spoken a number of times over the past few months, so he cannot say that I have not engaged with him—nor, indeed, can other Opposition Members. I have definitely been listening. He will know already that that letter has gone out, inviting hon. Members to the said event to discuss flooding in South Yorkshire. I hope he welcomes that. I worked hard with the Secretary of State to press for that. He also knows that we were hit with an election and then, when we came back, the coronavirus pandemic. He knows that that really is the reason for not having fixed the date yet. It is now firmly in the calendar and I am very much looking forward to discussing properly many of the issues he raises. It will be on 8 October.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the Minister giving way, but the Secretary of State was in my constituency when he made the announcement that the event would be for Yorkshire. He certainly made a commitment to my constituents, the local authority and others that we would be part of the flood summit. What has happened to that commitment? Are we expecting another flood summit for the whole of Yorkshire, or one for North Yorkshire?
Rebecca Pow
I will come on to talk about much of the funding that has gone to the rest of Yorkshire. We have had a great deal of engagement with colleagues and MPs, and I will cover that in my remarks.
What I want to say at the outset is that flood and coastal management is a very high priority for the Government. I am acutely aware of the impact on businesses and individuals, as the hon. Gentleman clearly points out. Coming from Somerset, I really am aware of exactly how it affects people. I want to go back over the long recent history of flooding that Yorkshire has suffered. There have been a number of significant flooding events, notably in 2007 and 2012. There was the tidal surge of 2013, and then, in 2015, about 40,000 properties flooded. Sadly, people were affected. Very sadly, some people have died. This is very serious, and we take it very, very seriously. I will come on to highlight some of the different parts of Yorkshire that have suffered incidents and how we have dealt with them.
In November 2019, South Yorkshire, which obviously includes Sheffield, Doncaster and Barnsley, saw rainfall of more than twice the monthly average. That resulted in widespread damage, the majority of which was in Doncaster, Bentley and Fishlake, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has highlighted to me a number of times. In just 48 hours, about 150% of the average November rainfall fell over the River Don. Overall, the river levels rose to, and in some locations exceeded, the previous record which occurred in 2007.
In West Yorkshire in February, the impacts of Storm Ciara were felt most in the Calder valley, with over 800 properties severely affected. River levels rose to their highest or second highest recorded levels at Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Dewsbury, and at Gargrave on the River Aire.
About three weeks later, East Yorkshire—Yorkshire is a huge place, as we all know—was affected. The River Aire catchment area received over three and a half times the normal amount of rainfall for that time of year, and 100 properties were flooded in Snaith and East Cowick. February was the wettest on record for Yorkshire. At this point, and on behalf of the House, I must pay tribute to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the Army, Government officials and everyone who helped and responded in those very difficult times.
As I said, the Government are absolutely committed to investing in flood risk management, with £2.6 billion in flood defences committed between 2015 and 2021 to better protect 300,000 properties. As hon. Members will recall, at the Budget we confirmed the doubling of Government investment in flooding and coastal defences in England to £5.2 billion over the next six years from 2021. That will better protect a further 336,000 properties, including 290,000 homes. I think the hon. Member for Barnsley Central will agree that that is not insignificant.
In July, we published a long-term flood policy statement, which I really hope the hon. Gentleman has read because a great deal of effort went into it. We have had a real rethink of our direction on flooding, and that statement touches many of the things that are important to him and us. It includes five ambitious policies to accelerate progress and better protect and prepare the country, and 40 supporting actions, so I urge him to have a look at it. Alongside that, the Environment Agency has published a long-term flood and coast erosion risk management strategy for England, which dovetails with Government thinking.
Partnership funding, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, will continue to play a key part in delivering our £5.2 billion capital programme. DEFRA’s partnership funding policy will help communities to be clear about what they can expect from DEFRA and what levels of partnership funding they need to enable projects to go ahead. The hon. Gentleman touched on that, and those details are quite clear about the partnership funding that has to go hand in hand with Government funding.
In 2019-20, the Government are investing more in Yorkshire than elsewhere in the country. Over time, Yorkshire has actually been very successful in securing Government funding and attracting partnership funding. The 2015-16 severe flooding in West Yorkshire, in Calderdale, Leeds and Bradford—I went up there on a visit—and York and North Yorkshire, drove major investment in complex and innovative schemes, in particular in Leeds, the Calder valley and even York. I say to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that York has received £45 million of central Government flood funding to protect 700 homes, and £32 million for the Foss barrier to protect another 1,100 homes. That is a clear commitment.
Since 2015, the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, which represents 12 local authorities, has received investment of £671 million, £496 of which is from the Government, to better protect 66,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion. We can debate the hon. Lady’s intimation that the Government have neglected to fund Yorkshire for a long time, but I have given some facts and statistics that clearly show that the Government are committed to Yorkshire.
East Yorkshire has had £42 million invested in the Hull river defences. I have mentioned North Yorkshire already, so let me come to South Yorkshire. Sheffield City Council is leading on a number of schemes, including Sheffield’s lower Don valley, where the completed £19 million scheme has better protected 250 homes and key businesses. For Sheffield’s upper Don valley, a £23 million investment will reduce the flood risk for more than 400 homes. That was recently awarded in the £170 million that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) referred to.
Edward Miliband
I know that the hon. Lady cares deeply about this issue and did so even before she was a Minister. She mentioned the £170 million, but does she recognise the anger of my constituents, which I highlighted to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), about the fact that those projects were not in Doncaster? My constituents in Bentley were flooded in 2007 and again in 2019. Does she recognise the need for action to minimise the risk that they are flooded again?
Rebecca Pow
The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. We have many schemes, grants and funds, but it has to be calculated. When working with the people who allocate the grants, it has to be done on the basis of the number of homes and properties protected. He knows that there is a formula for that. I urge him to continue to work with the EA, the Government and the local resilience forums so that the schemes that will help his people and communities can come forward.
In West Yorkshire, phase 1 of the Leeds flood alleviation is now complete, and phase 2 is well under way. That is a £94 million investment.
Looking ahead to the next six years, the Government will be investing over half a billion pounds in Yorkshire, with partnership funding making the overall figure significantly higher, reducing flood risk to approximately 22,000 homes. I have touched on the £170 million fund that has just been handed out to a whole range of projects that had been affected particularly during the coronavirus pandemic to help communities there. Indeed, £50 million of that went to Yorkshire, with £16 million going to the Sheffield upper Don Valley and the upper Don catchment natural flood management scheme to better protect 19,000 jobs and 665 businesses.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central touched on natural flood management. I totally agree that this is one of the tools that have to be engaged with. Many projects are already coming forward and there are many more to come. We are committed through our new flood policy statement to many more of these nature-based solutions.
Dan Jarvis
I really welcome what the Minister says about natural flood solutions, and I welcome the response that she is giving. However, it would be a terrible shame if we ended the debate without clarity about the summit. Hon. Friends have raised important points about the extent to which all of Yorkshire will be involved in this particular gathering. It would be really useful if she could clarify whether it is just for South Yorkshire or for the wider Yorkshire county area. If it is just for South Yorkshire, what plans are in place to ensure that the other constituent parts of the county get the support that they so urgently need as well?
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Member has been assiduous in pressing me. The meeting that the letter has gone out for is for South Yorkshire, and a raft of MPs have been invited to it. The Secretary of State and I very much want to discuss the issues that have been flagged up to me over the summer—actually, over all the months since I stepped into this role—and that is what we are going to discuss. We have had a great deal of engagement with other MPs. I can list for him all the constituencies, if he wants me to go back over that, all the people we have engaged with in our Department, and the flood schemes that the Environment Agency and DEFRA are engaged with.
Returning to nature-based solutions, this is a really important tool going forward, for a raft of reasons—not just for flood control but to help with our climate change mitigation and our policies on reaching net zero and carbon capture and storage. It has multiple benefits and it is one of the tools that we will be using. The Government have committed a component of our capital programme to natural flood management and we have provided specific funding, in addition, to specific schemes. I hope that the hon. Member will welcome that and that we will see more of these projects coming forward in Yorkshire in general.
On the tree front, I, too, am very keen to plant a great many trees. We have our tree strategy, which I hope the hon. Member has looked at, read and inputted into, because it is now closed. We will be summarising it shortly. It will inform the Government’s commitment to plant 30,000 hectares per year across the UK by 2025. It sounds like he is going to be playing his part in helping us to do that, and I very much welcome that. Funding from the nature for climate fund will go towards helping with tree planting.
I think that we and the hon. Member have much in common: green recovery, climate change, and nature-based solutions. He needs to learn a lot more about what we are doing in DEFRA, because all these ideas are coming through, not least in the Environment Bill and the Government’s commitment to a green recovery. I look forward to the meeting that is coming up on 8 October, and thank him very much, again, for raising this issue tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
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 |
Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) | Chris Elmore |
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) | Patrick Grady |
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 |
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) | Sir Graham Brady |
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 |
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 |
Deferred Divisions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 250 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 249 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Insolvency (Moratorium) (Special Administration for Energy Licencees) (Regulations) 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Insolvency (Moratorium) (Special Administration for Energy Licencees) (Regulations) 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 943).
It is always a pleasure to conduct these affairs under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The regulations were made on 2 September and laid before the House on 4 September. The Committee will be aware that the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a free-standing moratorium regime for companies in financial distress. Those companies were allowed a breathing space from their creditors to pursue a rescue or restructure.
The regulations modify the way in which that moratorium regime, inserted into the Insolvency Act 1986 last year, applies with respect to companies that hold an electricity distribution or transmission licence or a gas transporter licence, to a smart meter communication licensee, and to companies that hold an electricity or gas supply licence.
The purpose of the regulations is to require a relevant energy company such as those I have described to notify the Secretary of State and Ofgem when it applies for, enters, extends or ends a moratorium under part A1 of the Insolvency Act. The regulations will avoid any delay to the ability of the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make a decision about whether to apply for a special administration order.
The regulations also modify the part A1 restrictions on enforcement and legal proceedings during a moratorium, so that Ofgem can continue to engage in legal processes, including enforcing licence obligations and revoking licences, without first having to seek the court’s permission. That feature of the regulations will enable Ofgem to act promptly to protect consumers. It should be noted that special administration has never been used in the energy sector, and the Government’s view is that it remains an unlikely resort.
The regulations are a short, simple and proportionate step to align the changes that the Government have made to provide businesses with flexibility and breathing space, which they need to continue trading during difficult times. They are also necessary to protect the interests of energy consumers and other market participants.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship to consider this important statutory instrument, Mr Davies.
As winter approaches, and more and more of our constituents are required to stay at home to protect themselves and their families from coronavirus, the Office for National Statistics has said that nearly half of all workers were working from home in June, and a further 2.2 million vulnerable people have been required to shield themselves. I say that to emphasise that the provision of energy to our homes is of particular importance now. There are now, according to Ofgem, more than 60 energy suppliers in the UK providing jobs and services to tens of millions of us. Although discussion about the sector is often dominated by the topic of the big six, there are many smaller energy companies currently at threat.
Insolvencies of energy companies have occurred in increasing numbers in recent years because of undercapitalisation of new entrants in the supply market, over-optimistic plans for growth and new customers, and inadequate provision for levies and other requirements on energy companies that are part of the funding landscape. Five relatively small energy providers—with fewer than 200,000 customers—went bankrupt last year, and since 2016 a total of 13 such companies, some of which were considerably larger, have gone under.
As the Minister said, the SI modifies the working of the moratorium regime in part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of particular energy companies involved in provision or distribution of gas, electricity and smart meter services. Currently, companies in distress can enter a moratorium period to enable possible restructuring and rescue activities to take place while in administration. The modifications that the SI introduces will require struggling companies to notify the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that they are in a moratorium, so that the Secretary of State can consider whether to apply for a special administration order that will enable Ofgem to protect continuity of supply and, if appropriate, commence proceedings for the transfer of supply to another company through the supplier of last resort proceedings.
There is some fear about the solvency of a number of energy supply companies as a result of the financial losses that have occurred as a result of measures relating to bill payments and increasing bad debts. That could lead to companies defaulting on levy payments due in October. If that occurs, Ofgem will manage the insolvency by a series of stages to prevent a company from taking on new customers if it is seen to be failing in its licence obligations and then will enter supplier of last resort arrangements when the company is no longer able to trade.
With companies inevitably falling into those arrangements following insolvency, can the Minister tell us to what extent socialisation of compensation for companies taking over customers of failed concerns will have a detrimental effect on bill payers generally and the finances of other more stable companies? Is he considering any changes to the supplier of last resort compensation regime to make that less of a customer and company burden in the future?
In effect, the process is equivalent to a competitive bid from other energy companies for the customers of the failed company, with provisions about continuity of tariffs, prices and so on being part of the bid process. The company taking over the customers may be compensated for the work involved in doing so through payments socialised across the sector. Because of the risk of a high number of sizeable companies going bust, those payments have become a real source of concern for stable energy companies that find themselves having to underwrite payments for failed companies that may have previously tried to undercut them with cheap but unsustainable customer tariffs.
A substantial cause of collapse appears to be the borrowing of levy payment liabilities by troubled energy companies, using the sums required to pay those levies to keep themselves afloat. The levy payment is due each October and, historically, troubled companies have defaulted on payments of levies at that point, leading to notices issued against them from Ofgem, and either arrangements to pay the levy in instalments or effective foreclosure on the company. In 2019 we lost eight domestic energy suppliers, meaning half a million customers were moved to suppliers they did not pick, with 87% ending up back at one of the big six companies. Is the Minister considering either short or long-term changes to the conditions for the payment of the levies by energy companies in the light of the this year’s circumstances?
A combination of the energy price cap, the effects of covid-19 and the imminent emergence of this year’s levy payment point may cause a further number of energy companies to go under this year, something that the Government are effectively acknowledging through the SI. Can the Minister tell me how many companies he anticipates may become insolvent this October because of covid-19 price cap problems? How many does he fear may go under because of continued problems associated with the management of finances and payment obligations? Will his Department seek to distinguish between those companies that are in difficulty because of immediate problems and those that are in difficulty because of their own business models and poor management of liabilities? I recognise that that may be difficult to achieve. It is important to have a view on those questions, because it is important for Ofgem to manage these eventualities and ensure continuity of supply, particularly at this time.
Labour has always supported a competitive energy market that provides cheap and reliable services to consumers, and the rights of consumers always to have access to the essential energy provisions that they need. With winter approaching and the virus again spreading, we must do all we can to ensure our constituents do not have to worry about their energy provision. For that reason we will not oppose the regulations, but I would be grateful if the Minister answered some of my questions.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) is not in his place, and I welcome the hon. Lady as his temporary replacement, but I detect his hand in many of her remarks; it was extremely characteristic of him to widen the scope of the debate. This is just an SI, but I was asked how many companies I thought would be insolvent. If I had a number, I would certainly never divulge it in this public forum. A lot of the questions posed by the hon. Lady are relevant, but they are not specifically tied to the nature of this debate or our specific requirement to consider the SI. I am happy to engage with her and her colleague in subsequent debates—that is an open invitation. I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I also thank you, Mr Davies, for the patient way in which you have chaired this debate.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend looking at making it easier for communities to produce and distribute their own energy, and if so, would this SI affect their capability to do so?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I appreciate the enthusiasm of hon. Members to engage with this debate, but we have to be specific about the nature of the SI. I am absolutely happy to debate and talk to my hon. Friend individually about the scope for local communities to engage with energy provision, but the scope of the SI is, unfortunately, very narrowly concerned with the financial distress in which energy companies—as defined in the measure—may find themselves. Those companies will essentially have to pre-warn or give warning to the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State and Ofgem can act swiftly to address the situation. That is what the SI relates to, but I am of course happy to debate wider considerations in another forum.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his comments and his recognition of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the shadow Minister. However, I am slightly confused. As the Minister says, the SI is about insolvency provisions for energy suppliers, yet he seems to believe that any consideration of the likely level of distress and insolvency of energy suppliers, and indeed the impact of covid-19 on the energy market, which has given rise to the need for this SI, to be out of the scope of this debate. I have to say that I find that hard to understand, given that this SI is addressing that issue.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have tried to be as clear as possible, but I have been dragged in all sorts of different directions. When financial distress occurs the SI has two provisions. First, it enjoins, instructs or demands that companies give information to the Secretary of State, so that the Secretary of State and Ofgem can intervene. Secondly, it modifies the moratorium regime that the hon. Lady described in respect of those companies and puts restrictions on legal proceedings by creditors of those firms, so it essentially protects those firms in financial distress from their creditors. The causes of the financial distress, the impacts of covid-19, are not actually addressed in the SI.
I am sure the hon. Lady will want to come back on that, but I have resisted by saying that I am prepared to debate those issues in another forum. I do not think this is the right forum in which to engage with that, because we could be here all morning if that is what she wants to do. I am struck by the fact that, if she is very engaged with the debate, so few of her colleagues have attended this critical SI, which rather tugs against her contention that we can debate those wider issues in this format.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not going to give way. In conclusion, I would like to say that the regulations align the corporate moratorium regime that the Government introduced last summer with existing powers to protect energy consumers and other market participants, and on that basis I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
Committee members will be aware of the unprecedented action that the Government continue to take to combat the economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. In March, we swiftly launched the coronavirus job retention scheme to protect jobs and businesses from the worst of the pandemic. We have since seen millions of workers come off furlough and get back to work, and we will pay businesses a job retention bonus of £1,000 for each of those still employed at the end of January next year.
In addition, last week the Chancellor set out a new job support scheme to help affected businesses protect jobs as they seek to return to operations in the coming months. To support apprenticeships to continue during the pandemic, we introduced a range of flexibilities to promote remote learning and assessment, and enabled furloughed apprentices to continue to trade. As we build back stronger from the pandemic, apprenticeships will play a key role in creating jobs and boosting the skills that employers need to increase their productivity. We know that young people starting their careers are disproportionately impacted in economic downturns, so in our plan for jobs we announced payments of £2,000 to employers hiring a new apprentice aged under 25 between 1 August and 31 January 2021. Employers can also claim payments of £1,500 for taking on new apprentices aged 25 or older. For young people seeking the skills to enter the labour market, we are tripling the number of traineeships we make available and rewarding employers for offering work placements, as well as subsidising employers to create new short-term roles as part of the kickstart scheme.
We know that apprentices are not immune from this economic impact. Although employers are doing their best to protect existing apprentices, we know that many businesses are having to make difficult choices that they never wanted to make. Sadly, this will see apprentices being made redundant before they can complete their training. That impacts the apprentice personally and their ability to repay their employer—through increased productivity—the investment made in that apprentice’s future.
To help apprentices through this difficult time, in August this year we launched a new support service for redundant apprentices. It provides individuals who have been made redundant, or who are at risk of redundancy, advice and guidance on the impact of redundancy on their apprenticeship. It also enables them to access wider support services such as careers and financial advice and wellbeing support. Importantly, it helps them find new apprenticeship opportunities with employers. So far, more than 450 employers have registered to share details of their vacancies with redundant apprentices, with each employer often offering multiple opportunities in different roles and in different regions. One example is Troup Bywaters + Anders, an award-winning design SME that has already taken on three apprentices who were made redundant from their previous roles. The company told us:
“Having shared our vacancies through the new Redundancy Support Service for Apprentices, I can confirm that it is an easy way for us to play our part in helping shape people’s futures.”
We hope that any apprentice who is made redundant will be able to secure new employment and continue their apprenticeship with a new employer, but we know that that will not always be possible, so we now require training providers to produce a record of part completion when an apprentice has to stop their apprenticeship as a result of redundancy. It sets out the knowledge, skills and behaviours that the apprentice has already acquired prior to redundancy, providing a record of achievement and helping the apprentice to secure future employment. We already enable apprentices made redundant within six months of the end of their training to continue and complete their apprenticeship whether or not they are successful in finding a new employer.
Where an individual has made a significant commitment to their training and the goal of occupational competence is in sight, it is important that they are not robbed of the opportunity to complete their apprenticeship by the misfortune of redundancy. We now want to go further and give more apprentices who suffer redundancy the opportunity to complete their apprenticeship should they not find new employment immediately.
As we have replaced apprenticeship frameworks with new higher quality employer-designed standards, the average length of an apprenticeship has increased: up from 498 days in 2015-16 to 611 days in 2018-19. In recognition of that, we are now legislating to enable redundant apprentices to complete their apprenticeship if they are more than six months from completion at the time of redundancy and they have completed 75% or more of their training programme. That will mean that, for example, an engineering apprentice who had completed three years of a four-year programme when they were made redundant could now continue and complete the final year of their training, even if they cannot secure new employment during the lifetime of their apprenticeship.
In extending this policy we are acutely sensitive that apprenticeships are jobs, not simply training programmes, and that the unique benefit of an apprenticeship is its combination of off-the-job training and the on-the-job application of those skills. Without an employer for a sustained period of time, it becomes increasingly difficult for an apprentice to develop the on-the-job experience necessary to attain occupational competence and to pass the end-point assessment.
In our judgment, and based on discussions with employers and providers and on advice from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which oversees the development of apprenticeship standards, the completion of at least three quarters of an apprenticeship is necessary for an apprentice to have a realistic prospect of achieving occupational competence without the support and guidance of an employer. For that reason we have defined the policy in the way that we have. It means that up to an additional 8,000 apprentices currently undertaking apprenticeships of longer than two years could complete their programmes in the event of redundancy.
Having taken steps to encourage employers to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, we are now taking steps to extend support to existing apprentices seeking to complete their apprenticeship in the face of redundancy. This legislation strikes the right balance between supporting apprentices and protecting the quality of the apprenticeship experience they receive and the endorsement it provides to employers of those apprentices’s knowledge, skills and behaviours. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and also for her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), which set out the Government’s proposed changes.
Although Labour Members welcome the measures, I must ask why it has taken the Government six months since the start of the crisis to introduce them. We agree with the Minister that apprentices who are at least 75% of their way through their programme should be allowed to complete, but, for those apprentices who have already experienced redundancy or seen their employment ended in the past six months, the support sadly comes too late. The Minister must surely accept that they should not miss out on support.
Recently, a furloughed apprentice who worked for British Airways contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield as he was at risk of redundancy; unfortunately that person has since been made redundant. The Minister is well aware of difficulties in the airline and aerospace sector. What support will be made available for that apprentice and for others in a similar situation, who have already been made redundant and now face an uphill struggle to find an alternative employer to finish an apprenticeship in sectors where new opportunities are scarce? Can she say how the vacancy sharing service, which will make redundant apprentices aware of current opportunities, will operate?
I also want to raise the issue of apprentices who are currently in limbo about receiving their end-point assessments due to coronavirus restrictions. The Minister already knows of Hannah, who has been unable to complete her apprenticeship as a gas engineer since May as the assessment centres are closed and there has been no provision available to assess her work. As the Minister knows, Hannah recently called into “Any Questions?” to highlight her experience and to describe how unfair she felt it was that an assessor is unable to stand 2 metres away from her and supervise her completion, when she would be allowed to be closer to someone in order to get a tattoo or a haircut. As in so many other areas, Government advice can seem inconsistent.
Due to the delay to her end-point assessment, Hannah has missed out on an employment opportunity, and she still has no date for the assessment to take place. Her apprenticeship is due to end this Friday, I understand, and she faces an uncertain future, unable to complete her apprenticeship or to apply for jobs in the sector. I ask the Minister what advice and support she can offer to Hannah, how many others like Hannah will be left in limbo despite today’s measures, and what measures will be taken to ensure that assessments can take place under current social distancing guidelines?
Turning to the Minister’s reference to advice and guidance, may I ask which services will be providing this and how many apprentices they are equipped to deal with? Will she give us more detail about the signposting service, which, as I understand it, will act as a triage service, directing redundant apprentices to local and national services? What will the service look like on the ground, and how will she ensure that provision is available across the country, rather than risking its becoming a postcode lottery? Can she set out what services will be involved in the support and how she can be certain that they can handle the number of former apprentices who will need their assistance?
In the past few months, we have seen many announcements from Government: for example, in July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced 30,000 new traineeships but, almost three months on, the tender for procuring those has not even been issued, and just last week the Chancellor ignored Labour’s call to introduce a national retraining strategy. However, if the Government will not listen to Labour, perhaps the Minister will listen to business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield recently met a delegation of employers, trade unions and sector bodies who are desperately concerned about a skills shortage caused by redundancies. They have written to the Education Secretary to call for the creation of a national skills taskforce to redeploy skilled workers and provide retraining and upskilling opportunities for both young and older workers. Will the Minister consider their proposal, which includes skills matching, which she also described and which could support redundant apprentices and redundant workers alike?
The signatories to the letter included chief executives and general secretaries of many different bodies, including Make UK, the TUC, Cogent, UK Steel, the British Plastics Federation, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, the Food and Drink Federation and many others. It is difficult to imagine an issue that could bring together such a wide-ranging and diverse group of bodies, but they are united in their call for the Government to act decisively and urgently to set up a skills taskforce to address the urgent skills crisis that we face.
Labour supports the call for a cross-party, pan-industry taskforce, and we commit to working with the Government, trade unions and employer organisations to ensure that such a taskforce could assist the Government in making decisions more holistically and strategically. Will the Minister take on board that suggestion and set up the taskforce that those industry bodies have proposed?
In conclusion, Labour will support this statutory instrument today, but these measures alone are not enough. I urge the Minister to be bolder and to act now to help all those redundant apprentices and those in limbo, so that they can use their much needed skills to help to rebuild our economy, something she rightly says she wants to achieve.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I would like to say that this is a fine statutory instrument that we need to come in. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, 570 young people are undertaking their apprenticeships at this moment in time, and it will be a huge relief to them to know that if, God forbid, the worst-case scenario happens and they are made redundant, having committed so much to their apprenticeship, they will now have this safety net to ensure that qualification—which, sadly, is not regularly taken up in my constituency; in terms of level 3 or level 4, west Staffordshire is well below national averages. This will cause a huge sigh of relief.
I will also mention that yesterday we saw the Government announce the change to the apprenticeship levy, which is a huge step forward with regard to apprenticeships. At the moment, small and medium-sized businesses struggle to access properly the funding and support in place for apprentices. That change would go a long way to ensure that apprenticeships become a more viable option for businesses. Sadly, the stats show that the number of apprenticeships was dropping before coronavirus, which is something that we in this House need to urgently address. Young people in what are now nicknamed blue wall seats, who I proudly represent, do not normally see university as a viable option and in some cases need the money to support their family while getting on to the career ladder. Apprenticeships are a huge opportunity for them.
I urge the Minister to think about how the apprenticeship scheme could be tied into the superb kickstart scheme that the Chancellor announced. Although I appreciate that the scheme is a short-term measure, the Government should certainly consider it as a longer-term solution and a step towards an apprenticeship. Many young people need to understand why doing an apprenticeship is beneficial.
We have had a big focus on apprenticeships at the higher end with degree apprenticeships. I urge the Minister that level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships have their place, especially in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, where young people are sadly not leaving school with the grades that we would like to see compared with national averages and are not ending up in the destinations that we would like to see either. In Stoke, we earn £100 less per person on average than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
This is a fine piece of legislation and I am glad it has been brought forward. I appreciate that things take time as we are in a global pandemic. We also have to make sure that all the relevant bodies are happy and that future employers are satisfied with the fact that someone who has completed only 75% of their course is actually at the right level. I thank the Minister for her work and for her sterling performance at the Education Committee yesterday. I look forward to more innovative legislation in future.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for her comments. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is as passionate as I am about apprenticeships. They are a brilliant way for young people to get the skills that are relevant to the workplace.
Those 570 apprentices in Stoke-on-Trent have made a good decision and we will be there to make sure that it pays off for them. The increasing focus on small and medium-sized companies is vital, because areas such as Stoke have a lot of employers in that bracket, which is why we need to make sure that the apprenticeship system works well for them and for all young people in Stoke-on-Trent so they get that opportunity.
In relation to my hon. Friend’s comments on kickstart and the apprenticeship scheme, they are designed to work together. We expect young people who benefit from kickstart to be taken on and employed full time or to go into the apprenticeship system, learn new skills and progress in the workplace.
Kate Green
I, too, was interested in what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said about the kickstart scheme, because obviously, ideally, there would be a continuum from kickstart to apprenticeship. Will the Minister commit to publishing indications of the journeys that those who begin on kickstart make so that we can see if they do indeed transition into apprenticeships? There is a real concern that the financial incentive for some employers is simply to do the kickstart element at the expense of offering a much richer and more valuable career through an apprenticeship. Obviously that would be of concern to the Minister, as it is to us.
Gillian Keegan
I know that there has been a question about the eligibility for kickstart and apprenticeships and how those two schemes work together, but they do work together because they have different eligibility criteria. For example, to take part in the kickstart scheme, someone would usually be unemployed already and receiving universal credit, as well as meeting other criteria.
It is important to make sure that those opportunities work well together, which is why we are very much focused on the quality of apprenticeships as well. We look at and publish the destination data, certainly for apprenticeships. The kickstart scheme is run by the Department for Work and Pensions, but I am sure that it will look at destination data, because it is a huge investment and it is important that we get it right.
I thank Committee members for their contributions to the debate. I am delighted that apprenticeships seem to be hugely popular. People are focused on understanding how we can improve them, how we can improve the system, how we can create more of them and how we can make sure that every young person is aware of them, because we know that some young people do not hear about those fantastic opportunities to train and have career-led study until it is too late.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about the length of time that this process has taken. Obviously, the initial focus was on making sure that every apprentice could move their training online. That was really the first focus, because during the lockdown—the first phase of this pandemic—nobody was able to go anywhere, and we did not know how long that lockdown was going to last. So, the initial focus was on making sure that the furlough scheme applied to apprentices, and that they could continue their training and access it at home.
The redundancy support package that we already had was for those apprentices who had less than six months of their apprenticeships to go. During that period of the lockdown, very few apprentices were made redundant, because obviously the furlough scheme was in place, it was very generous and it provided ongoing support. However, the hon. Lady mentioned the British Airways worker. I actually spoke to British Airways about some of their apprentices and some of the apprenticeship changes that they were making, because clearly the business has been absolutely devastated by coronavirus; there is no getting away from that for airports and airlines.
The British Airways scheme really depends on the length of the apprenticeship. Most of the BA apprenticeships were for less than two years; in fact, a lot of them lasted for only one year or less. So, if apprentices still had six months of their apprenticeship to go, they could continue to the end-point assessment. And I believe that BA also decided to transfer some of the apprentices into their cabin crew, to make them full-time, and to bring that scheme forward as well.
The end-point assessment is the most important thing for people on the apprenticeship scheme, so that they can demonstrate the skills, knowledge and behaviour that they have learned, and those skills are transferable, so these apprenticeships still have currency. It is important that we get that balance right.
As for how the service—the job-sharing service—will work, the first aspect is making sure that we write to all employers, ensuring that they know it is available and encouraging them to bring forward any vacancies they have. The next step is to ensure that we also look after the apprentices. So, we are in contact with apprentices. If they make it known that they are redundant, we offer the service to them and we will also keep in contact with them later to check on how they are doing and to find out whether they have got a job. I believe I am right in saying that the service is run by the National Careers Service, and there has been more investment in the National Careers Service overall to ensure that it has the capacity to deal with this.[Official Report, 7 October 2020, Vol. 681 c. 8MC.]
The hon. Lady mentioned Hannah and, yes, I very much enjoyed speaking to Hannah on “Any Questions?” I will just relate this legislation to Hannah’s case. She was at the end of a three-year gas engineering apprenticeship. If she had been, say, two years and three months into that apprenticeship, this legislation would have made the difference for her. Without it and before it, Hannah could have done two years and three months of her apprenticeship and then, although she would have a partial completion record, she would not have been able to complete the apprenticeship. This measure would allow her to complete.
Regarding the end-point assessments, the vast majority of them happened, whether remotely or in some other way. The institute—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—and the awarding organisations went through every single apprenticeship standard, and as many end-point assessments as possible took place.
However, there were some apprentices who could not complete their end-point assessments, as I explained to Hannah. She asked why a predicted grade could not be used for her apprenticeship. However, there are certain professions, such as being a gas engineer, where we absolutely need to check the competency of somebody to practise. The end-point assessment is a licence to practise, including dealing with some very dangerous substances and materials, and there are a number of apprenticeships that fit into that category. With those, we regretfully had to delay the end-point assessment because it had to be done in person.
Now that colleges are back and now that independent training providers are back, the hon. Lady is right that it is perfectly viable for those end-point assessments to be made and they are now taking place. We have a team of people in the Department who are in touch with Hannah and her training provider, to make sure that she will get her end-point assessment.
The other thing I would say is that Hannah will be a qualified gas engineer quite soon and there is a great demand for them. The hon. Lady talked about skill shortages and there is a great demand for qualified gas engineers. I believe that somebody phoned into the programme to offer her a job; it was not near where she lives, but that still shows the demand for her skills. So, I am very confident that she will have a lot to offer the workplace. Nevertheless, we really need to ensure that, where someone will be operating dangerous equipment or using other things that can endanger themselves or someone else if they do not have the required competency levels, we do not take any risks with that.
As for skills shortages, we ought to remember that before coronavirus we had 3.8% unemployment in this country and massive skills shortages. In my first six weeks as the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships and skills, I spent all my time talking to various sectors about the tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of vacancies in their particular sector. That is why yesterday’s announcement was so important, with respect to how we help people affected by coronavirus, where their sector has been badly hit and may take longer to recover—or may, indeed, not recover to the full extent—into areas where there are massive skills shortages. That will still go on.
The hon. Lady mentioned setting up a skills shortage taskforce. We have many initiatives to focus on skills shortages and on trying to match people at risk of redundancy, or who are made redundant, with the relevant areas and with the right training, whether through the apprenticeship system, online, through a full-time course or even, now, a boot camp—or via any of the other schemes that we have put in place.
Those initiatives are run with the mayoral combined authorities, local enterprise partnerships, local authority groups and employer groups. We have them in construction, the creative industries, engineering, shipbuilding and green jobs, to name just a few.
Jonathan Gullis
I should like to give an example of that from Stoke-on-Trent. Staffordshire chamber of commerce is acting as the main focal point, working alongside Stoke-on-Trent College to ensure that people who are falling through the gap can get access to businesses, which are recruited by the LEP and Stoke-on-Trent City Council to engage with the chamber of commerce. It is also getting local Jobcentre Plus offices to ensure that anyone who has come on to their books recently or who fits the criteria is sent to engage with the college and start the process that will hopefully find them an apprenticeship. Does the Minister agree that that is the kind of thinking we need, and that it is up to areas where local governing bodies have the data to find such creative solutions?
Gillian Keegan
I absolutely agree. We all have to work together. These are extraordinary times and they demand extraordinary action. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the chamber of commerce, because it is vital in delivering that service across the country.
We all hope that redundancy will be a fate faced by as few apprentices as possible, but businesses face enormous challenges and we need to be prepared to support apprentices as far as we can, while protecting the integrity of apprenticeships and the mark of quality that they now represent to employers. By supporting the regulations today we can increase the number of apprentices who can complete their apprenticeship in the event of redundancy, recognising the sustained commitment that those individuals have made to their training over months and years. That will make a huge difference to them and enable them to make a full contribution to developing the skills that our businesses and country need to recover and thrive in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
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, 29 September 2020, Vol. 681, c. 158.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson):
An error has been identified in the statement I made to the House on 29 September 2020.
The correct statement should have been:
Gavin Williamson
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 10 September, set out a tiered approach in higher education.
British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 View all British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee on the British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill. I have a couple of preliminary announcements. You will all understand the need for social distancing. I will intervene to remind you of it if necessary; I hope it will not be. Note passing should be electronic only. The Hansard Reporters would be most grateful if hon. Members could email electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. No amendments have been tabled, and I intend there to be a single debate on both clauses of the Bill. We will now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Power of the British Library Board to borrow money
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, for the many hours that I expect to speak on this Bill. I thank hon. Members for being here; they did not have to be. I asked them and I really respect their time, so I thank them very much for attending.
I am speaking in support of my private Member’s Bill because it is important, though it may not look that important—it is very short. It simply allows the British Library to borrow—not books, but money. The reason why that is important is that the British Library has a unique, important place in all parts of the United Kingdom, and here I am looking at the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru at Westminster. The British Library is important for all Members of the House, not just this Committee. It needs the ability to borrow money so that it can expand to reach all parts of the United Kingdom.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill. In my 19 years in the House, I have never got anywhere near the top of the ballot, so I congratulate him, with some jealousy, on getting this far. I will also say that I am a Member from Wales as well. This is not entirely clear from the explanatory notes: does the Bill permit the library to borrow money privately, not just from the state?
Bim Afolami
The Bill allows the British Library to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, and so from the Treasury, through its sponsor Department, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify that if she believes it to be incorrect. That is my understanding.
The ability to borrow money is important because libraries in the 21st century are not just repositories of books; they are places where people can get online, start a business and get advice. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, the economic impact of which we all know has been huge. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the bedrock of every part of this country and every single community. The British Library has helped, in the past three years, some 12,000 small and medium-sized businesses across the country through its business and intellectual property centres. With the money that it will now be enabled to borrow, it can expand throughout the United Kingdom and help more businesses.
It is worth saying that the businesses that the British Library’s business and IP centres have helped have a 90% success rate of lasting for more than three years, which is something like double the national average, so the centres are doing a good job.
The Bill enables the British Library to build on the money that the Chancellor announced in the Budget in March—£13 million extra to support libraries throughout the United Kingdom. It will allow the British Library to expand those business and IP centres, so that more people and more parts of this country—not just London —can benefit from their expertise. Indeed, these sensible arrangements to borrow money, which I say again the library will do through its sponsor Department, DCMS, will allow the library to do many other things in future, too.
The Bill is necessary—short but important. I thank all the Members of the Committee for being here, and for hopefully supporting the Bill.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on his private Member’s Bill and on his very short speech. Mine will be slightly longer, so I would just like a little patience from the other Government Members.
I am a passionate supporter of the Bill. Labour supported it on Second Reading and we continue to support it in Committee. The British Library has been keen to obtain the power to borrow for some time; hopefully, that wait is almost over.
As a member of the British Library, I am a big fan of its work. When we debated the Bill back in March, which seems like a lifetime ago, Members from all parties were enthusiastic about the future of the library, especially after a Budget that brought good news for it: it promised £95 million for the Boston Spa Renewed project, and a further £25 million to support the library in opening a British Library North in Leeds city centre. Members will not be surprised to learn that, as a Yorkshire MP, I am very keen to see that come to fruition.
That is because a physical presence for our national institutions outside central London sends a powerful message, and opens the door to opportunity for all. Examples include the Victoria and Albert Museum in Dundee, the BBC in Salford and the Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, and soon Channel Four will have a presence in Leeds, which I have also championed. The British Library already employs hundreds of people at its impressive Boston Spa site, but I am looking forward to millions more having ready access to the library’s resources and exhibitions when it opens in Leeds.
I want to put on record that the power to borrow should not lead to an expectation of borrowing. The grant funding that the British Library receives must remain in place, and new powers to borrow must allow the library to innovate and pursue projects such as efficiency improvements to the estate, upgrading to more efficient digital systems, and developing commercial products and services that could supplement the library’s grant in aid. Also, I am keen to see the library use any financial freedom to improve its digital platforms, as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, and particularly its digital collections.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend rightly identifies the role of the British Library, a great British institution doing a lot of work in this country, but is it not also part of our international outreach? It engages with similar institutions as part of Britain’s cultural offer to the world, which is one of the great attractors to this country.
Tracy Brabin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certainly, when I sit in the reading rooms of the British Library, I see international students from all over the world. The library is part of the soft power that draws the cleverest people from across the world to London, and will hopefully draw them to Leeds.
I want the library to keep growing and expanding its outreach work. In many communities, libraries have been lost or cut, so it is important that exhibitions and galleries are not confined to King’s Cross. The library should always be seeking opportunities to get out to new areas. Indeed, it recently produced pop-up displays in over 20 partner libraries across the UK, through its Living Knowledge Network. That is the sort of innovation that I encourage; let us hope that we see more of it.
It is easy to look excitedly at the possibilities for the future and ignore the elephant in the room. Covid has impacted all walks of life, and the British Library has not been exempt. It was closed for four months, and even now, after reopening, footfall is significantly suppressed due to social distancing requirements. Of course, this has a major financial impact, and with visitor numbers a fraction of what they were, the library is likely to continue to face financial hardship for a period to come. I know that the library has drawn down on DCMS support already, and that all of us present are keen to see the library thrive again in future. I applaud it for prioritising access to reading rooms for medical research, and for using some of its space for a testing centre.
Earlier I touched on digitisation. The library has worked hard during covid to expand its online offering. The current exhibition of Hebrew manuscripts is available online, and its next exhibition, “Unfinished Business: The Fight for Women’s Rights”, has an exciting digital offer, too, including online discussions, a podcast series, and online resources for researchers.
The Bill brings the British Library in line with DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries, as well as the British Film Institute, the Churches Conservation Trust, Historic England and more, by allowing it to borrow money as its peers already do. However, we need to support the library, and many other organisations, not only in borrowing money in future, but in the here and now, during the covid crisis, and we need to reach out across our communities. The British Library has made great strides in that direction already, and we support it and its power to borrow money.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I want to speak in support of the Bill. It is absolutely essential that we support libraries, library services, and one of the finest libraries in the United Kingdom. It is a testament to what libraries should represent.
It was once said that
“A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies”,
and that we should never trust a person who does not bring a book to a room. It is important that we recognise the importance of people’s access to reading material. It gives them interaction, escapism, opportunity, and powerful learning. The British Library, of course, does so much more. It has an outreach programme, and I agree 100% with what the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, said about libraries reaching people who are hard to reach.
The threat to library services has increased because of covid. If the British Library is able to borrow money, and extend its digital platform, so that people can access it through a new and increased digital awareness, that too will be a benefit, but that of course costs money, and we cannot have everyone coming to Government with their hand out, saying, “We need more money.” The Bill creates an opportunity and flexibility that allows the library to use its skills to gain resources to expand its services. I hope that that will be possible, and that this House will support the Bill completely. I look forward to seeing it enacted.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden on introducing the Bill, and I thank him. As he says, it is small but perfectly formed, and that is why it has the strong support of the Government. As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen says, just before Second Reading—it seems a really long time ago—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed a suite of Government funding: up to £95 million for the British Library’s plans for Boston Spa, £13 million to expand the brilliant network of business and intellectual property centres, and £25 million to help find a site in Leeds for British Library North. After all that good news and positivity, the British Library went into lockdown, and, like so many other cultural institutions up and down our country, lost visitors and valuable commercial opportunities overnight.
The financial impact of covid-19 will of course last a very long time. The British Library, along with many other DCMS-sponsored bodies, will be working out how to manage that in the weeks and months ahead. It will need to be more flexible than ever before, which is why we need to give the British Library the same option to borrow money as its peer museums and galleries. The Bill will remove the legislative barrier that prevents the British Library from having the freedom that its fellow national museums and galleries enjoy.
We are granting the British Library the power to borrow money, but of course that does not mean that it has to, or that it will. There is no guarantee that any application to borrow will be successful, but it is important that it has the option to apply.
Kevin Brennan
Will the Minister clarify the point that I raised with the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden about private borrowing? Does the Bill confer on the board the power to borrow money privately, or can it borrow only in the way that he suggested?
Caroline Dinenage
It is quite simple: the board has the right to borrow commercially, but it would have to prove that such borrowing was better value for money than borrowing via Government loans, so in reality, it would be Government borrowing in most cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden suggests. Of course, that does not mean that the board will borrow, but it is important that it has the option.
As we have heard, the British Library’s response to lockdown enabled its amazing collection and services to be still available to the public, albeit accessed differently. Vitally, it has also continued to support entrepreneurs during this incredibly difficult time, when we need them more than ever, through online services and webinars. The Government invested £13 million to expand the BIPC network in order to ensure that those vital services reach even more parts of the country and more budding entrepreneurs right across England. That is essential as the country recovers from the economic impact of covid.
As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen said, the British Library’s “Unfinished Business” series of events, which was due to open in March—I was really looking forward to it—has been postponed but will finally open next month. It will be brilliant, and footfall is beginning to increase again.
The operational freedoms introduced in 2013 helped all our national cultural institutions, including the British Library, to be more self-governing and more financially independent. Those freedoms have given it the autonomy to make decisions independently and greater flexibility over its income, helping it to innovate and continue its fabulous work. Museums and galleries have also benefited from the power to borrow to improve their sites, give much better access to visitors, and take better options and opportunities to display our incredibly valuable national collections. It is only fair that the British Library should have the same opportunity, and I therefore urge the Committee to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Boundary Commission for Wales: Appointments
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I should like to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove) has made the following appointments under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, following a competition run in accordance with the governance code on public appointments:
Huw Vaughan Thomas, appointed as a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales, effective from 5 October 2020 until 4 October 2025; and Sam Hartley, appointed as a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales, effective from 5 October 2020 until 4 October 2025.
[HCWS481]
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act: Section 46 Report
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My hon. Friend, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written statement:
Section 57(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (“the Act”) provides that, if any report required by the Act is not laid before Parliament at the relevant time, the appropriate Minister must publish a written statement explaining the reasons.
On 11 April 2019 the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Dominic Raab) laid before Parliament the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/843) (“the correction regulations”) to correct minor errors in a number of sanctions regulations that had been made under the Act during March 2019.
In making the correction regulations, the Minister was required by section 45(2)(b) of the Act to consider in respect of each discretionary purpose (i.e. a purpose which is not in compliance with a UN or any other international obligation) of the sanctions regulations being amended by the correction regulations: that carrying out that purpose would meet one or more of the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (i)of section 1(2) of the Act, that there are good reasons to pursue that purpose, and that the imposition of sanctions is a reasonable course of action for that purpose.
The Minister was further required by section 46(2) of the Act to lay a report before Parliament at the same time as the correction regulations explaining why he was of that opinion that the discretionary purposes had been met.
In this case, the Minister reached the conclusions in respect of section 45(2)(b) for substantially the same reasons as set out in the statutory reports that the Minister had laid before Parliament, in the preceding month, alongside the following statutory instruments: on 7 March in respect of the Iran (Sanctions) (Nuclear) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/461) (available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/461/pdfs/uksiod_20190461_en.pdf); on 8 March in respect of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/411) (available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/411/pdfs/uksiod_20190411_en.pdf); on 15 March in respect of the Counter-Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/573) (available at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/573/pdfs/uksiod_20190573_en.pdf).
However, due to a regrettable administrative oversight in the Department, the report required by section 46(2) of the Sanctions Act was not laid before Parliament. The responsible Department has amended its practices to ensure that all statutory reports are laid before Parliament as required.
[HCWS479]
Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (Amendment) (England) Reg
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
On 26 March 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force, imposing restrictions on people’s movements and gatherings, and requiring the closure of certain retail and public premises, in the interest of public health in light of the coronavirus pandemic. A review of these regulations must take place at least every 28 days to ensure the restrictions remain necessary. Those regulations are now referred to as the No.2 regulations, given amendments made. They were last amended on Thursday 24 September 2020. Separately, BEIS’ regulations: the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force on Saturday 18 September, where hospitality sector business had placed on them obligations which had previously only featured in HMG guidance.
Taking into account scientific advice, and taking into consideration the Government’s assessment, we now require further amendments to the regulations to give effect to changes as announced by the Prime Minister on 23 September 2020 to take effect at midnight on Sunday evening-Monday morning 28 September 2020.
The changes coming into effect are:
That where relevant premises are identified by the Health Protection (coronavirus, wearing of face coverings in a relevant place) (England) regulations 2020, that businesses will have to display signage or use other means to remind people of their legal obligation to wear face coverings;
That in cafés, restaurants, bars and public houses, that singing, dancing and loud music are not permitted, save for specific exceptions being permitted;
That provisions which were included in BEIS original coronavirus regulations regarding respecting the rule of six in relation to taking bookings, admitting parties or allowing mingling of groups, this has been extended beyond hospitality as it was originally drafted, to mirror the scope of the Health Protection (coronavirus, collection of contact details etc and related requirements) regulations 2020.
These regulations should come into force after midnight on 28 September 2020. The hope was to have laid before Parliament on 25 September 2020 but we were timed out as Parliament rose at 15:00hrs.
These regulations follow the made affirmative procedure. These changes are being made under the emergency procedure, approved by Parliament, because it is necessary for Government to respond quickly to the reduced rate of transmission and our assessment of the current situation. While any restrictions and requirements imposed by law place a significant burden on business, the rising R number in England, and other more restrictive measures elsewhere, mean that it is incumbent on Government to act swiftly to prevent more onerous restrictions or closures being required.
The provisions outlined in these new regulations are necessary to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England with the coronavirus. These additional restrictions offer an opportunity for businesses to operate with restrictions, rather than close. These amendments have been prepared urgently. In order to provide urgent clarity and certainty to the public and businesses of the changes being made and what activity is and is not allowed, I have decided that it is necessary for these regulations to come into force on 28 September 2020 and to then be laid before Parliament forthwith.
Under section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the relevant instrument may be made without a draft having been laid and approved by Parliament if it contains a declaration that the person making it is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make it without a draft being so laid and approved.
I have included such a declaration in these amending regulations.
I hope you understand why we proceeded in this way, and stand ready, as ever, to answer any questions you may have.
Publicly available Government guidance on www.gov.uk is being updated to ensure it fully corresponds with the amended regulations. These remain strict measures, but they are measures that we must take in order to protect our NHS and to save lives.
[HCWS478]
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am today announcing final terms of reference for the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. The inquiry follows the conclusion of the group litigation involving postmasters and Post Office Limited (Post Office Ltd) in December 2019, the Prime Minister’s commitment on 26 February 2020 and my written statement of 10 June 2020.
The Horizon dispute and court case has been ongoing for many years and has had a hugely negative impact on affected postmasters and their families. In his judgments in the “Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues” trials, Mr Justice Fraser identified significant failings at Post Office Ltd and with the Horizon IT system over a number of years.
The Government have formed this inquiry to fully understand these events, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again. Having listened to affected postmasters, the Government have expanded the scope of the inquiry to ensure they get answers to questions that postmasters and others are seeking. the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has therefore invited Sir Wyn Williams FLSW to conduct an inquiry following the judgments of Mr Justice Fraser in the Bates versus Post Office Group Litigation into Post Office Ltd’s Horizon IT system and other related issues arising from the findings of Justice Fraser and the settlement reached following this trial.
To reflect the additional focus of Sir Wyn’s work to that announced in June, it will be called an inquiry, rather than a review. Following commitments from both Post Office Ltd and Fujitsu UK to co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry will be run on a non-statutory basis and have the following terms of reference:
Government want to be fully assured that through the inquiry there is a public summary of the failings that occurred, which were associated with Post Office Ltd’s Horizon IT system. The inquiry will draw on the findings made by Mr Justice Fraser from the Bates versus Post Office Group Litigation (in particular Judgment (No3) “Common Issues” and Judgment (No 6) “Horizon issues”) and other evidence, listen to those that have been most affected, understand what went wrong, and assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place or are underway at Post Office Ltd.
The inquiry shall:
A: Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and identify what key lessons must be learned for the future;
B: Build upon the findings of Mr Justice Fraser, by obtaining all available relevant evidence from Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu and BEIS to establish a clear account of the implementation and failings of Horizon over its lifecycle;
C: Assess whether Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the “Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues” trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future;
D: Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement—including the historical shortfall scheme—have been properly delivered;
E: Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient; to enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations; and to enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions reached by Mr Justice Fraser; and
F: Examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again.
The inquiry will consider only those matters set out in the preceding sections A-F. Post Office Ltd’s prosecution function, matters of criminal law, the Horizon group damages settlement, the conduct of current or future litigation relating to Horizon and or the engagement or findings of any other supervisory or complaints mechanisms, including in the public sector, are outside the inquiry‘s scope.
The inquiry will be led by Sir Wyn Williams FLSW, as the Chair of the inquiry. He will be supported by up to four independent advisers. These independent advisers will support Sir Wyn Williams by providing advice on the sources, content and interpretation of evidence received as appropriate. They may also provide independent scrutiny and challenge in relation to emerging findings and recommendations.
The inquiry should make any recommendations it sees fit, including actions that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings. The inquiry will aim to submit its findings to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy at the latest by summer 2021. The final report will be published by the Secretary of State and the Government will respond in due course.
In order to understand the range of issues fully and provide constructive challenge, the inquiry will undertake engagement with significant stakeholder groups, including current and former postmasters, Post Office Ltd, Fujitsu UK, BEIS and other third parties to identify information that is relevant to and within the scope of the inquiry.
[HCWS477]
Windrush Lessons Learned Review Response
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today we are publishing the Home Office’s comprehensive improvement plan, in response to the Windrush lessons learned review. We have worked closely with community leaders and the cross-government Windrush working group to get this important work right, and I am pleased to have the backing of co-chair Bishop Derek Webley on the steps we are taking. I am also grateful to independent reviewer Wendy Williams for the help she has given in shaping our approach.
The Windrush lessons learned review, published in March, exposed unacceptable failings in the Home Office over many years and an “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation”. I have already accepted Wendy Williams’s important findings and repeated my heartfelt apology for the suffering that members of the Windrush generation endured.
The comprehensive improvement plan sets out the action we are taking to put this right and to ensure the mistakes of the past can never be repeated.
It details the work taking place across the Department under the five themes I previously laid out.
Righting the wrongs and learning from the past
We are determined to ensure the Windrush generation have the full help and support they deserve. More than £2.5 million has now been offered through the Windrush compensation scheme and over 13,300 documents have been provided to over 11,500 individuals confirming their status or British citizenship. We are doing more to reach those affected and encourage them to come forward, via a new national communications campaign.
Every member of Home Office staff will also undertake mandatory training on the history of migration and race in the UK so that they better understand the impact of departmental decisions, including when developing and applying immigration policy.
An inclusive workforce
We have relaunched our race action plan to help improve the diversity of staff in senior roles and ensure the Home Office reflects the diverse communities it serves. The permanent secretary has commissioned an overhaul of how performance is managed to better support black, Asian and minority ethnic colleagues. To provide robust challenge to our plans to make the Home Office more diverse, external experts will also be invited to join the refreshed strategic advisory board we have established.
Openness to scrutiny
I have directed my officials to engage with community leaders, civil society and the public throughout the policy-making process to understand real-life impacts. It is crucial that the Department is receptive to outside challenge, so I am creating a new community and stakeholder engagement hub at the centre of the Home Office. This will draw on best practice to build knowledge and skills across the Department.
We recognise the particular circumstances of those who travel to this country to work and live and so we are consulting with the cross-government Windrush working group to recommend how best to engage with migrant communities directly and facilitate their feedback into our policy development and operational activity.
In addition, we are overhauling the Department’s risk management framework to ensure all staff have the knowledge and responsibility to act upon risks that are identified.
Inclusive and robust policy making
We are improving how we assess the effect of our policies on people from different backgrounds, including by carrying out more training for staff on how to do this well. We have worked with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on its investigation into how the Department fulfilled its public sector equality duty on policies affecting the Windrush generation. Following the publication of its report, we will work with it to ensure this important duty is fully considered in all our work.
We are also putting in place a set of policy tests to ensure the key findings from the Windrush lessons learned review are applied as new policy is developed.
A more compassionate approach—people not cases
This theme is the crux of the cultural change the permanent secretary and I want to see. The Home Office must embrace the human impact of its work and empower staff throughout the Department to do the same. To support this, I have launched a new mandatory “Face Behind the Case” training course for all UK visa and immigration staff, with plans to expand this to other areas. A young people’s board is being established to gain crucial insight from those who have recently experienced the immigration system. We are also making rapid progress on the new vision for the Home Office, consulting staff on the core values we all want to embody.
I have already committed to a full review and evaluation of the compliant environment. While it is right that the Department acts against those who are in the UK illegally, we continue to look closely at how innocent people were wrongly caught up in policies designed to target law breakers. The system must be strong, but it also must be just, so if problems are found, I will fix them.
The comprehensive improvement plan will help transform the Home Office and deliver the lasting and meaningful change the Windrush generation deserve. We will monitor our progress and welcome Wendy Williams’s return in September 2021 where I am confident she will see the start of a genuine culture shift.
More detail is available in the comprehensive improvement plan, which has been laid before Parliament (CP 293), available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/windrush-lessons-learned-review-responsecomprehensive-improvement-plan.
Copies are also available from the Vote Office.
[HCWS480]
House of Lords
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the hybrid sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Holidays: Cancellations
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the arrangements in place to compensate customers whose holidays are cancelled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the challenge consumers and businesses are experiencing regarding refunds for cancelled holidays and flights. We are clear that where a flight or holiday has been cancelled, consumers have a legal right to a refund, which must be paid. The Civil Aviation Authority launched a review into this issue, and as a consequence most airlines are now paying refunds effectively.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. She will be aware that tens of thousands of passengers have complained to the CAA about inexcusable delays in getting compensation for cancelled flights, and that the Consumers’ Association has criticised the CAA, saying:
“It is obvious that the CAA does not have the right tools to take effective action against airlines that show disregard towards passengers and the law”.
Will my noble friend therefore bring in much-needed reforms to enable the regulator to take swift and effective action to protect consumers when the law is broken?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The CAA has a range of powers available to it to take a proportional and pragmatic approach to enforcement. Indeed, a number of conversations have taken place, in particular bilateral engagement between the CAA and individual airlines to encourage them to refund more quickly. The pandemic has highlighted a number of challenges and my department is keen to work with the regulator, industry and consumer groups to learn lessons and make changes in the future.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend observed that two holiday companies, loveholidays and On the Beach, have resigned from ABTA to avoid paying full refunds on cancellations due to Covid-19? Will she look carefully at the regulations and in particular at the alleged loophole that suggests that if the Foreign Office advises against travel and yet the company itself keeps a flight and the accommodation open, a full refund is not payable?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We keep under review the issue of Foreign Office advice and the implications for cancellation and subsequent refund. Travel is no longer the almost risk-free experience that it used to be, and I encourage all consumers when they book travel to look very carefully at whether the travel business is a member of ABTA or ATOL, and what would happen in each circumstance were their journey to be curtailed.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, while every effort should be made to compensate those whose holidays are cancelled because of the Covid pandemic, does the Minister agree that the main focus of the Government and the country should be on defeating this killer disease? With that in mind, will the Minister consider restricting all but necessary travel abroad until the virus is under control?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have very solid arrangements for international travel, which is why we introduced international travel corridors to enable some travellers to go abroad, whether for business or social reasons, without needing to quarantine on the way home. Travel advice and the exemptions list can change at very short notice, and consumers must be aware of that.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 28 July, at col. 114 of Hansard, the Minister advised those travelling that they could mitigate their risks with travel insurance and that they should check it out, and that the Government were in ongoing discussions with the insurance industry about pandemic-related insurance cover. Today, the Which? website identifies only one travel insurance option offering cover for the cancellation of a holiday because of Covid-19 restrictions, and then only in very limited circumstances. What progress have the Government made with the insurance industry, so that the Minister’s advice in that regard is of any value?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Lord will be well aware, the insurance industry is a commercial enterprise and will offer travel insurance to consumers where it is able to do so at a reasonable cost and undertaking a reasonable amount of risk. Of course, conversations with the travel industry and the travel insurance industry are ongoing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, some airlines have taken a very short-sighted approach by seeking to avoid repayments, but it is a sign that they are under severe financial pressure. I do not excuse their actions at all, but it is a symptom of a problem. The Government have provided tailored financial support to help the hospitality industry. When will they provide a package suitable for the travel and transport industries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
All travel companies are facing operational, resource and liquidity issues at the moment, and this is creating the backlog of refunds. The pandemic has created a very difficult situation for the travel industry and beyond, but the Government have already provided support to aviation and beyond. The Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility has been used by airlines, which have drawn down £1.8 billion.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest, having had a holiday cancelled and not refunded. Does my noble friend agree that all customers across the sector should have been refunded by now and that it should not be they who are effectively making loans to solvent travel companies, many of which are simultaneously benefiting from the government support measures she has just outlined?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having had two holidays cancelled, both of which were refunded. The situation is incredibly difficult and we need to look closely at how we are going to get refunds back to consumers, but most businesses in the travel industry are doing their very best to refund.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I understand that the last time an airline operating in the UK faced a fine for breaking consumer law on refunds, delays or cancellations was 17 years ago. In the same period, as I understand it, the Civil Aviation Authority has applied for an enforcement order only once. In the light of that, is the Minister confident that all airlines have done everything they could to comply with statutory consumer rights this year, and does she think that they feel under sufficient pressure to ensure that they comply with statutory consumer rights?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I believe that airlines are feeling under great pressure from all sides at this moment. Of course, the CAA works very closely with the airline industry. Its review, which it launched at the end of July, looked in great detail at the refund policies and practices of each airline. There has been a significant improvement since that review. The CAA is taking a balanced and proportionate approach to enforcement for the time being.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, passenger compensation is an important area for consideration. So, equally, is the UK not becoming marooned. Given suggestions that easyJet is being challenged, what concern is there that the UK’s targeted commercial markets globally might not be well served, which, of course, could also impact socially? What plans do the Government have to ensure that that will not happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, my department is incredibly concerned about domestic air connectivity and international air travel. Of course, we want people to be able to travel, but it must be safe. That is why the international travel corridors exist and why, over the longer term, we will be looking at an aviation recovery programme that will address our connectivity more broadly.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, is there any estimate of how many people have been compensated by the insurance companies?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not have an estimate of how many people have been compensated by insurance companies, but I can tell noble Lords that the Competition and Markets Authority is another way that consumers can report businesses which are acting unfairly, and it has received tens of thousands of complaints. For example, action arising from those complaints resulted in TUI agreeing to refund all customers who were owed a refund by the end of September.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest, having had a holiday cancelled. Does my noble friend agree that while the ATOL scheme is excellent, waiting 90 days to receive repayment is far too long, and will she join me in condemning British Airways for its appalling, obstructive attitude towards making repayments?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The ATOL scheme is very valuable and exists as a safety net to enable people to get their money back if they cannot do so from other sources. While it may take 90 days, consumers can feel reassured that they will get their money back eventually.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I, too, have had a holiday cancelled, and I have been from one organisation to another. The credit card was supposed to cover it; it did not, and nor did the travel insurance. ATOL has not replied, nor ABTA. Cannot we have simple, clear guidance to all those claiming so that they know exactly where to go and can save an awful lot of trouble and harassment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The issue for consumers is that different bookings using different travel agents will be supported by different mechanisms, so there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution. However, there are a number of places that consumers can go to for advice. For example, back in April, the Competition and Markets Authority put out guidance on cancellations and refunds. It was also clear that the airlines had to state clearly in what timeframes those refunds would be provided.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Covid-19: Tracking
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of Exposure Notifications Express in mobile telephone operating systems for the tracking of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, engineers at the Department for Health and Social Care are undertaking an initial assessment of the Exposure Notifications Express capability in consultation with Apple. At this stage, the assessment is paper-based, as software is not available outside the United States. We anticipate ENS becoming available in European countries in one or two months. We continue to assess this capability as information becomes available.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is welcome that the Government have finally decided to move to a decentralised system. Apart from the number of downloads, what success criteria that can be attributable to the Covid-19 app have the Government set, how will these be measured and where will the public be able to see progress against those criteria?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the ultimate aim of the app is to break the chain of transmission. That is done through a number of ways. One is to provide a proximity alert for those who spend time with people who have tested positive. It also has a check-in capability to help our track and trace efforts, and we are building more applications on it all the time. One encouraging statistic is that until 10 o’clock yesterday, there were 6.5 million check-ins through the app. This is an astonishing number and it shows that those who are socialising are using the app.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing this system of track and trace using apps. I encourage my noble friend to look carefully at introducing as soon as possible the express system available in the US and having it integrated into the telephones. He may not be aware that a number of people with whom I am in contact have downloaded the current app, found that it drains their batteries too quickly, and have therefore deleted it. Does he agree that if the express system were integrated into the app, it would do less damage to the battery and it would be more likely that people would stay with it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are looking carefully at the Apple express system. It does not contain the substantial investment in the algorithm from the Alan Turing Institute that gives our own app the sensitivity and protection that phone users are seeking from such a device. We have looked carefully and worked extremely intensely with Apple on the battery and our understanding is that the app does not have a large impact on battery use.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
When will the equality impact assessment be published for the trial in Newham of the test and trace app that uses the Google-Apple technology?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The results of the Newham trial are analytical rather than about the privacy assessment, which has already been published. What we learned from Newham was that security concerns among that community were profound and, therefore, we shaped our marketing in order to address those concerns.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, is not this new system available only on newer smartphones, which older people and poorer people are less likely to possess? They are the most vulnerable. Is there not a danger of this becoming yet another expensive and useless gimmick?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that the NHS app is usable by nine out of 10 smartphones. On average, 87% of Apple and Android phones can download the NHS app. The Apple express service uses a smaller segment of the population because it requires more modern software in the phones.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, what have the Government done to ensure that the new NHS app can read only official QR codes at venues and not scams that have the potential to corrupt a person’s phone or grab their data and cause privacy issues? How can users recognise whether a QR code is genuine and is any guidance available to help them to be cautious?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the use of non-official QR codes is rejected by the app. I have had personal experience of this. We have had downloaded 600,000 of the official QR codes—an astonishing figure. The use of those codes seems to have been embraced and adopted. I have one at my office and it works extremely well.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I confess that I am very confused by the answer given by the Minister to my noble friend Lord Foulkes about older phones. I have a friend who was excited about being able to download the app; her phone is only two or three years old but it was too old to download the app. I have to say that I am sceptical of the figures that the noble Lord has given us. Certainly, some who may or may not be in the lower income bracket, may be older, or may just be careful and have phones bought in 2015, seem unable to download the app at all. Did the noble Lord say there were two apps? This is confusing and I am not sure that it will help.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand the concerns of those who may be struggling to download the app but I reassure the noble Baroness that the current app is supported by iOS versions 13.5 and higher, and by Android Marshmallow version 6.0. That covers by far the vast majority of phones. As I said, 89% of phones should support the app. They include, for instance, Apple iPhone 6S and above—a huge proportion of phones. We are debating a new initiative by Apple to bring in their own protocol that is particularly directed at developing countries which may not be able to support their own app. That initiative is not targeted at the UK. We believe that it may have some relevance in supporting downloads of the NHS app because the alerts created can perhaps be directed to the download site on the iPhone store to encourage those in the UK who have not yet downloaded the NHS app. The Apple initiative is a positive development that will be particularly well used in developing countries.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
Have the Government set a target for the number of people who need to download the NHS Covid app for it to be an effective solution for suppressing the virus? If so, what is the target and what are they doing to reach it, should it exist? More generally, what are they doing to increase the number of people using the app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there is no particular target where the app becomes relevant or non-relevant. Some 14 million downloads to date is a remarkable number and the app is already proving effective, with a substantial number of people having received notifications from the proximity device and who are now abiding by isolation measures. We have a massive marketing campaign that has been seen by 97% of the population and ongoing activity, particularly among hard-to-reach communities and the young, to support the downloading and use of the app.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
What is the point of the new Covid app if testing takes seven days to produce a result and, by the time the person is notified that they were in contact with someone infected, they are likely to be displaying symptoms already and will know for themselves?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the point of the app is to support our tracing efforts and provide security among those who are in areas that are not socially distanced in order to alert them when they have been near someone who has recently had a test. The test results are not, as the noble Lord described, typically available after seven days. The figure is much lower and we have already found enormous support for the use of the app.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now come to the third Oral Question.
Lightweight Polyethylene Chest Plates
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) whether current safety testing standards for lightweight polyethylene chest plates are fit for purpose, and (2) concerns expressed by experts about the safety of such chest plates.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, body armour certified by the Ministry of Defence and Home Office is rigorously assessed using internationally recognised test standards for the relevant roles and threat levels. The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is aware of no scientific evidence that body armour is unsafe when used as advised. Recent claims based on unscientific tests cannot be corroborated by government scientific advisers.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
One serving SAS soldier said:
“I’d sooner go into battle wearing no ballistic protection than using this plate. It shouldn’t have been brought into service”.
Ballistics experts, defence manufacturers, an NHS trauma consultant, the Police Federation and Police Firearms Officers Association have called for an urgent investigation into safety standards that might have applied in the 1980s but need updating. When will the Minister commission such an urgent investigation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the current deformation in clay standard for police equipment is 25 millimetres, which is far more stringent than international standards. The deformation in clay standard for MoD equipment is 44 millimetres. The testing meets those criteria.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, lighter-weight armour is welcome, but a report in the Mail on Sunday last month—I am sure that the Minister saw it—said that this type of body armour is not fit for purpose because of the risk of behind armour blunt trauma. Although the bullet itself is stopped, the force causes the plate to bulge into the body, causing serious damage. Is the Minister saying that the Mail on Sunday got it completely wrong and made up the tests that it carried out? An NHS trauma consultant described the resulting injuries as “unsurvivable”. This is all very disturbing and suggests that the standards used are inadequate. Has the Home Office discussed the Mail on Sunday findings with the Police Federation? If so, were its representatives satisfied as a result of those discussions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Home Office view is that the recent testing reported in the media was unscientific. On the tests, Home Office officials contacted the DSTL for its views: it does not believe that the Mail on Sunday tests demonstrate a weakness in the equipment that it has approved.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, the effectiveness of these lightweight polyethylene chest plates has been questioned. Has the Home Office considered using aluminium ceramic or, as the United States army uses, boron carbide, which also have the advantage of being much lighter? The only problem is that these materials are rather fragile when dropped and in extreme heat or cold. Can the Minister advise us?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can advise that, clearly, the durability and usefulness of light materials are incredibly important, as my noble friend points out. Polyethylene plates have been shown to meet the rigorous testing that we demand.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, those who wear this body armour and protect us will want some comfort from the government following the reports referred to by noble Lords. Currently, the Government have three bodies that accredit this work; two of them are in the United States of America and one is in Germany. They are supposed to check this body armour every two years. To provide the comfort needed, can the Minister tell the House when these materials were last sent back to those three checking agencies to be tested?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot give the noble Lord a date for when it was last tested, but I can certainly go back and get that information. I hope that that will provide the comfort he seeks.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, further to that, obviously there is concern about when official testing was last done. Given the seriousness of the position and the concern of the Police Federation, police firearms officers and others, surely it is appropriate to have further testing now to reassure those who are on the front line—indeed, to reassure all of us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord German, I will go back and establish when the tests were last done. That should comfort noble Lords.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, with reports that the new chest plate is potentially lethal for wearers, clearly it needs to be improved. Once that is achieved and the problems are corrected, can the Minister tell us, in the light of the tragic incident in Croydon last week, whether there are any plans to allow more police officers to wear such protection?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord suggests that there is a problem. I am saying that the testing has not raised any problems with the new lighter equipment. As I have said—I will do this—I will go back and ask when the testing was last done.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this equipment is vital to protect officers in dangerous situations in the line of duty. How can both the testing and procurement processes run their course and then serious concerns be raised as to the effectiveness of the equipment by the officers who wear these protective plates? Does the Minister not agree that this is potentially an appalling failure of process and procedure, and that an urgent investigation must take place? I do not want that to satisfy myself; I want the officers who wear this equipment to be satisfied that when they go out and put their lives on the line, they have the best possible equipment helping them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone could disagree with the noble Lord’s point. I have said that these things are routinely tested. I will find the exact date when they were last tested. The DSTL does not believe that the Mail on Sunday tests demonstrate a weakness in the equipment that it has approved.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Nagorno-Karabakh
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; and what representations they have made to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan about that violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is deeply concerned by the conflict along the line of contact in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, especially by the reports of civilians being targeted. The Minister for European Neighbourhood spoke to the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, Mr Bayramov, and the Armenian Foreign Minister, Mr Mnatsakanyan, on 28 September. Our message has been clear: we are calling for a ceasefire, an end to the hostilities and a return to the negotiation table.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, since the 1994 ceasefire, we have had the OSCE Minsk Group—headed by France, Russia and the US—and a framework agreement was established. Yesterday, I spoke to Matthew Bryza, the US ambassador who led the framework talks. He felt that the United States had pulled back from mediation efforts. What has the UK done to encourage the US Administration to renew their efforts as part of the Minsk Group, and what have we done within NATO to seek the de-escalation of tensions in the region?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
As the noble Lord says, the US co-chairs the Minsk Group. It continues to engage directly with Armenia and Azerbaijan as part of that role. It also issued a joint statement on 27 September, condemning the use of force and calling for a return to negotiations. From the UK perspective, we will continue to work with the US, including through the OSCE and at the UN Security Council. On NATO, both Armenia and Azerbaijan play an important role in the Partnership for Peace, which works to create trust and peace.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this long-expected war in the Caucasus is a danger for a wider conflagration that is complicated by Russia and Turkey supporting different sides and the attentions of the US elsewhere just now? Will the Government do more than make their usual statements and calling in ambassadors, and work actively as a high priority with like-minded countries to achieve an immediate ceasefire to avert a widening conflict?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we continue to urge all parties to avoid external interference and rhetoric, which may of course exacerbate the situation in the wider region. We continue to work with our allies in the Security Council, where yesterday a meeting was held at which members voiced support for the call by the Secretary-General to stop the fighting immediately and expressed their full support for the central role of the Minsk Group.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Are the Government aware of reports that a Turkish security company has been recruiting Syrian fighters from Idlib to fight in Azerbaijan? Does the Minister see this as a very dangerous development?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are not able to confirm the media reporting of the recruitment of Syrian troops. We remain concerned about the recent ceasefire violations and of course deeply regret the loss of life. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, do the Government consider that Russia’s co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group peace process conflicts with its geopolitical interests in Armenia, including its basing of armed forces there and its supply of hydrocarbons to the country?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, Russia of course has long historical links with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. We do not consider that the co-chairmanship of the Minsk Group conflicts with its political interests. A peaceful settlement to the conflict should be in Russia’s interest and we continue to support the Russians in their role as co-chairs.
Lord Crisp (CB) [V]
My Lords, I know from Armenian friends how tragic this is and I understand the potential for this conflict to increase regional instability, and I am therefore pleased with the steps that the Government are taking. However, what discussions have Her Majesty’s Government had with the Turkish Government and what pressure do they believe that our Government and the international community can bring to bear to prevent Turkey’s further intervention in this conflict?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
The noble Lord rightly highlights the situation in which many civilians find themselves in this conflict, which is why we are keen to do everything we can to de-escalate it. On relations with Turkey, on 28 September, the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdoğan. They agreed on the importance of a return to dialogue. As I have said, we will do all that we can to urge the parties to avoid any external interference.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, war crimes do not justify further war crimes. The talks have been going on since the early 1990s, so is it not time that we had a new round of peace talks with the parties? I call on the British Government to be one of those leading parties at a round table with NATO and with women from the locality who are on the ground. There can be no peace without women. It is really important that we start the talks afresh.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Baroness on the importance of including women in the peace talks. As she will know, when women are involved, we see longer-lasting peace. The international community is fully behind the Minsk process, which we think is the correct mechanism to bring the parties to the table and to see some progress on this.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the allegations that an Armenian aircraft, an Su-25, has been shot down by a Turkish F16 aircraft? Will the Government undertake to investigate whether these allegations are well founded?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of the media reporting and are urgently looking into the situation. I am afraid that I have no further information on that allegation at this time, but these are incredibly worrying reports which underline the desperate need for de-escalation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
Does the Minister agree with the interventions made by Pope Francis and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that call on all parties in the conflict to take concrete steps to resolve this latest clash? Specifically, have Her Majesty’s Government offered to be part of that mediating process? I ask this because we need to find new partners who can offer that mediation if we are to find a way through after so many years of deadlock.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we support calls from all the parties to help to de-escalate this process. We are working very closely within the OSCE to support the Minsk Group process and we will continue to do so.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s calls for de-escalation. As my noble friend is aware, Nagorno-Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan as recognised by international law. What representations have been made by our ambassador at the United Nations in relation to UN meetings as well as bilateral meetings between our ambassador, the Azeri ambassador and the Armenian ambassador?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the UK supports the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Azerbaijan while underlining the importance of the UN and OSCE principles that govern relations between member states. We also support the OSCE Minsk Group process and the basic principle that sits beneath it, which includes a return of the occupied territories and the acceptance of a free expression of will on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. A meeting was held yesterday of the Security Council, where our representative expressed concern about the reports of large-scale military actions and underlined our full support for the central role of the Minsk Group co-chairs. We continue to engage diplomatically in the UK with the Minister for the European Neighbourhood, and in both countries.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
Given the fact that it was Russia that brought about an end to the war in 1994 and brokered a truce in 2016, what representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Russians, and in particular asking them to put pressure on Turkey to stop siphoning Syrian mercenaries into Nagorno-Karabakh?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as the noble and right reverend Lord highlights, the Russians have a key part to play in bringing about peace in their role as co-chair of the Minsk Group and we continue to work with them at the OSCE.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the OSCE was created to help to ensure stability and peace across the European continent following the end of the Cold War, yet today we have frozen conflicts in Georgia and Moldova, the annexation of part of Ukraine, the continuing problems in Belarus and now a resurgence of violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan. What can be done to reform the OSCE to make it more relevant to the 21st century and ensure that it is much more effective in dealing with these situations?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
As the noble Lord will know well, the conflicts and issues that he has raised are incredibly complex and very different in their nature and history; there is no easy answer to them. The UK fully supports efforts under the OSCE to find peaceful and lasting solutions to these issues and we will continue to work with the organisation to make sure that it becomes ever more effective.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I wish to notify the House that I have received the following letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments:
“I write to inform you of my intention to retire from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments at Easter next year.
At that point I will have served as Clerk for four years and I think it will be a suitable point to hand over and to ensure an orderly transition to new leadership of the Administration.
It has been an immense privilege to work here in a fascinating variety of roles, since I joined in 1983. I have seen the House evolve and change massively during that time—but perhaps no more spectacularly than now, where the way in which we are currently working is not something most of us could previously have imagined. These last four years as a whole have contained more than their fair share of challenges for the House and the Administration, and I hope that we can continue to build on the positive changes we have collectively made to meet them.
I would be grateful if you could convey my deep appreciation to members in all parts of the House for their generous help and advice to me during my time here. Most of all, I would like to place on record my thanks to my colleagues, the staff of the House. I am indebted to them for their unstinting professionalism and dedication to the House, as well as their support and guidance to me personally.”
In light of the ongoing external management review, I will consult the leaders of the other parties, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Lord Speaker, and ensure that a recommendation for Ed’s successor as Clerk of the Parliaments is made to Her Majesty in good time, and of course, as is customary, I will put a Motion before the House nearer the time of his retirement to enable Members to pay a proper tribute to Ed’s distinguished service.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reading out the letter and for saying that there will be time later in our calendar to thank the Clerk of the Parliaments for his service; there will be an opportunity for further comments then. I am grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments—to Ed—for the timing of his announcement. That is clearly for the benefit of the House and not for his own benefit, because he will be working throughout the football season and will miss the opportunity to see quite as much of his beloved Charlton as he would like; and because he will be cycling to the House throughout the cold, wet winter, as I know having regularly seen him clad in Lycra. It is helpful that he has set out a timetable and we are grateful for that. We look forward to working with the noble Baroness to choose his successor and to pay appropriate tributes in due course.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, this is extremely sensible timing. Ed Ollard, unlike most of his predecessors, however distinguished, will be remembered for change and for that we are extremely grateful. The time will come for us to pay proper tributes, but the process that has been outlined is sensible. It will give us a chance to think about the options going forward. We hope that Ed will enjoy his remaining few months as much as I know he has enjoyed the previous few months.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I agree and, for the time being, have nothing to add.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, as the Leader of the House has just indicated, there will be an opportunity for tributes in due course. However, I am sure that the whole House will join me at this moment in thanking the Clerk of the Parliaments for his long and distinguished service. The constitutional and procedural advice that he provides for me is utterly invaluable and his leadership over the past three and a half years has been exemplary.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber respecting social distancing while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments, and in putting the question I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make that clear when speaking on the group.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
14:33 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 262 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2) Within six months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 are to be enforced.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and I express my warm appreciation for their support. I leave it to others to speak to other amendments in this group.
It is a great pleasure to open the Report stage of this important Bill. I start by thanking my noble friend the Minister for her recurrent courtesy and helpfulness and for the full answers that she gave in Committee to most of the technical questions that I posed.
I always believe that enforcement of the law is as important as the laws themselves, so the key question is why the enforcement of UK national Immigration Rules has been so spectacularly unsuccessful for many decades under Governments of all parties. Perhaps surprisingly, it is if anything becoming even less successful. Part of the story is well set out in the Public Accounts Committee report published since the noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to its work in Committee. The PAC is a respected cross-party collection of the brightest and most experienced MPs. It is a devastating report, published as recently as 14 September. I quote from paragraph 4:
“We heard that the Department does not know how many people are living or working in the UK without permission, and the Department admitted its frustration at not knowing this figure.”
Put simply, many people come here for reasons that do not entitle them to enter the country and if they are formally found not to be entitled to be here, the authorities are unsuccessful in removing them in a large proportion of cases. I am referring to tens of thousands of people. Also very disturbing is the gradual increase in numbers coming across the channel in rickety boats and tiny inflatables, dodging the big ships, whenever the weather allows. In 2020 the recorded number is well over 5,000, which is more than double the 2019 figure. As I said in Committee at the beginning of this month, 416 migrants exploited fine weather to make the crossing in one day, arriving all along the south coast. Migrants are risking, and in some cases losing, their lives because the authorities are known to be useless at enforcing the law, and the biggest beneficiaries are the traffickers.
Late legal challenges are also undermining efforts to remove migrants who have no right to remain, with flights that are cancelled and then bad headlines that encourage yet more attempts to enter the UK illegally. The public are bemused. Why cannot we, like the vast majority of countries in the world, implement our own rules effectively? It is a major scandal, though a reader of the parliamentary reports of discussions in this House would need to be very alert to detect it.
My proposal is quite simple. Since the Government—indeed, as I explained, many Governments of different persuasions for a very long time—have not managed to fulfil their obligations satisfactorily in this respect, I suggest that they be put on report, literally. Given the unsatisfactory record, we should not allow matters to dip below the radar. We need to have the facts before us and have a light shone upon them, giving the Government every opportunity to explain regularly how they are making the progress that most of the country wants.
Of course, we all have individual cases where we want to see generous Immigration Rules and enforcement—staff for our businesses or domestic workers, attracting lower wages than we might pay to British equivalents; reliable-looking tenants; or daughters-in-law awaiting visas—but the aggregate is very damaging to the public trust, as we have seen in the north of England. The fact that it is easy to travel across the world very cheaply nowadays attracts many people who want to live and work in the UK. They come because we make people from everywhere welcome in our society; have strong, well-enforced laws on equality and modern slavery; and provide generous education, healthcare and housing for migrants as well as to natives. The pull factor is huge, putting pressure on enforcement and compliance with the law.
We heard in Committee about the work of the Migration Advisory Committee. It produces reports but its prime focus is on the appropriate level of migration from an employer point of view and to improve our labour market. It does not have, and does not see itself as having, a brief to advise on the scale of illegal immigration; nor are its members experts on the level of compliance with Immigration Rules, the effectiveness across the agencies involved, value for money or overall expenditure and resourcing in this important area. I believe that a report could fill that gap. Indeed, the Minister might want to consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in Committee and ask the MAC, from its expert perspective, to recommend improvements to the policing of the immigration system.
Given the awkward history of enforcement, which I have to say goes back to my own time in home affairs at Downing Street in the 1990s, I can well believe that our proposal for a report six months after the passage of the Bill might seem unpalatable to Ministers and their civil servants, who are all trying to do their best. However, I urge them to consider our proposal afresh. The Government publish many reports every year; I agreed to a number of reports in Bills over the years as a Minister, and they are currently being suggested in this House in respect of both trade and agriculture. The requirement need not necessarily be provided in this Bill but a legislative requirement would provide a useful element of parliamentary scrutiny. It would make effective action more likely and help the Secretary of State to do a better job. The report could be repeated subsequently to see how successful measures had been. We would certainly revisit a report of that kind in the private sector, where I have spent many years. I very much look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support this useful and well-timed amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she has so clearly described, enforcement has long been one of the weakest points in our immigration system. Despite that, it has faced an 11% real-terms reduction in its budget since 2015-16. The Home Office says that it
“continually looks for ways to reduce costs, so as to improve efficiency and deliver better value … for taxpayers.”
However, as the noble Baroness mentioned, since our Committee stage the Public Accounts Committee has published its report on immigration enforcement. It pointed out that the returns of those who have no right to be in the UK are “plummeting”. The report also criticises the Home Office for having provided the public with no information at all about the scale of illegal immigration for 15 years and points out that the Home Office
“failed to complete 62% of the returns it planned from immigration detention in 2019, compared to 56% in 2018.”
This may of course reflect the ever more strident behaviour of the legal arm of the immigration lobby, some of whom use late and sometimes spurious asylum claims to frustrate removals. Nevertheless, the performance of the Home Office can hardly be described as “better value for money”. Recent official statistics reveal that the number of failed asylum seekers who are subject to removal has doubled from 20,000 in 2014 to over 40,000 now. Clearly, more resources must be diverted to the task of removal, and those resources must be more efficiently targeted and implemented with determination.
Let me also make this point: it is important that the officials themselves should feel supported by the public, as indeed they are. We should avoid constant negative criticism—I hope that I have not done too much of it—as these officials are carrying out an important and difficult task. They need and deserve to be affirmed. After all, they are following due process and enforcing the rule of law, thus making an important contribution to the order that we cherish as part of our civil society. A report to Parliament on enforcement following up on the PAC report, as proposed in this amendment, would be a valuable next step.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 1, which represents an important piece in the jigsaw of our new immigration system. We have just heard two very hard-hitting and detailed speeches from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Green, about the vital role that enforcement plays and why it is so important that we check it is working effectively. In my few minutes, I want to focus on two aspects: transparency, to which the noble Lord has referred, and in particular fairness. The British public have a great interest in situations being fair, but both aspects will be needed in any enforcement regime that is to command public confidence over the longer term.
First, the present system is not fair to those people who try to come to the country legally. It cannot be right for other people to try to jump the queue with virtual impunity and at their expense. Good behaviour should have a proper reward. Secondly, it is not fair to the people who come here—these new arrivals—who will likely find themselves forced to work for below-standard wages in substandard accommodation, without any of the protections of the British state. It is modern slavery indeed. Thirdly, it is not fair to the British taxpayer who inevitably, in one way or another, usually hidden, has to foot the bill. Finally and most importantly, it is not fair to the members of our settled minority communities. Most but not all of the overstayers will be drawn from the races who make up our minority communities. Those members of our settled population, legally resident here and drawn from minority communities, are working hard to make a new life for themselves—and good luck to them. But they find their collective reputation damaged and undermined by a regime where many people are able to say that the system is not working and that they are somehow to blame.
How large is the problem? As is so often the case in this area, the data is imperfect. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to that fact. I have not been able to find any Home Office assessment of the overall problem since 2005, which would now be very much out of date. However, the Pew Research Center, a well-regarded authority, suggested last year that there may be 1.2 million unauthorised migrants in the country, or about 2% of our population. Noble Lords may point out that those are figures from the world at large, but there are some statistics from the EU. As of 31 March 2020—six months ago—the Home Office reported that 171,000 Bulgarian citizens and 564,000 Romanian citizens had sought settled or pre-settled status in this country. However, other Home Office figures showed that, as of 30 June 2019, nine months earlier, there were supposed to be only 109,000 Bulgarians and 457,000 Romanians officially resident in the country. That is an underreporting of 168,000 from those two countries alone, which of course form part of the EU.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 2 in my name, which takes us in a very different direction to the debate thus far. Amendment 2 has a modest snippet of text: “Leave out Clause 1”. If noble Lords go back to the Bill, they will find that it covers “Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.” This is the point, from the view of your Lordships’ House, at which the freedom of movement that was the birthright for everyone born since 1992, and which their elders have enjoyed since then, is irrevocably wiped out. We have an expectation, as problematic as it sometimes is, that society is advancing and improving. Yet here we are, after 28 years, taking a massive step backwards. I credit the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for noting in Committee how much she personally had benefited from freedom of movement. Many other noble Lords will have similarly benefited, and others have noted it in the House during debate.
As I speak now, I think particularly of the 18 year-olds who are having such a torrid time at university or college or in seeking a job. They have endured all the chaos of A-level and GCSE results and now face losing an escape route—a safety valve—but, above all, an opportunity to roam a continent without restraint, free to study, to work, to live and to love without thought of visa or restriction. That loss should not be allowed to slip quietly into the political darkness.
Much of the focus of the debate around freedom of movement and on the Bill has been on the fate of some 4 million EU citizens in the UK. We will be debating and, I hope, adding some positive changes to the Bill for them later. There is also a rightful focus on the Britons who now face being unable to live in their own country with their European spousal partner and children. I hope your Lordships’ House will also do something about that, but for now I will focus on the Britons affected. We cannot, of course, control what other countries do—by leaving the European Union, we have lost control of that—but we know that in Europe there is a strong tradition of reciprocity. Britons will largely be treated in European states as we treat their citizens here, which is something to think about right through this Bill’s discussions.
Of course, rich people and those with connections will not be anything more than perhaps a little discommoded: if you have enough cash, you can buy a passport from several European countries, and if you have a higher level of earnings or savings, a visa will not be a barrier. Losing freedom of movement is a massive set-back for equality. Over the recent long, weary years of campaigning, I have met many Britons who were not rich and who had not started out with the advantages that many in your Lordships’ House have enjoyed. However, they were able to establish a new life on the continent, with the choice of more than a score of countries before them; all they needed was a sense of adventure—or sometimes desperation—and a few pounds for a cheap coach fare, and they set out. They are some of the 1.2 million Britons who live in the rest of Europe, who will be profoundly affected by the decisions we are making today.
This is all one enormous, careless rush, with fewer than 100 days before the end of the Brexit transition period. In the Committee debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted that the Bill removes
“all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which derive from EU law”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 644.]
I cannot tackle everything, but I want to do everything I can to highlight this great loss. Therefore, I give notice that it is my intention to divide the House, as I indicated in Committee that I would do at this stage. I will ask every Member of your Lordships’ House to be on the record: will you vote to greatly reduce the freedom we all enjoy from January, and probably for decades to come? Will you show your opposition, or will you remain off the record in the face of this massive loss?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 26 in this group, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee will speak to the other amendments in the group. I too am sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce immigration law in general and the end of free movement in particular. Indeed, as I have previously argued, there is evidence that, rather than “taking back control”, the Government have made the UK border more porous.
At previous stages of this Bill, I have raised the issue of EEA and Swiss nationals, who will continue to be able to enter the UK using airport e-passport gates and who will benefit from visa-free entry to the UK, officially for six months at the end of the transition period, along with the nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA—the so-called B5JSSK countries.
I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting me face to face—a rare treat—along with several officials, who joined us virtually. The point of raising this issue now is to have on the record the fact that the Government’s approach to immigration contains significant loopholes, which are as follows.
First, there will be no digital record of the immigration status of EEA and Swiss nationals, or those of the other B5JSSK countries that I have listed, visiting the UK under the six-month visa-free arrangements. This can be checked—for example, by landlords, in order to fulfil their right-to-rent obligations to ensure that they do not rent property to those who are in the UK illegally. The Government have no plans to change this situation other than an ambition that this will happen at some time in the future.
Secondly, there will be no way of tracking EEA, Swiss or other B5JSSK nationals once they have arrived in the UK, as no information will be recorded as to where they are going to be staying, there will be no stamp in their passport and there will be no way of establishing whether they have left the UK when or before the six-month limit has been reached.
Thirdly, in order to comply with the law—even though there is no way of enforcing it—all an EEA or Swiss national, or a national of one of the other B5JSSK countries, needs to do is take a day trip on the Eurostar to Lille, for example, in order to be legally eligible to stay for another six months. In their UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, the Government claim that EEA and Swiss nationals should not
“in effect live in the UK by means of repeat or continuous visits.”
However, in reality, there is no way of checking or enforcing this.
Fourthly, with the leeway provided to landlords under the right to rent scheme, landlords can rent a property for up to 12 months to an EEA or Swiss national, or to other B5JSSK nationals—even though they are legally allowed to stay in the country for only six months—without any sanction, civil or criminal. At the end of that period, the landlord can continue to rent the property to the EEA or Swiss national, or to one of these other nationals, provided they produce another ticket, boarding pass, travel booking or
“Any other documentary evidence which establishes the date of arrival in the UK in the last six months.”
Fifthly, the Government cannot provide any details of the electronic travel authorisations, or ETAs, mentioned in the Government’s immigration plans under the heading “The border of the future”, or of how that system will operate. The Government claim that it will
“allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions taken on information obtained at an earlier stage, as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK.”
In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, the UK could be vulnerable to such individuals entering the UK—without checks or a visa—through the e-passport gates.
Every national of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea or the USA used to hand in a landing card and be questioned by a Border Force officer at the UK border to establish where they were going to stay, how long they were staying and whether they had the means to sustain themselves without working illegally. I am told that about 3,000 US nationals a year used to be turned away at the border, but these individuals can now use the e-passport gates, almost always unchallenged. I understand that the reason the B5JSSK nationals were added to those who could use the e-passport gates was to better manage the queues at the UK border. Allowing people through the UK border more quickly by not checking whether they are entering the UK legitimately does not seem to be “taking back control” of our borders.
From 1 January, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to enter the UK in the same way, even though free movement is supposed to be at an end. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that these loopholes do indeed exist and that there are no immediate plans to close them? Can she also repudiate the explanation offered by a lawyer friend of mine—who, when I discussed this issue with him, described the B5JSSK countries as “white” countries—by explaining how the B5JSSK countries were chosen?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. I first congratulate my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the other co-signees of Amendment 1 on identifying what is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. One need only look at the pleas from the county council and local authorities in Kent to see how they have been overrun in recent weeks by the large number of migrants coming in.
I will put a question for my noble friend the Minister to answer in responding to this group of amendments. Presumably, these migrants are counted when they enter reception centres, and so these numbers are available; is it the case that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has actually identified that, and what would be the best way of publicising these figures? One thing that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and others omitted to say was that they are of course bypassing the Covid security measures on self-isolation—although I suppose they are self-isolating in one respect. However, this issue is increasingly of great concern to the wider British public, and it needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for reminding me and the House of my comments, which I stand by. I have travelled widely and have family in Demark who I hope to continue to be able to visit, as I have friends in Belgium and France. On balance, between Amendment 2 and Amendment 26, I prefer Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm that this is indeed the basis on which we will operate after 1 January. Can she go further and confirm that, if I or any individual crosses to another EEA country or Switzerland, we can also go through their EU gates and that this will continue on a reciprocal basis?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I speak as someone who served on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years in another place. The first thing that comes to mind is that the National Audit Office is principally in charge of the investigations there, sometimes prompted by the committee and sometimes by issues that are at the forefront of politicians’ and other parties’ interests. Those reports are always produced when there is a case to be looked at. The reports are taken very seriously and are of great substance. I was particularly pleased—this is the reason I am taking part in the debate on this amendment— to see that there was this PAC report on a subject that is likely to come before your Lordships’ House. That report gives cause for considerable concern—that is probably a huge understatement. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench, for whom I have a great deal of time, and those who are advising her will look at this very seriously. I think they need to go back also to the National Audit Office and look at some of the data, because it cannot all be reproduced in a report.
A couple of other issues come to my mind. My noble friend mentioned the 5,000 boat people. I sat on the Council of Europe for eight years—it is not just a talking shop; it does some valuable work. This is the sort of issue where two countries are involved in something that is not acceptable to either country but nobody has managed to bang the heads of the head of states together to ensure that a solution is found.
I am a great lover of France; for years, I had a mobile home in the south of France and I love going there. But this is not in the interests of France; I know our Prime Minister is pretty busy, but it is time for someone in a very senior position to talk to the Prime Minister of France, so that we can stop these huge numbers. Maybe we will have to take a share of the very small proportion who are genuine asylum seekers but, for the rest, an answer has to be found.
As the House knows, I also specialise in south Asia. I lived and worked there for a number of years and—dare I mention?—I have written a book about Sri Lanka. There is a problem about asylum seeking from not only Sri Lanka but other parts of south Asia. Self-harming is not something that many people in the Chamber or elsewhere know too much about, but it is not as unusual in south Asia and south-east Asia as it would be in the western world. Self-harming is then transcribed into “torture”, so when the individual presents themselves as an asylum seeker here, with an analysis from a UK doctor who of course has no idea about self-harming, it is pretty strong evidence that there has been torture—but there has not; there has been self-harming. That is something people should be particularly alert about.
We are being prompted daily to have an app on this and an app on that—track and trace is now the issue of the day. I do not know whether this happens, but it occurs to me that, given that the one piece of luggage that most migrants have with them is a mobile phone—or someone within their group has a mobile phone—those going into the reception area should have a track and trace system of their whereabouts, for a limited period, on some sort of app.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with particular interest. He has put some genuine questions that I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will take away, if she is not able to answer them today. There is clearly something not right in the areas that he has picked up.
I spent a great many hours recently on the Agriculture Bill, which has a section dealing with temporary agricultural workers. It is a fact that, in the UK at this point in time, there is not enough part-time or spare labour and ability in agricultural matters to bring in the harvest, particularly in Lincolnshire and the surrounding counties. I come from Bedfordshire; we are on the fringe, but there is a great deal of horticulture. We must not have another harvest next spring where we in the UK are short of people to harvest the crops. I just want to put that on the record.
Finally, as some will know, I am a former RAF pilot and still take a great interest in aviation. I unearthed, some years ago now, a manoeuvre that was being done with light aircraft out of small airports; they were basically flying out of the UK and, on the flight plan, there was no requirement to record who the people on the aircraft really were. Even where the people were recorded, there was no checking done on the way back as to whether the number who went out came back, whether they were the same people, or even whether they went back to the original airport they had started from. I still believe that that is a problem and should be looked at.
This is an important amendment. I am sorry to get a little technical, but the amendment says, “within six months”. Having sat in the Chair down the other end, I would have to say that “within six months” suggests less than six months, and what I think my noble friend will be pushing for is that it should be done at six months or immediately after six months. If I am right, I hope that the Minister can ensure that that minor change can be implemented. I wish my noble friend all success with this very important amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I confess to being slightly surprised by some of the comments in favour of Amendment 1; I am speaking against Amendment 1 and very strongly in support of Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett.
This is no time to be xenophobic and exclusionary. To suggest that the majority of migrants come over here on the basis of greed is to ignore the fact that the vast majority come over here to find a place of safety, not just for themselves but for their children. They come over here because they are absolutely desperate. Who would face that sort of crossing in a rickety boat if they did not have to? It is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that some of the forebears of your Lordships benefited, as refugees, from the welcome that Britain extended to them.
When we look at these migrants, we have to accept that we bear some of the blame for their situation. It is not as simple as saying that it all happens abroad and we bear no responsibility. We sell arms to repressive regimes and we have to understand that that has consequences. We also use far more of our share of the earth’s resources, which means that other places have less than their share, which creates environmental refugees. We also meddle in other people’s wars. We do not have to go to war in far-flung places—we should be making sure that the world is a more secure place.
I benefited hugely from freedom of movement when I was young, and I would like my children to do the same, as well as the thousands of other young people who are reaching the age when they want to travel, visit other places and learn about other cultures. It is unfair that we ban this opportunity for young people, when we had it ourselves.
Finally on Amendment 1, as I have said and will never tire of repeating in your Lordships’ House, ending freedom of movement is not the will of the people. You cannot assume that, because people voted for Brexit, they voted to end the freedom of movement. I and many others from the left voted for Brexit, but we did not vote to finish off freedom of movement. So, please, no more stuff about it being the will of the people; it absolutely is not.
On Amendment 2, we should see this as an opportunity to show the Government and the people of Britain that ending freedom of movement is not desirable but something extremely undesirable. I, for one, will be voting for the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, says that enforcement of immigration laws and regulations has been very weak. I say yes and no to that. Much could be said about evidence of torture and the age of young asylum seekers and so on; I do not want to get into that, nor the issue of which communities produce, as it were, the largest number of people here without authorisation.
From these Benches, we have long made the point that information is lacking. Information is basic to enforcement and we need that first and foremost. We need to know who arrives and who leaves. As I have understood it for a long time, including from speeches made by former Home Secretaries, the largest number of people who are here without leave are overstayers.
I said “yes and no” to the proposition about the weakness of enforcement. We believe it is important to have clear rules that are enforced; both are important for public confidence, as has been said. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s explanation of a loophole he has identified and pursued with enormous determination is a clear example of why both rules and enforcement are important. But it is the rules themselves that need to command confidence first, and we say they need to be sensible, clear and compassionate.
What has been enforced with enthusiasm are activities like “go home” vans and getting people such as landlords and employers to do the enforcing. What is published with enthusiasm are rules that are pretty much impenetrable—sometimes to those faced with interpreting them and almost always to those directly affected. The Minister said in Committee that the Government were
“actively exploring legislative options to ensure … enforcement … can be tightened up.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 573.]
I thought it sounded ominous, but I am sure she will take the opportunity today to explain what the Government are proposing. I hope she can be clear now, and whenever those options may come before us, about the facts, without going straight to assumptions about who is here without authorisation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 1 calls for a report to be laid before Parliament on how the provisions under Schedule 1 to the Bill are to be enforced. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords have expressed concerns about the level and extent of immigration enforcement. I agree that proper, responsible enforcement is essential and that people need to have confidence in the immigration system.
Coming at it from a slightly different angle, we have seen the consequences of poor enforcement—from a broken detention system which can hold indefinitely people who have suffered abuse, while failing to deport criminals, to the Windrush scandal, in which law-abiding citizens had their lives shattered by an unacceptable Home Office culture. I, too, await with interest the Government’s response to this amendment.
On Amendment 26, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his explanation of the purpose and reasoning behind it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in the light of the noble Lord’s meeting with the Minister.
Amendment 2, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would remove from the Bill Clause 1, which repeals the main retained EU law relating to free movement. I will say it: the amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment, since the overriding purpose of this Bill is to end rights to free movement. It would rerun the argument over the basic premise of the Bill.
The primary role of your Lordships’ House is as a revising Chamber. It is not for us to vote down the clause that is central to the purpose of this Bill, whatever our individual views. Our focus today is on a number of vital issues on which we can apply pressure, and on attempting to make concrete changes to the Bill which, if this House agrees to them, the Commons would give serious consideration to and might even support. We have to be realistic about the changes we can make to this legislation. I note the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said she would be voting for Amendment 2. If it is put to a vote, we will not support it but abstain.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing back her amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about how the repeal of EU law relating to free movement set out in Schedule 1 will be enforced. I strongly support the premise of the amendment, but I hope I will be able to explain why it is not necessary to divide the House.
The premise of the amendment is particularly important in a post-Brexit era. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I assure noble Lords that the Home Office will be updating its published enforcement policy with particular regard to EEA citizens and their family members who, having arrived here after the end of the transition period, from January 2021, must have leave to enter or remain. She pressed me on the legislative options. She will understand that I cannot pre-empt these, but I am sure they will become clear in due course
The guidance will make it clear to immigration enforcement officers that no enforcement action should be taken in respect of those EEA citizens who can apply for the EU settlement scheme until the deadline of 30 June 2021. This includes while an application is outstanding after that deadline and pending the outcome of any appeal if the decision is to refuse status under the EU settlement scheme. Instead, officers should encourage EEA citizens to apply during the grace period. We have given a clear commitment that, where EEA citizens and their family members have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. The Government will publish guidance on what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline in early 2021, as I articulated previously.
As I set out during our earlier debate on this amendment, we are now moving towards having a level playing field for EEA and non-EEA citizens, where they will be treated equally and will be covered by the same published guidance regarding the application of sanctions and enforcement measures if these are relevant. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has previously said that she wants to see robust enforcement and highlighted a number of practical suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I hope I can provide at least some assurances in these areas.
Enforcing the UK’s immigration laws is critical to a functioning immigration system and effectively implementing the Government’s policies. Tackling illegal working, targeting those in the country illegally and removing dangerous foreign criminals is an absolute priority. The fall in returns in the latest year was largely due to very few returns in the last quarter because of Covid. In addition, the Home Office has been operating against an increasingly challenging legal landscape in recent years, which the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, referred to. In some cases, this has constrained its ability to return individuals, and this has been coupled with a noticeable increase in levels of abuse designed to delay and frustrate our processes, reducing the removals achieved.
In term of performance on deporting foreign criminals, more than 55,000 have been returned since 2010. To pick up on my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point about returns from the EU, of the 3,791 foreign national offenders—FNOs—returned from the UK in the year ending June 2020, two-thirds were EU nationals. We will also pursue action rigorously against individuals living in the community, actively monitoring and managing cases through the legal processes and negotiating barriers to removal. Despite logistical issues with flights in the current pandemic, the Home Office will continue to take these forward with routes currently available, and as further routes return.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, made suggestions in Committee about illegal migrants destroying their documents and linking the issuing of visas to countries readmitting their own citizens. Visas are a border and national security tool. The UK keeps its visa system under regular review. Decisions on changes are always taken in the round and reflect key facets of the bilateral relationship with the country concerned. These will vary globally, but often include security, compliance, returns and prosperity. On his point about restoring the detained fast-track system for some asylum claims, unfortunately this process had to be suspended following a finding by the courts that the fast-track procedure rules were unlawful. However, we continue to explore options on tightening up key elements of our immigration system, including around asylum, appeals and enforcement.
Finally, the noble Lord mentioned the difficulty of preventing EU visitors and non-visa nationals working while in this country. Illegal working, as noble Lords will know, is a key driver of illegal migration; it encourages people to break our immigration laws and provides the practical means for migrants to remain in the UK unlawfully. This encourages people to take risks by putting their lives in the hands of unscrupulous people smugglers; it leaves them vulnerable to exploitative employers and results in businesses that are not playing by the rules undercutting legitimate businesses that are. It also negatively impacts on the wages of lawful workers and is linked to other labour market abuses such as tax evasion, breach of the national minimum wage and exploitative working conditions—including, of course, modern slavery in the most serious cases.
Immigration enforcement teams take the threat of illegal working extremely seriously and work with employers to deny illegal workers access to jobs by making it straightforward to check a worker’s status and entitlement as well as providing a range of charged-for training and advisory services. Where employers do not follow the rules, we will apply a range of sanctions, from civil penalties to closure notices and, ultimately, the prosecution of criminal offences.
Turning to specific questions, a number of noble Lords mentioned the PAC report. We will, of course, respond to that in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, unsurprisingly referred to our meeting and the issue of e-gates. People cannot use repeat visits to live here legally and obtain the same rights as residents to work and obtain benefits. He talked about visitors repeatedly passing through e-gates after 31 December 2020. Those who do not have another form of UK status may be granted six months leave to enter but will not be able, as I say, to work or access benefits and services. They will, of course, be expected to leave the UK or extend their stay before their leave to enter expires, and they may, as I said, face enforcement or removal if they do not. Any EEA national arriving to work or study will need to apply under our new system and obtain prior permission, just like any other non-visa nationals. Without such permission, they will not be able to demonstrate their entitlement to remain in the UK for anything other than a visit.
We had what I thought was a very constructive conversation about how people might be currently trying to game the system, and about what the situation might be beyond January 2021. He asked me how the B5JSSK countries were chosen. There was an assessment of factors, including volumes and security and the issue was debated in both Houses. He also made the point that the countries were all white countries. Japan, Singapore and South Korea may not be, but I do not know how he defines “white”. I will leave it at that, since it is a subjective matter.
I will repeat that a parliamentary report on enforcement, as required by this amendment, is unnecessary because policy guidance on enforcement is already published. I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it has been a full and fair debate, with compelling contributions from my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. My noble friend Lady McIntosh added to the richness of the discussion with her experience in Kent and her concern about Covid from those coming to this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly argued that information is often lacking and sought clear, well-communicated rules, which is all part of enforcement—we are on common ground there. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave us further reasons why looking at what has happened and reporting on enforcement can be extremely useful in many different areas.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, because of his expertise and experience; I noted that he was also sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce the law. He has a good point about automated gates and the need for ID for landlords—I have a minor interest there that I should probably declare. The world is changing, with digital rightly replacing paper-based solutions more and more, so work in this area must be progressed. I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees that work on digital ID and biometrics, which is being done by the Home Office and DCMS, can help in making a simple, clear, well-observed immigration system—as well as in liquor licensing, which is where we last discussed it.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her careful replies on the specific issues we have all raised. I am sure we will all look at them very carefully. I agree with my noble friend Lord Naseby that the PAC’s disturbing report should be listened to and acted on. So I hope that a report on immigration enforcement of the kind we have proposed can be initiated. Putting those who need to improve on report can be very effective.
However, I feel that the issues have been well aired today and I do not propose to press my amendment. I support this Bill and feel that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would drive a coach and horses through it. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, it could be regarded as a wrecking amendment. I will therefore vote against Amendment 2 if the House divides. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I wish to move this amendment formally. We are in unprecedented political times. We are racing towards a disastrous year of chaos, confusion and disruption as a result of the ending of the Brexit transition and the continuing pandemic. I have listened very carefully to the debate—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness just has to move her amendment formally, which I believe she has done.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I shall now put the Question. We have heard Members taking part remotely saying that they wish to divide the House on this amendment, and I will take that into account.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment, or the other amendment in this group, to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Rosser
“Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
(1) The Secretary of State must commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of section 1, and Schedule 1, on the social care sector within six months of this Act being passed.(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent Chair to conduct the assessment.(3) The assessment must consider the impact of provisions in section 1, and Schedule 1, on—(a) the social care workforce;(b) available visa routes for social care workers;(c) long-term consequences for workforce recruitment, training and employee terms and conditions; and(d) such other relevant matters as the independent Chair deems appropriate.(4) A copy of the independent assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days of its publishing date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent report on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector, including the impact on the workforce (such as skills shortages), visa options for social care workers, and long-term consequences for recruitment, training and terms and conditions for staff.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 3 is similar to that moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector, including the impact on the workforce—such as skills shortages—visa options for social care workers, and long-term consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions. The independent assessment must be published within six months of the Bill being passed and laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of its publishing date.
In Committee, there was little disagreement over the current state of the social care sector: low-paid, undervalued and skilled work; a very high staff turnover rate of over 30%; well over 100,000 vacancies; and some 20% of the workforce being from other countries, including the EU, with that source of staff about to be closed down in three months’ time as a result of the advent of the points-based immigration system and the overwhelming majority of care staff not being eligible for the health and social care visa. There was, I think, a large measure of agreement too that the sector needed to place greater emphasis on training and increased professionalism, and that not everyone in the labour market would have the necessary aptitude and attitude to meet successfully the demands and requirements of care work.
The Government rejected the very similar amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, not on the basis that an inquiry into the social care sector was not needed but on the basis that a mechanism already existed that kept the social care sector under review. The Government, through the Minister, said:
“I very much agree that it is essential that policies are kept under review, particularly when the Government are introducing a new, points-based immigration system from January. Independent scrutiny and review are a good thing, but I am not sure that we need to legislate to provide a whole new mechanism.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 608.]
The Minister then went on to say that the Migration Advisory Committee had been in existence for some years, and that noble Lords should be in no doubt about the close interest that it took in the health and social care sector. It is true that the MAC reports on the social care sector. Indeed, in a wide-ranging—I think 650-page—report yesterday on the shortage occupation list, covering numerous sectors, it again expressed concern about the social care sector and argued that if the necessary domestic funding increase and pay increases it has been calling for, in its own words, “for some years” did not now materialise in a timely manner, it
“would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the Covid-19 pandemic frontline response.”
The MAC also said that a potential rise in labour supply to the care sector as a result of UK job losses elsewhere cannot be “predicted with any certainty”. This Bill makes an immense change to our immigration system, which will have a significant effect on our already understaffed and underresourced social care sector at the same time as we are going through a global pandemic. Our care sector has always been vital; now it is part of our front line. We need more than the regular reporting mechanisms. This amendment would provide for that much-needed specialist, timely and targeted review of social care—of workforce numbers, the impact of the Government’s decision not to include many care workers in the health and care visa, and what this all means for future planning for the sector at this crucial time, including terms and conditions and training for a talented, caring workforce.
The Government have already made the decision to change the immigration system and have said that they want to see competitive terms and conditions in the sector and not have people on the minimum wage. The Government have also said they want the right number of people to meet increasing demands with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver quality compassionate care. Those are very commendable objectives, and a recognition from the Government that they are, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in Committee, the main funder and regulator and set the whole context in which the sector operates.
With the Government having decided that this low-paid, undervalued but skilled sector, with its enormous turnover of staff and vacancies running well into six figures, is now to face, on top of that, a significant source of labour being closed down in just three months’ time, social care faces a potential perfect storm. With social care facing such an unprecedented situation, now is the time for a fresh set of eyes to make an expert assessment of the impact of the end of free movement on a sector that already has existing significant problems of pay, conditions, turnover and training that need to be addressed if ever-increasing demands for social care are to be met. We need an assessment that has a major input from people who have expertise in, and specialist knowledge of, the field of social care, and can bring a fresh perspective to bear on a sector whose existing, as well as pending, problems will have to be addressed if the Government’s goals of a better paid, more highly trained and professional workforce with much lower turnover rates than at present is to be achieved.
The amendment does not ask for too much; it does not pre-emptively write the Government’s policy for them but merely asks for a timely, thorough and independent analysis of how to support our care sector and its staff and enable it to achieve the goals set in the light of the impact of the provisions of this Bill. It will help to prevent the issue of the state of our care sector being yet again kicked into the long grass. How many times in the past decade have we been promised a plan for the social care sector that has failed to materialise? This Bill is a crucial moment, and we should use it wisely. The amendment also has support from the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing. We do not want to find ourselves in a few years’ time with a social care sector that has not progressed from its present state following the imminent change in the immigration system. We need to act now, which is why the fresh independent assessment called for in Amendment 3 is needed.
In moving this amendment, I have to say that, if the Government’s response is similar to their response in Committee to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I shall seek a Division. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, my Amendment 30 is along the lines of Amendment 3, but tougher and more radical. I would love to know that there is some support for it, but I think Amendment 3 will edge it. However, this amendment has huge support, and I thank the people from the Scottish National Party, who on a point of principle do not take their seats in the House of Lords—or what seats they might be offered. They have done all the work in getting together a huge variety of people, including RNIB Scotland, UNISON, Macmillan Cancer Support, Disability Wales, the Church of Scotland and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. I could go on: more than 40 organisations and NGOs support this amendment.
An absolutely crucial point, which the Minister did not tackle when I presented this amendment in Committee, was that this proposal draws in all four nations. That is something that Amendment 3, I am afraid, does not mention. My amendment would probably enable the Government to have much more support for their work; it would strengthen buy-in from stakeholders across the four nations and increase the status and profile of the evaluation.
Many of the points I wanted to make have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, very eloquently, but many bear repeating. The Government are closing their eyes to a potential problem. My key concern is about the health and social care workforce. The organisations that have contributed to this amendment are aware that some health and social care organisations rely heavily on workers from other parts of the EU and cannot continue in their present form without support. If they are allowed to fail, other parts of the health and social care system will be needed to fill those gaps.
On efficiency and effectiveness, research carried out by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland in communities across Scotland highlighted that people who use support and services have concerns about their future availability. That means that with the health and social care system already creaking, combined with an elderly workforce, some people will have to try to find their own ways to minimise any negative repercussions as a result of changes accruing from leaving the EU. Then there is the adequacy of public funding for the health and social care sectors. The alliance’s report raised major concerns about the impact of Brexit and the potential loss of EU funding in health and social care in Scotland, particularly to third-sector organisations, which have a key role in the provision of health and social care services. Any loss of funding will place a further strain on that whole sector, and it seems that the Government are not acknowledging that it will be a problem.
I would therefore like the Minister to answer my point that my amendment would create buy-in from the four nations, which the Government seem to be ignoring at the moment. Also, it is quite possible that without the extra workforce that we currently get through people coming from other countries, the whole system could start to fail. Are the Government prepared to put enough money into it to make sure that it does not fail and let down all the people who care about this service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rosser for adopting many of the terms of my amendment in Committee and for the eloquent way in which he introduced his amendment.
No one could doubt that social care is under pressure. The social care workforce is already facing a crisis, with more than 120,000 vacancies. According to our House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, in 2018, 1.4 million older people in England had an unmet care need. The committee found that publicly funded social care support is shrinking, as diminishing budgets have forced local authorities to limit the number of people who receive public social care.
We are in a vicious cycle: after decades of reviews and failed reforms, the level of unmet need in our care system increases; the pressure on unpaid carers grows stronger; the supply of care providers diminishes; and the strain on the care workforce continues. That is even without considering the impact of Covid, which has been huge, and before the new immigration controls come in at the end of the year.
I therefore remain bemused by the decision of the Home Office to exclude the great majority of care workers from the new health and care visa as a result of them not meeting either the income or the skills thresholds that have been set. My noble friend Lord Rosser mentioned the Minister’s comments at Second Reading. She has justified this by the need for employers to end what she described as “the easy option” of using migrant labour to undercut our own workforce “for far too long”. She also pointed to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, which has maintained that the problems in this sector are caused by a failure to offer competitive terms and conditions, in itself caused by a failure to have a sustainable funding model—although as my noble friend Lord Rosser today suggested, the committee’s latest report clearly shows that it is now developing a rather more nuanced position. I wonder why. In Committee, the Minister went further. She said:
“If people say that the response to the social care issue should be, ‘Well, employers should be allowed to bring in as many migrants as they want at the minimum wage,’ first, that does not sound like the low-wage problem of the social care sector is being dealt with and, secondly, it suggests that one of the groups that will really suffer from that is the social care workers.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 610.]
I do not need reminding of how important skilled care workers’ jobs are. Of course I want more people training and entering the care sector at a decent wage, but as my noble friend Lord Rosser said in Committee, you will not solve the care sector’s problems by suddenly snapping off its ability to recruit staff from abroad from the end of the year; all you will do is tip it into an even bigger crisis than it is in.
The Minister has never responded to the central point of my argument, which is that the major fault for the problem has to be laid at the Government’s door. This is a government-controlled sector. The Government are the main funder and regulator. They set the whole context in which the sector operates. They have had countless reviews, but refuse to come up with any solution. There is no sign of the long-promised Green Paper. Mencap said today that the sector needs a credible, well-thought-out and properly funded care workforce plan to create and maintain a sustainable social care workforce—I agree with that.
I want to come back to the Minister, because if she is saying that staff should pay more, I agree, but is she going to will the means? Will she commit to increase support to local authorities? What about self-funders? Does she think they should pay more? At Second Reading, I think, I pointed out that if you took the current lifetime pension allowance of just over £1 million and bought an annuity with it at age 60, you would not be able to cover the average nursing home fees. So can the Minister tell me whether the Chancellor is going to raise the lifetime pension allowance?
If the Home Office is convinced that the woes of the sector are entirely down to the sector itself, let it produce the evidence. Let the Minister agree to a rapid review of the funding of the care sector and the impact of Clause 1 in shutting off an extremely valuable source of labour for this important but vulnerable part of our society.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The greatest risk identified for health and social care in the House of Lords report The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care was the need for long-term funding arrangements for social care and, importantly, for an appropriately trained workforce for the NHS and social care. As far as social care is concerned, the Government have not addressed either, and more than three years have passed since the publication of the report. The result is that more care homes are closed and there is a massive shortage of care home staff, as has already been mentioned.
As a nation, we are getting to a point where “shameful” is the only word that can describe our failure to look after our old and frail. The pandemic has brought hardship and pain to all our citizens, but the elderly in our care homes have paid a heavy price: 30,500 excess deaths among care home residents and 4,400 more among those receiving care at home. We have failed them in many ways. We have exposed them to greater risk from the virus, we did not protect the few staff looking after them and we did not recognise their increased risk from the virus. It seems that the only people who stood by them were nurses and poorly paid care staff, the majority of whom are from overseas.
ONS figures show that social care workers are at highest risk of Covid-19 mortality. Shamefully, the United Kingdom ranks number two in the world, after Russia, for the number of deaths among healthcare workers, and the majority of them worked in social care. Some of the poorly paid and so-called unskilled paid with their lives. Many of them were not citizens of our country. We saw on our televisions poorly paid staff, many from European and other countries, working in crowded nursing homes and living in tents in the back gardens of nursing homes so that they could isolate and protect our elderly and vulnerable, who were also isolated from their families and friends.
It is estimated that we have a shortfall of approximately 122,000 care workers. So what are we saying to these dedicated, hard-working people who want to come and willingly look after our most vulnerable? We are saying, “When your visa runs out, we want you to go back to where you came from. We don’t want any more of you to come. You will not meet the unrealistic criteria we set for salaries, and the visa and health charges will be unaffordable for you as these are now our new rules. Besides, we are going to have mass unemployment, and we are going to ask all those unemployed to staff our care homes and look after our elderly. We don’t recognise that it is a task that requires some skills, compassion and a caring attitude or a feeling of vocation, as you do.”
It is time for the Home Office to review the current proposals, which do not provide a migratory route for care workers. This is a modest amendment, in that it asks for a review. All it asks is that the Government produce evidence of the impact of the legislation on the social care workforce and social care. I strongly support it, and I hope that many others will do so. It is about people whom we need—those who want the opportunity to provide compassionate care for the elderly and the frail.
I know that my namesake leads the Home Office, and we know each other, but I say to her, “Priti, on this occasion, I do not agree with you”.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 3. First, I draw attention to my interest, as recorded in the register, of receiving support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
In Committee, I spoke to an amendment that would facilitate the immigration of highly skilled people who had been forcibly displaced by war or persecution. I am glad that the Government have responded positively to that proposal, which others in this place spoke in support of.
I thank the Minister for the helpful and productive meeting that I had with her and her colleague, the Immigration Minister. I was joined by Talent Beyond Boundaries and Fragomen. I hope that she will be willing to place on the record today the Government’s commitment to developing a pilot for health workers, possibly in the education and business sectors. I and others here who are interested will be keen for her to update the House on progress in due course. Following that positive meeting and the promises made at it, I have not pressed the amendment that I tabled in Committee because of the Government’s constructive willingness to further develop the proposal, which applies to the health and social care area.
The Government, rightly, are keen to welcome those who wish to come here with the skills to support themselves and whom businesses in the UK are ready to employ. I am therefore puzzled that social care seems not to receive the attention in immigration policy that it should.
We all know that the average pay of care workers is not high. Indeed, the figures that I have seen suggest that it is typically around £17,000 per annum. This means that such workers will not qualify for a work visa, even with a reduced salary threshold. I know that the Government wish to encourage employers to increase salaries and train domestic workers, rather than allow migration to be used as a shortcut or cost-saving measure. That is welcome, although of course it will require the Minister and her colleagues to have stern conversations with their colleagues in other departments about the necessity for a better-funded care system. Such a system will also need radically better joint working between health and social care, as highlighted, for example, in the 2016 King’s Fund report, Supporting Integration Through New Roles and Working Across Boundaries.
The Migration Advisory Committee is surely right that over the long term the solution to our care crisis lies in raising wages to attract more domestic workers, rather than using migrant workers to plug the gap. Nevertheless, the MAC was also surely right to point out this week that the cliff edge of ending free movement in the middle of a global pandemic, in which care workers are very much on the front line of safeguarding our most vulnerable neighbours, friends and family, will very much increase the pressure on the system, as the MAC puts it.
Those of us who support the amendment hardly support low wages for key workers—far from it. I believe strongly in a real living wage above the national minimum wage and in care workers being appropriately recognised and rewarded for their vital work. We are concerned that the blunt treatment of social care in the new immigration system poses significant systemic problems that could include staff shortages. The impact of those shortages will be felt by the most vulnerable in our society who rely on social care. They deserve better than “fingers crossed”, which is, I am afraid, the impression that we are left with of the current approach.
I am not unused to working within institutions with byzantine processes—I am a bishop of the Church of England, for goodness’ sake, as well as in this place. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the Government’s desire to simplify the immigration system and to resist a proliferation of special routes for particular circumstances, yet simplification is not a virtue if it becomes inflexibility or bluntness in the application of rules that will exclude from coming to the UK the very people our care sector most urgently requires. The creation of a health and care visa has, of course, been welcome news, but I know that my puzzlement that social care appears not to be adequately included is shared by others.
The amendment strikes me as modest but important. It places on the Government merely a duty to publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social are sector. Since international workers account for one-sixth of care workers in England, we would have to be dangerously incurious not to want to know the impact that the biggest change in immigration policy in a generation has on a sector that cares for the most vulnerable among us. Such reports as we have had already from the MAC and others only confirm that there is a knotty problem still to unravel in this tangle of issues about chronic low pay and an unnecessary reliance on skilled migrant carers. I will therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He, like others, made a very comprehensive speech in defence of the arguments for the maintenance of the social care sector. If we as human beings applauded, as we did earlier this year, this sector, which is central in our fight against Covid-19, then the Government and all of us acting together in Parliament should show due recognition of it and support this amendment. It would allow a report to be carried out within six months of the Bill being passed showing the impact of the ending of free movement and the non-accessibility of visas for care workers on that sector and on our healthcare system.
I have had many letters from those involved in the caring profession, who want us to support this amendment. It is vital and is supported by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. At Second Reading, I said that this legislation ends the free movement of citizens from the EU, the EEA and Switzerland to the UK. Many in our social care sector come from those countries. They provide an invaluable service with care, compassion, hard work and diligence to a large range of people who are deeply unwell. That work has become particularly acute during our ongoing Covid crisis. At a stroke, the decision to end free movement diminishes the UK. Not only does it break family ties and damage our economy but it creates huge obstacles for employers and degrades international research, co-operation and understanding. It also derails our social care sector.
Social care is already under pressure not only because of Covid but because of rising waiting lists for health and medical care in the health service. If people are not allowed to remain and are no longer employed in the National Health Service, which we cherish, that will place it under a tremendous burden. We should try to remove that burden, so I make a special plea to the Minister to accept the amendment and ensure that a report is made available within six months of the passing of this legislation. Perhaps for the first time, we will be able to see, in statistical data, the contribution made by these people and by our social care sector, as well as the deficits in the sector where the Government need to plug the holes.
If the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I believe is already of this mind, decides to push the amendment to a Division, I will support him.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 3, I congratulate the movers. However, I hope that the Government will realise that we are now in a social care crisis and that we should face up to the challenges now. There is a serious shortage of live-in carers to help disabled people, due to the combination of coronavirus and Brexit. Good social care takes the pressure off the NHS.
Many elderly and disabled people are at serious risk because they have had their benefits cut. Coupled with shrinking local authority budgets, the workforce is under pressure exactly when it is needed most. Also, the vast proportion of migrant employees in social care will be ineligible to work in the UK ,as most care workers’ earnings do not meet the threshold for the new skilled visa, as has been mentioned several times.
I wish Amendment 3 good luck.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I was not able to take part in Committee because of the all-consuming HS2 Committee, along with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who I see is in his place. However, I sat in on part of the debate and heard the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, a very formidable pair when they debate these issues. It is rather like facing Federer and Djokovic at the same time, because of their very stringent remarks. In a conversation outside the Chamber, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that from what I had heard, I thought that he rather had a point. We all know where we want to be with social care. We want a well-paid and well-motivated workforce. We all know, sadly, where we are, and as he said in his previous remarks and repeated today, it is a question of the transition, of how we get from where we are to where we want to be.
Two things have happened since the previous debate. First, we had a report yesterday from the Migration Advisory Committee, which, as I am sure that the Minister will say when she winds up, is particularly concerned by the problem we face of a sudden end to the situation we are facing today, a precipice, before we reach any better solution. Incidentally, the MAC’s report covers 650 pages; I hope that when the Home Office look at some of these reports it cuts down the bulk. I do not know whether Ministers read all these reports, but it has become pretty much impossible. We are almost beyond despair when we see such a bulky product.
The second thing to have happened since the previous debate is the Chancellor’s Statement last Thursday. He flagged up in detail the situation which we all have been facing regarding unemployment, and finally put some numbers on it, pointing out that with the withdrawal of the very supportive job system that he has at the moment, we may well be looking at an additional 2 million unemployed people. At the moment, there are an estimated 122,000 vacancies in the social care sector, but surely it is not beyond the wit of God to find among those 2 million people some who might help in the social care sector. Indeed, it is likely that they will be exactly the sort of people who could care for people—they are people from the retail sector and from the hospitality sector. Some of them may not have exactly the right aptitudes and attitudes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said—a nightclub bouncer might not be exactly the right person to go into the social care sector—but many will have exactly the human skills that we are looking for. If you cannot find 122,000 people from that additional 2 million unemployed, you really are not trying.
It is fair to say that many of the companies in this area who manage the care homes are a motley crew. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in the previous debate, made the point that many of the private equity companies got into this area and—sad to say—piled up debt on many of these companies and have sought a way out without too much care for the social consequences or the effect on their clients. That is a fair point, which I am worried about as well, but there are also many good companies in this area, trying to do good work, who really care about their clients and are trying to find a way forward. Therefore, we should give them the opportunity of recruiting from among those British people who may become unemployed.
As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this is a sector that overall is controlled by the Government, that is fair, but none the less the Government are providing £1.5 billion of extra money for the sector through additional local authority subvention. There is also the Skills for Care programme, which is ongoing. This all indicates that there may be additional support for a company which is trying to do the right thing.
The MAC also said in its report that immigration is not the answer in the long term, and I do not think it should be. It highlights that, all too often, we have looked at recruitment difficulties and said that we must import from abroad, rather than looking at it the other way around, at what the problems are and how we can recruit, train and pay properly the people in this country before we look abroad. Indeed, I had the advantage of a personal chat about this with Professor Bell, the new chair of the MAC, and he made a very interesting point. He said that, in other countries with an equivalent of the Migration Advisory Committee, its reports do not just go to the Home Office, as they do here, but in the first instance to the education, business and health departments, with the implication “What are you doing to solve the problems of recruitment yourselves, before we even consider going abroad for further support?” Traditionally, we have too easily looked at this the wrong way around.
Mention has been made of the British Medical Association’s briefing, which we have all seen today. Once again, it makes the same mistake by talking about how we must import people to help with the obvious problems of recruitment in various sectors, from doctors and nurses to social care workers, but there are two remarkable omissions in that briefing. First, there is no mention of manpower planning in the NHS. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out in a previous debate on this subject, 43% of those who apply for a nursing course are turned away. I cannot believe that 43% of those who apply are inadequate for the job, but they are being turned away for some reason. Equally, we do not know the situation with doctors, where there are similar figures. But, none the less, we should look at manpower planning as a whole in the NHS sector.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very thoughtful and interesting contribution. I agreed with some of it, in particular the accolades paid to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt. They made such excellent speeches that I can be brief, given that many Members wish to speak today, and I have some sympathy for both Front Benches regarding the length of our sessions at the moment, not least on this Bill. However, I want to draw attention to one or two of the issues that have arisen.
Mention has been made a number of times of the Migration Advisory Committee. I heard Professor Bell on the radio yesterday making the perfectly reasonable case that, as my noble friend Lord Rosser excellently pointed out, it is important that care workers be paid more and respected more. I am fully in favour of trying to tackle head-on the understaffing, underpaying and undervaluing that currently constitutes the general attitude, despite all the sympathy often exuded towards those working in the care sector. However, Professor Bell eloquently made the point that I want to make: that you can get almost £1 an hour more working in general retail than in residential care, despite the enormous challenges arising during the Covid pandemic, as spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Here is a thought. I have it on the good authority of Professor Bell that, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, which concluded its main survey work in March, the consequences of the pandemic are twofold. First, yes, there will be greater unemployment, and that will be felt differently in different parts of the country and will therefore have a differential impact. I do not expect people to move for £8.70 an hour—which is the average pay in residential care, because that is the minimum wage across the country—given that they could not even afford to pay the rent; that is, if they have not been evicted by the time they get there because the moratorium has been lifted. We therefore have to have some common sense here.
There is no sign of the pay increase that should be taking place now, and the oven-ready deal promised a year ago has not yet emerged from the AGA—when it does, it will probably be grossly undercooked—so we will not have a solution. It is no good Professor Bell —I am very happy to debate him on this—going on the radio or producing a 650-page report saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the Government coughed up the money so that local authorities can pay increased rates?”, and that we should protect ourselves from exploitation. That is not happening. I pay tribute to the noble Lord who has just drawn attention to what I said in Committee about private equity investment in this area.
My noble friend Lord Hunt made the important point that there will be a cut-off point in three months’ time. Yes, of course we should be emphasising this and supporting people to take up jobs in social care. We should be training them properly and giving them a career pathway so that they can see the way ahead. Their career pathway is somewhat blocked at the moment by the fact that, the higher up you go, the more likely the Government are to allow someone from outside the country to come in and take the job. I tried to explain that on a previous occasion, but I do not think I was eloquent enough. I will use this example: you can come in and drive a BMW but you cannot come in to drive an elderly Robin Reliant that has rusted to the point where the brakes do not work and the doors are falling off. That is what happened in social care, as illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. There is death and fear within the sector. You will not cure that in three months, nor persuade other people to move house to take up jobs because they have just been made redundant from quite well-paid employment in areas where they hope to take up training and other opportunities.
I therefore appeal for everybody, including the Migration Advisory Committee, to get real. I appeal to the Minister to go back to government—it is not her fault but that of the Treasury—and say, “In the next three months, we as a Government will not solve this problem. We will not be able to encourage sufficient people to take up these jobs. We know that the turnover rate is massive”—it is even greater than my noble friend Lord Rosser said—“that the vacancies exist and are unattractive, and that some people will be highly unsuitable.” So, for goodness sake, let us have a continuing review. That is all Amendment 3 asks for: to get this right and ensure that the consequences of closing the door to the other 27 members of the European Union on 31 December do not have a disproportionate impact on the care of those we are supposed to care about. This is why this debate is taking place, because of the new situation arising from the way we are treating those from the European Union and the EAA. Were that not to happen, we could have a more rational debate, as appealed for by the previous speaker, on how we adjust to ensure that we are not reliant in key areas —including, apparently, butchery—on drawing in people from across the world. That includes, of course, doctors and nurses, who, under the programme that has been laid out, will be allowed to be recruited into the country.
There are such contradictions and we are in such a cliff-edge position that I have gone on longer than I intended, because the more I think about it, the more passionate I am to ask for a bit of common sense.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 3. Personally, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which she referred to as “tougher and more radical”. I voted to remain in the European Union precisely because I recognise the importance of free movement of people. I agreed with virtually every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I shall be brief, because I am aware that we are only on group 2 and the target is to get to group 14 this evening.
The social care system is in crisis. All noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the difficulties that it faces—problems that have been made clear by your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee over the years. The Minister should not have to answer for the social care system. She is not the Minister for Social Care; she is Minister of State in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is right: the equivalent of the Migration Advisory Committee should report to not just the Home Office but to the Department for Education, the department of health, the Treasury and BEIS because they all need to understand the skills deficits in this country.
The specifics of Amendment 3 are about the social care sector. This Bill is in front of us today because of Brexit but the social care sector is highlighted because of the Covid crisis. Today’s amendment would have been necessary even without six months of a global pandemic, but that pandemic has made clear to everybody both the importance of social care and the huge numbers of EU and third-country nationals in this country looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
It cannot be right to say that those people should not be here and should not be working. We value people being here. Although the noble Lord, Lord Horam, is undoubtedly correct that we need to ensure that British people are adequately skilled, can we really assume that we will suddenly go in the next 14 weeks from no training to saying that someone who is unemployed can take on a job in the care sector that is being vacated by an EU national who has gone home and will not be replaced by another EU national? There might be medium and long-term aspirations for change, but we must accept that the change on 1 January will be immediate.
For that reason, I ask the Government to take this modest amendment very seriously. In her letter to noble Lords earlier today, the Minister referred to Amendments 3 and 30. She stressed that the MAC is a “world-class, independent body” and that it will report. Well, it reported yesterday and expressed its concern about the social care sector. If she cannot give us an answer today, will she come back before Third Reading with some recommendation of how she plans to reconcile her letter to your Lordships, the MAC’s report and the importance of ensuring that, on 1 January, the social care system is not even more vulnerable than it is already? I strongly support Amendment 3.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in particular and Amendment 30. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I want to follow up on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I remind my noble friend the Minister that she will have encountered in her previous life many of the problems that are being rehearsed by noble Lords speaking to Amendment 3. I remember being a local MP. For the first 13 years, I did not have a jobcentre in my constituency; only in the last five years was I able to visit a local jobcentre in my constituency. When we got the figures on unemployment, I always asked for the figures on job vacancies. Inevitably, the majority of them were for social care workers and were the hardest to fill.
I know from personal experience of two care providers for young people requiring social care—there was Leonard Cheshire initially, then Wilf Ward, both of which do marvellous work; I pay tribute to them—that they are unable to match the basic starting salary of someone in a supermarket who may want to come off the current unemployment list to take any job. Stacking shelves in a supermarket is less demanding, less physically onerous and pays more. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister shares my pessimism but I do not foresee a rush of people—who in any event may not be suited to be a carer. The clue is in the name: you have to care, to be incredibly patient and to be quite physically fit. Many will simply not qualify.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser very much for moving this crucial amendment in such a powerful and forceful way. I should declare an interest because my grandson, who is very close to me, took the opportunity of the longer summer break for schools after the public examinations to go and work on the front line in a care home. He is intelligent, perceptive and caring, so I learned a great deal from what he told me.
What troubles me in our considerations is this: just how many of us would have thought of using some of our available time working in a care home? Would the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for example? We expect all sorts of other people to do it but we are not prepared to commit ourselves. Of course, this is also coupled with the extraordinary way in which we are so sentimental about workers in the care sector. We clap our hands and celebrate—I have done it—but where is the recognisable esteem in which we hold these people? We all know that they are grotesquely underpaid. We talk about them and how we will find sufficient numbers and all the rest of it; perhaps we should have at the top of our list proper remuneration for this highly demanding work.
A lot has been said about workers from outside Britain. It was quite insensitive because some of the most dedicated, loving care for those with serious conditions has come from those workers. Why can we not talk about them as people—fellow members of the human race—rather than as immigrants?
The amendment is important because we all know that the past summer—goodness knows what will happen this winter—has demonstrated an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, dedicated staff, against all the odds, have been doing their best in so many places to help those in great need, while we have failed to accord proper status in our social order to the people doing such work. It is surely because we have become a society in which success is regarded as a matter of how much money you make and how quickly you make it, rather than a society in which care, support and service to the community are regarded as of the highest order and significance. We have had a terrible crisis in the care sector this past year. May it not be repeated. Let us look at some of the underlying issues and put them right at once. The amendment will help us to introduce the necessary disciplines if we are to approach issues of this kind.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has clearly passed on to his grandson the importance of contributing to service in its widest sense. I very much agree with his analysis but then I almost always do.
By definition, members of the largest cohort in the social care sector do not fall within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 but are very much affected. They are certainly part of the social care workforce and are impacted by the availability of social care workers employed in the sector. I mean, of course, the many people who support and care for someone older, disabled or seriously ill at home. According to Carers UK, one in eight adults—6.5 million people—are so engaged. The carer’s allowance is around £67 a week. I could go on but I do not get the impression that noble Lords need to be convinced of the importance of the sector, including those who do not have formal, paid-for care at home or in a care home. The informal carers and those for whom they care are impacted as well as those in public or private employment. The number of those in private employment is considerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the NHS.
That is not the only reason we support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Committee, reminded us that there are 115,000 European nationals in the social care workforce, despite high vacancy rates. It is, as other noble Lords, have said, a skilled profession with some skills that cannot be trained into a person and come from one’s personality and often culture, and include physical fitness, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. At a previous stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that he would have supported similar amendments but for the absence of a reference to training, which is now included in the amendment—rightly so—because training in practical and technical matters is important. However, that does not detract from my observations about personality.
The need for carers will not diminish. My noble friend Lady Barker reminded us, although I do not need reminding, that many of us are ageing and do not have children to shoulder the work—and it is work —done by families, however lovingly. She gave us the figure of 1 million but one should add families with a disabled child, for instance.
Like my noble friend Lady Smith, I have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30 and many of my comments apply to it. In Committee, the Minister relied on the MAC having licence to consider any aspect of migration policy. However, when prompted by yesterday’s report, I looked at the website—it may have been changed now—which referred only to commissions by the Home Secretary. However, the committee’s pursuit of the matter is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, will note that in quoting the chair’s reference to the
“struggle to recruit the necessary staff if wages do not increase as a matter of urgency”,
I am relying on a press release, not the 600 pages of the report.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, it is right that the assessment should be commissioned by the Home Secretary, because she should own the work. We are not “incurious”, as the right reverend Prelate said, and will support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in one of the most thoughtful debates on the Bill. I want to reflect first on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who said that had it not been for the pandemic, we might not be having this debate. I honestly think that we would have been doing so in some form or other. I am not taking issue with what she said but I want to make a further point.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I said that we would have been having this debate but the pandemic made it worse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In that case, I agree with the noble Baroness. However, the main part of my point was related to the issue on which my noble friend Lady McIntosh challenged me. She asked whether, given my background, I could see the problems to which noble Lords are referring. I can absolutely see them. In fact, in 2005, when I was a new leader of a council, and David Cameron a new leader of the Opposition, he asked me what the biggest challenge was for local authorities. Straight off, I said social care, and, 15 years later, that remains the case. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referenced those who care voluntarily. There are so many that they save the state billions of pounds a year for the work that they do without being paid. I therefore join noble Lords in paying tribute to this sector, which has done so much, particularly during the pandemic. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, people in social care have given and lost their lives to the fight against the disease.
I turn next to points about the Migration Advisory Committee. First, I turn to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which he has made before, about the contradictory nature of what we are debating. In one sense, we highly value our social care workers and in another, as someone else said, they earn less, in some cases, than retail workers. That is the challenge at the heart of this: social care needs to be paid decently and seen as a decent career path for people to want to go into it.
I could stand at this Dispatch Box and give my view on the silver bullet that would sort this all out, but I am afraid that I cannot. It is not that it is above my pay grade but, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, this is a challenge for every department and government —and, actually, every one of us. I had a chat with my noble friend Lord Hodgson before this debate; he is probably sitting there very frustrated because he did not put his name down to speak, and I know that he would have wanted to talk about the report that the MAC issued yesterday on the review of the shortage occupation list. One of its key findings is that senior care workers, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants should be added to the UK-wide shortage occupation list. The Government want to take time to consider carefully what the MAC has said—as noble Lords I have said, it is a 650- page document—before we take any final decisions, and we will of course respond in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, challenged me for a timescale, and “in due course” is about as far as I can go at this stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the devolved Administrations’ part in all this. Of course, it is a reserved matter. The new system will work for the whole of the UK and we have a national advisory group, with which we are engaged on the proposals, but it includes the Welsh NHS Confederation, Social Care Wales, NHS Scotland and Scottish social carers.
I turn to the amendments at hand. Amendment 3 returns to issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in Committee, but it also incorporates a requirement to report on immigration routes for social care workers, which was raised during Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and goes to the essence of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Committee, about a specific route for the social care sector. During our debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly highlighted the significant shortages in the social care sector, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, amounting to around 120,000 vacancies. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, also talked about the high turnover, which I think I said was 31%, but he thinks might be even higher.
We must keep it in mind that that is the situation despite the fact that EEA and Swiss citizens have had, and continue to have, free movement rights up to the end of this year. The noble Lord also highlighted the fact that the social care workforce is made up of approximately 83% British citizens, 7% from the EEA countries and about 9% from non-EEA countries. What struck me as interesting about those figures is that a higher percentage of people from non-EEA countries than from EEA countries are working in social care, even though they have no dedicated route to do so. Currently, while social care workers do not meet the skills threshold, a range of other immigration routes are available to them which provide a general right to work, such as dependants, those on family routes or youth mobility.
As part of the UK’s new points-based immigration system, we are expanding the skills threshold, which will bring jobs such as senior care workers within scope of the skilled worker route. Increasingly, people of all nationalities will be able to benefit from this offer providing they meet the other requirements, such as salary threshold. However, I want to be clear that, as my noble friend Lord Horam points out, the Government do not see the immigration system as the solution to all issues in the social care sector. I think there is now general acceptance across your Lordships’ House that that is the case.
With that in mind, we are working alongside the sector to ensure that the workforce has the right number of people to meet increasing demands, with the right skills, knowledge and approach to deliver quality, compassionate care. The Department of Health and Social Care has launched a new national recruitment campaign called Every Day Is Different to run across broadcast, digital and social media. The campaign highlights the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic, along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care.
The Government have also commissioned Skills for Care to scale up capacity for digital induction training provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This training is available for redeployees, new starters, existing staff and volunteers through 12 of Skills for Care’s endorsed training providers. The Government are committing record investment to the NHS, including the NHS long-term funding settlement, which has now been enshrined in law. At the Budget, the Chancellor outlined over £6 billion of further new spending in this Parliament to support the NHS. This includes £5.4 billion to meet our manifesto commitments of 50,000 more nurses, 50 million additional appointments in primary care, more funding for hospital car parking and establishing a learning disability and autism community discharge grant to support discharges into the community.
As my noble friend Lord Horam pointed out, we are also investing in social care. DHSC is providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adult and children’s social care in 2021. We have also announced £2.9 billion to help local authorities in response to the coronavirus crisis. The Department of Health and Social Care is also working closely with Skills for Care to help employers train new recruits and volunteers and to refresh the skills of its current workforce.
In Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham of Ilton, highlighted that working in social care, especially when caring for people who have severe disabilities, requires much more than just technical skills. I totally agree. Social care jobs will not be for everyone. However, it is a sad consequence of the current pandemic that many people have lost their jobs. While not all of them will have the necessary caring skills, I think there are many people in the UK who really do care, and it is vital that we take the opportunity to emphasise the importance of social care work and ensure that it is a rewarding job for people.
The view that migration is not the solution to the challenges faced by the care sector is supported by the Migration Advisory Committee. My noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Lilley referred to that in Committee. We need to make changes to the way we train, recruit , attract and, crucially, retain staff in health and social care, but without making changes, the immigration system will continue to be used as a failsafe to maintain a broken system that relies on bringing people in on minimum wage and holding down wages.
The Government continue to commission and fund a range of training opportunities to help recruit people into the sector and develop leadership within social care. This includes the Think Ahead programme, which has taken on more than 400 applicants since it was launched in 2015. It trains graduates to become mental health social workers. There is also the workforce development fund, which helped nearly 2,800 establishments to support nearly 14,500 learners in 2018-19. This fund will continue to focus on key priorities in future.
Turning to the specifics of the amendment, it is of course sensible that policies are kept under review—something the Government stand by in the current system and will ensure continues under new arrangements. We already have the MAC, and its advice has been accepted by all types of Government over many years. I know that some noble Lords do not share my views on the expert advice provided by the MAC, but surely there cannot be disagreement that the MAC has repeatedly considered the needs of the social care sector, as referenced by the report yesterday.
We should not take for granted the Government’s own extensive engagement with stakeholders across the whole of the UK, and indeed the critical role that this House plays in scrutinising policies and intentions. So I do understand the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment to ensure the protection of a vital sector. We already have a world-class independent body with new autonomy to review any part of our immigration system, as referenced today, in the last 24 hours. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel that Amendment 3 is not necessary and will be happy to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have received no requests from noble Lords wishing to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to reply.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
First, I share the views that the Minister expressed about the quality and value of this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank the Minister for her response.
I think that there is a general acceptance that the social care sector is in crisis, with low-paid and undervalued skilled work, a very high staff turnover rate and a very high level of vacancies. On top of that, the crisis could well be exacerbated by abruptly closing down a significant source of labour from abroad in three months’ time. In response to my amendment, the Minister referred to the role of the Migration Advisory Committee. But the MAC is not a specialist committee on the social care sector, as, frankly, was indicated very clearly by its recent 650-page report, Review of the Shortage Occupation List: 2020, which simply indicates that it covers a wide breadth of sectors and occupations within those sectors and is looking at migration issues.
However, it is clear from the MAC’s recent report that it feels that the views it has expressed in the past have not had much impact, because it has made reference to “again” expressing concern about the social care sector, and to issues that it has been pressing “for some years”. I think this means that, while the work that has been done by the MAC over a number of years is to be welcomed, clearly it does not feel that that it has had much impact. Perhaps that is because it is not a specialist committee on the social care sector; it is a committee that looks at migration across the board.
I think that that makes the case that, in view of the crisis in the social care sector, which may well get worse at the end of this year in light of the changes to the immigration system, there is a clear-cut case for a stand -alone, in-depth, specialist report on the social care sector and the impact of the provisions of the Bill, as provided for in the amendment, and that it is needed now if the goals that have been set for the sector—goals relating to better pay, training, professionalism, a reduction in turnover and a reduction in vacancies—are to be achieved. We badly need this in-depth specialist assessment to be made, as called for in the amendment, and I do wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that the technology has let us down and that the attempt to vote on Amendment 3 has failed. I believe that the intention now is to adjourn the House briefly while we sort out the problems, and then rerun the vote.
Motion to Adjourn
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for 15 minutes while we try and sort out those problems.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the problem with the technology is not yet fixed. I do not think we are very clear about how long it will take. Therefore, the suggestion is that the House should be adjourned during pleasure.
Motion to Adjourn
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until the time shown on the Annunciator.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the technical hitch; it is the first time that the voting system has let us down. I am afraid that it is not going to be fixed today. We have talked to the clerks and the usual channels, who have shown great flexibility, and I think noble Lords will be amazed at the speed at which we are altering procedures. We intend to carry on with the debate outlined in today’s list. As usual, movers or Front-Benchers must give notice of whether Members wish to vote or wish to withdraw their amendments in the normal way. Then we will have a deferred Division on the amendment at some time in the future if the mover or Front-Bencher indicates that they want a Division. That will probably be on Monday 5 October, the second day of Report. That will allow the House to continue its scrutiny and also, where necessary, to test the opinion of the House, albeit later.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Division on Amendment 3 has been deferred, so I now call Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. As we have just heard, anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division—which I should emphasise will not take place today—should make this clear in the debate.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 4
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State’s discretion and preclude the making of unnecessary regulations.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I moved Amendments 4 and 5 in Committee; they are amendments to what the Public Law Project called the “breathtakingly wide” powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State. It is ironic that when elsewhere negotiations are going on—or maybe not going on—regarding the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, we are being faced with exercising our sovereignty in order to pass it back to the Executive.
Amendment 4 would substitute in Clause 4, which is about regulation-making powers, the word “necessary” for “appropriate”. Amendment 5 would take out the ability for the Secretary of State to make regulations “in connection with” anything in Part 1. Taken together, these terms give the Executive huge latitude. I am glad that the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Pannick and Lord Alton, have been added to my amendments. The clause would read, “such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary in consequence of any provision” of Part 1.
The amendments follow the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a member of which, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very balanced speech at the last stage of the Bill. She acknowledged, as I do, that consequential amendments through means of secondary legislation are generally needed—although, as she said, when they can be they are to be put in the Bill, with regulations then used for tidying up. But as the breadth and number of amendments in Committee showed—that is, amendments to the Bill —a huge number of topics can fairly be said to be connected with Part 1. Those topics were all approved by the clerks to the House as being within scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, chair of the DPRR Committee, said that he spoke in sorrow, rather than being vicious, about its reported criticisms or concerns about the clause. I think we are entitled to expect more of the Government—and this is not vicious, but many degrees up from sorrowful—than the defence that:
“There are clear constraints on the use of the power in Clause 4. It can be used only to make regulations that amend primary or secondary legislation ‘in consequence of, or in connection with’ Part 1”.
That is exactly what we object to. I had forgotten to comment on the offensive—and I say that deliberately—power to amend primary legislation through regulations. The Government’s reply to the committee’s report included the Minister again asking your Lordships to consider the illustrative draft of the regulations which, shortly before the last stage, had been circulated, and to
“take comfort that this power is specifically to deliver the end of free movement”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 641.]
That is also relied on in the long letter from the Home Office, which I received at lunchtime today—and I dare say that the timing was similar for other noble Lords. I have to confess that I have not been able to get my head around quite all of it.
The draft regulations referred to are, frankly, fiendishly complicated, and are causing a lot of anxiety both as to the extent they are understood—especially as to any omissions—and to the extent they are not understood. But whatever they are like, we have nothing that we can look to as an assurance that there will not be more regulations. The “lawyers”, I am told, are engaged in an exhaustive process of analysing this draft. It may bore others as much as it does me to say it, but whatever the intentions of this Government and this Minister today, that would not matter one jot tomorrow in terms of curbing the power in Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree, as I usually do, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She mentioned the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There was also a report on this subject by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member. We issued a report on 2 September, our 11th report of the session. At paragraph 22, we said:
“We agree with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the powers in clause 4. A Henry VIII clause that is subject to such a permissive test as ‘appropriateness’, and which may be used to do anything ‘in connection with’ in relation to so broad and important an issue as free movement, is constitutionally unacceptable. Such vague and subjective language undermine fundamental elements of the rule of law.”
That is the view of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, in a unanimous report from Members from around the House. I am very disappointed that the Government have been so far unwilling to engage with that advice—and certainly to accept it.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted, in paragraphs 18 to 19 of its excellent report, the exceptional breadth of Clause 4(1). What it does is empower the Secretary of State not merely to make regulations “in consequence of” this legislation but “in connection with” this legislation. As the committee explained, that would confer on Ministers the power to make whatever regulations they think appropriate, provided they have some connection with the legislation, “however tenuous”. Given the exceptional breadth of the delegated powers in Clause 4, I also support Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which would impose a sunset clause on these powers.
I have one further point. This Bill is far from unique in seeking to confer excessively broad powers on Ministers. The Constitution Committee has repeatedly drawn attention to the need for effective limits on delegated legislation, to ensure ministerial accountability to Parliament. I am pleased that Members of the House of Commons, in the last few days, have begun to recognise the dangers of such legislation, not least because, when regulations are brought forward, they are unamendable. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has regularly made this point in reports over the last few years. The unacceptable breadth of provisions such as Clause 4 in the Bill is, I regret to say, typical of a Government who, too often, see Parliament as an inconvenience rather than the constitutional authority to which the Government are accountable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first of all, I would like to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for missing, in these rather disrupted circumstances, the very beginning of her speech today. But I am very pleased to be able to support her amendment and the others that are grouped with it.
In Committee, we had a discussion about some of the powers contained in this Bill, and I am pleased to be a signatory to Amendment 4. But I would also like to support Amendment 5 and, for the reasons my noble friend Lord Pannick has just advanced, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is about a sunset clause. Amendment 5 seeks to narrow the powers of the Secretary of State, and in a way that is at the heart also of Amendment 4, which is what I want to address this afternoon.
All these amendments seek to rein in some of the powers which Ministers are taking. It is a particular pleasure to be able to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Pannick. He referred to the Constitution Committee and its work, and I entirely agree that the substitution of the word “necessary” for “appropriate” places a higher threshold into the Bill—but you might wonder why on earth we would be spending so much time on just two words. Why does that really matter?
Yesterday in Grand Committee, in the context of the Trade Bill, I questioned, yet again, the Government’s overuse of secondary legislation and their unconvincing assertion that this amounts to effective parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I recall that the last time the House of Commons failed to pass an affirmative action Motion was in 1978, the year before I was elected to the House of Commons. The chairman of the 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady, has rightly warned of the dangers of the Government taking a whole range of powers that effectively neuter due parliamentary process, and I agree with him.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for introducing this group of amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his powerful intervention on behalf of the Constitution Committee. If we take our committee system seriously, we should take very seriously indeed the unanimous view of the Constitution Committee on such crucial issues.
I am afraid that what we have before us is another example of what I think is a deliberate confusion. Tremendous emphasis was made at the time of the referendum that the case for Brexit was to take power back. What on earth does that mean in a representative democracy? It means giving strengthened powers to a democratic political system—parliamentary democracy. Are we a parliamentary democracy, or are we not? The powers that are envisaged in this legislation are too great and too wide; they are in need of very careful scrutiny.
I am glad that we have moved forward since Committee, because we previously talked about a 12-month curb on the powers but now we are talking about a six-month term, which is an altogether sensible and healthy development. I strongly support this group of amendments.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the intentions and objectives of Amendments 4 and 5 for the reasons given by all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Amendment 9, to which my name is attached, as is that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, provides for a sunset clause on the powers set out in Clause 4 of the Bill. It stipulates that regulations can be made only under subsection 4(1) for six months after the end of the transition period. Clause 4(1) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of this Part.”
The part in question is Part 1, which contains the measures relating to the end of free movement. The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4, which are so wide-ranging in the way they are worded that they would enable the Government to modify by unamendable statutory instrument both primary immigration legislation and retained direct EU immigration legislation, are to address only necessary technical changes to primary legislation arising from the ending of free movement.
I put a similar amendment down at the Committee stage, but the difference is that that amendment provided for a longer sunset clause. I have now reduced it to six months in the light of the Government’s response in Committee which was—I shall heavily paraphrase—that we will have used the powers in Clause 4(1) for the required consequential amendments regulations relating to the end of free movement within the next few months, if not by the end of the transition period, and that therefore there is no need for a one-year sunset clause. The Government went on to say that they needed to retain the power to make regulations under Clause 4(1) because—I shall paraphrase once again—they might find that, at some stage, they have overlooked the necessary consequential amendment and would not want to be faced with the prospect of having to pass further primary legislation to rectify the problem. In other words, these Henry VIII powers which are being handed to the Secretary of State cannot be time-limited because the Government are not confident of their own ability to identify the required consequential amendments in good time.
The Government have also argued that, since the powers in Clause 4(1) relate only to the ending of free movement, the passage of time itself will eliminate the need to use these powers. I would argue that having a sunset clause, now reduced in this amendment to six months in the light of the Government’s response at the Committee stage, would help to concentrate the mind of the Government in making sure that they had correctly identified all of the consequential amendments related to the end of free movement. Knowing that the power to continue to use Clause 4(1) is there for however long it is needed is surely not conducive to effective and properly thought through legislating. Instead, it is conducive to sloppiness over legislating if the prospect of having to go through a further stage of primary legislation to correct an oversight that should have been avoided is removed. I also think that giving these considerable powers to the Secretary of State without any time limit for the reasons the Government have given is, to put it very politely, an incorrect application of the purpose for which such powers were envisaged and intended.
Although I am not going to call for a vote on my Amendment 9, I hope that the Government will be prepared to reflect further on this and come back at Third Reading with an alternative approach.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for speaking to their amendments, which concern the regulation-making power in Clause 4. I shall reiterate the point I made in Committee, which is that it is absolutely right that parliamentary scrutiny should include the scope of delegated powers in the Bill. The debate in this House was helpfully assisted by the latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the intervention of its chair, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, for which I am grateful. The Government have considered the recommendations made in the report carefully and I have written to my noble friend and other Members of the Committee.
I shall address first Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness. The purpose of Amendment 4 is to limit the use of the power in Clause 4 to make legislative changes that are “necessary” rather than “appropriate”. The purpose of Amendment 5 is to limit the power to changes that arise as a consequence of Part 1 of the Bill but are not “in connection with” it. The Government have now shared an illustrative draft of the regulations which are to be made under this power later in the year, subject to Parliament’s approval of the Bill. As I explained in my formal response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
“In so doing, the Government’s intention was to demonstrate the necessity of having the power in clause 4, as it is drafted, and how it will be used in tandem with the power in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to end free movement in a way that is coherent, comprehensive and fully meets the requirements of the withdrawal agreements.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thought I would leave the Constitution Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he did not disappoint—he never does. Words such as Parliament being “an inconvenience” and “the fiction” of Parliament’s involvement have been referred to. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was not here to hear my compliments to her on her very measured speech as a member of the DPRRC at the previous stage, but it was measured, and the more powerful for that.
I do not resile from the comments that I have made about the single words which somebody said we get excited about. I do get excited about single words—they are very important. Like other noble Lords, I feel that Parliament is being sidelined.
The lawyers who have been engaged on the draft SIs that have been published must be absolutely exhausted. I think that they would probably be the most enthusiastic supporters of Amendment 9, but perhaps I am too sympathetic as a long-retired lawyer. I wonder whether there might be a need for further tidying up but I do not want to make the Government’s case for them.
The Minister said that the debate has been assisted by the DPRRC and its chair. It has been assisted but it has not led to any change. In the reply that we have had today, she has used similar language—that the inclusion of “in connection with” provides a clearer basis for dealing with issues and that the words are more apt to describe the cohorts referred to. However, for me, that raises more problems, because it distinguishes between those who have exercised the opportunities to apply for settled status and those who would rely on treaty rights to which they are not entitled. I am becoming quite technical here but that takes us to the issue of comprehensive sickness insurance, which I hope we will get to on Monday.
I have said it before and will say it again today—I hope, for the last time—that of course we do not expect to see another illustrative draft instrument, but there would be nothing to prevent the Minister bringing forward further statutory instruments in the next few months. It is the words in the clause rather than any limited time in which the clause might apply that are the most relevant.
Now that I have said all that, I shall not say it all again and I do not propose to ask the House to consider it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Green of Deddington
“( ) Any regulations made under subsection (1) which make provision to permit EEA and Swiss nationals to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment must include a specified limit on the total number of such persons to be granted permission for that purpose each calendar year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to place an annual limit on the number of EEA and Swiss nationals that may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up employment when making regulations under Clause 4(1).
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her full and careful answers to a number of points that I raised in Committee. However, I now turn to Amendment 6.
Many noble Lords will have noted that I have retabled the three amendments that I put down in Committee. My reason is that the Government’s responses to these issues need further exploration—indeed, they set the tone for the whole new immigration system. The first of these amendments, concerning the cap, is by far the most important and of course is the subject of this amendment.
In Committee, I made the case for a cap with the powerful support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and I was also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—a man who clearly has the courage of his convictions.
I see that the Home Office has today announced a new nationwide campaign to ensure that businesses are ready for the introduction of the UK’s new points-based immigration system as free movement ends. I note that this is going ahead before this Bill has been passed by Parliament and before the new Immigration Rules have even been published.
The Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Mr Kevin Foster—by the way, I think he is the 16th Minister for immigration that I have dealt with—is reported to have said:
“Our new system has been designed with businesses in mind, treating people from every part of the world equally, welcoming them based on the skills they have to offer and how they will contribute to the UK, not where their passport comes from. It will be simpler for businesses to access the talent they need as we have removed the Resident Labour Market Test, lowered the skills and salary threshold, and suspended the cap on skilled workers.”
What it comes down to is this: the Government have cherry-picked advice from the Migration Advisory Committee to enable them to produce a policy that is entirely to the benefit of business and which, frankly, ignores the interests of British workers. Indeed, we now face a situation where millions of British workers will become unemployed and yet, for the convenience of business, the door will be wide open for an unlimited number of foreign migrants to come here and work. So, noble Lords may think it is “game and set” to the CBI. Maybe, but it is not “match”.
It seems that the Government are just ploughing on. Never mind that the MAC advised in January 2020 against the introduction of a tradable points system for the main work permit route—indeed, it pointed out that such a system had failed in the UK in the past, as some of us remember—and never mind that the Australians, on whose scheme this one is supposed to be based, have a cap on a number of key categories.
This policy is extraordinarily dangerous. The number of UK jobs that will be affected is huge—in the order of 6 million or 7 million. The number of potential candidates around the world who meet the A-level requirement and are of an age at which migration is quite common runs into literally hundreds of millions. How many of those speak enough English we do not know, but the point is that the numbers are huge.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Government address these issues in purely economic terms. This is not solely an economic matter. The real-world impact on our own people is also extremely important. As I mentioned, we have a rapidly rising level of unemployment that will also run into millions, yet the Government’s policy not only ignores that baleful prospect but runs entirely counter to the sense of fairness that is such a strong British characteristic.
That, I am sure, is why public opinion is so strongly in favour of control. Nearly 60% of the public indicated in a recent YouGov poll that immigration has been too high and needs to be much more carefully controlled. Indeed so. Nor, by the way, is this a question of “Little Englanders”. A 2019 Delta poll found that the share of Scots in favour of a firm limit on the number of work permits was even higher than in England, 76% compared to 71%. Of course, the Scots are well-known for their common sense.
The central difficulty with the Government’s policy is the clear risk that the numbers will run away with them. If that were to happen at a time of high and rising unemployment, their credibility with key supporters would be shot. Yet the irony is that an effective precaution is a relatively simple matter: to introduce a cap on a monthly basis until the situation is clearer. Even now, it is not too late for the Government to rethink and remind the business community that they are a Government for all the people, not the tool of the few. What reason could they give for such a change? Simple: that this policy was drawn up, and indeed announced, before the full force of the Covid virus had struck the UK. What explanation could be clearer, simpler or easier to justify? I hope we will hear a cautious response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and to which I and my noble friend Lord Horam—a fount of experience and common sense, as we heard in his earlier comments on social care—have added our names. Of course, the noble Lord is an esteemed expert in the field; there is no greater expert on some of these matters.
As the noble Lord said, the amendment calls for a limit on the total number of EEA and Swiss migrants coming into the UK for employment each calendar year. In practice, this would involve a limit on all immigration for employment. There is clearly a serious risk of the numbers getting very large indeed, as we have heard, if we do not find a way to control immigration more directly. We have to get this right or we will feel the result in public anger in years to come. Effectively leaving the number of migrants to the interests of employers, as is now proposed, is one-sided and inappropriate. It would make it impossible to plan properly for the investment we will need, given the scale of the dynamic change we will see. We will need additional houses, schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and transport facilities; we debated that in Committee but I do not think that anybody disagreed about the need for public investment to deal with the demographic change.
I know that we have the Migration Advisory Committee to help us and that, unlike SAGE, it includes economists; indeed, it is dominated by them. However, as I have already said, I fear that it is too focused on attracting talent from abroad in the employer’s interest; indeed, the Minister’s statement today heightens that fear. It is odd for me to speak against what might be seen as my own interest as a director—I refer to my interests in the register—but we are dealing with difficult economic dynamics and sensitive points of politics in what is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, this is not an economic matter alone. Fairness is very important.
I believe that we need as many jobs as possible for those already in the UK, particularly given the extension of the Covid restrictions and the resulting rise in unemployment, which, sadly, will grow further. We also need a greater incentive for employers to train in the skills that we require in a more digital, flexible world. I therefore very much welcome the fact that a revolution in skills was at the heart of the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement yesterday. However, as the noble Lord said, it is not too late for the Government to look carefully at the arrangements they have made and perhaps change them in the light of the Covid tsunami.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, it has been obvious during these debates on the immigration Bill that there are two clear points of view. One is that we should carry on roughly with the status quo, which primarily reflects the interests of business. The other view, which perhaps supports workers’ interests, is that we need more control than we have now and a lower level of immigration. My point is a simple one: both points of view can be accommodated. I hate to use the phrase, “We can have our cake and eat it” because it has been somewhat devalued by our Prime Minister. None the less, the fact is that we can do that if we think this through carefully.
The supporters of the existing immigration policy, at a fairly high level, want to have freedom of movement for academics, creative people, entrepreneurs, engineers and all the valuable people we need in our society and contribute so much. For example, it was recently pointed out that nearly 50% of the Nobel prizes won by people in the UK have been won by people who originated abroad. However, to get that element in society, you do not need to have a net immigration level of over 350,000 a year. It can all be done on a net immigration level of 50,000, 70,000 or less than 100,000, which we had for decades before the Blair Labour Government opened the gates in the early part of this century.
Therefore, the problem with the large-scale immigration that we have had for the last 15 or 20 years, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, is that it affects the quality of life, puts a huge strain on resources, has a big environmental and social impact and affects jobs and wages. Even the MAC has pointed out that people on low wages have had them reduced by 5% in real terms over the last few years. It even led to the biggest tragedy of all for people who are remainers, like myself—Brexit. The casual treatment of people’s views on immigration was a clear factor in the referendum and certainly a decisive view of those who voted for Brexit. In other words, the liberals and middle-class people who wanted more immigration dug their own grave over the referendum.
The way out of this dilemma is absolutely clear, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. It is to have a cap at a reasonable level. You could then accommodate the people who want to bring in the creative artists, entrepreneurs, businesspeople and so forth without having the numbers that are objected to by the workers and the bulk of people in this country.
In my previous speech, I praised the pamphlet produced by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who looked at the issue in totality in relation to the demographic trends and population. I will now quote from another pamphlet that was brought out a lot less recently: Beyond the Net Migration Target, by the Onward think tank. The author is Will Tanner, who was a special adviser in the Cameron Government to Theresa May, when she was Home Secretary. He states:
“We recommend that the Government moves to a detailed and transparent Sustainable Immigration Plan, which would set out ministers’ objectives for the level and composition of migration and be updated on a rolling basis every year… This type of detailed approach is commonplace in other countries… For example, Australia has an annual planning program, where it sets the number of permanent visas in the budget each year.”
Tanner sets out what happens in Australia. For example, from 2019 to 2020, they planned to have 30,000 employer sponsored visas and skilled independent visas to the tune of 18,652. All this is set out in an annual budget decided between the various departments and stakeholders concerned, brought to their Parliament, debated and settled, and they have another look at it the following year. It is all perfectly transparent, above board and very democratic. The same thing happens in Canada and New Zealand. All these people are very experienced in dealing with this problem of immigration.
There it is: it can be dealt with by the simple methods already extant in other countries. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that this is the way forward to meet both these objectives: those of the people who understand the value of a limited amount of immigration and those who do not want the high level of immigration that we have had over the last 20 years. Both sides can have what they want, and I present this to my noble friend as one of the answers to the way forward. It is a very simple pamphlet and, unlike the 650 pages of the MAC report, at 21 pages it is very readable. I hope that she can take this on board and present it to the Home Office as a very sensible way forward.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested she did not want to do the Government’s job for them. On this occasion, I beg to disagree with her and hope that maybe I can begin to do the Government’s job for them. In Committee, there were criticisms of certain amendments being put forward because they related only to EEA nationals. In particular, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister of Burtersett, said that if they had been able to they would have created amendments that were holistic, but they were told that such amendments would be out of scope because the Bill is limited to immigration responding to the context of Brexit.
My starting point on reading this amendment was simply to ask why. If one had a normal debate in which one could intervene, particularly at an earlier stage—in Committee, not on Report—the obvious thing would simply have been to jump up and intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, moving the amendment and ask why. The question of a cap for EEA nationals raises all sorts of questions which I hope the Minister will say are not acceptable in the context of the Bill, because why should there be a cap on EEA nationals? Whether you believe in cakeism—as the Prime Minister does—or, like the noble Lord, Lord Horam, you are trying to find a way to meet the concerns of those people who want to limit immigration and those who want a more open approach to immigration, there is surely a question of why there should be a cap on EEA nationals. I can only assume that it is because those noble Lords who tabled the amendment could not bring in a cap more generally.
It will come as no surprise that, from these Liberal Democrat Benches, I am not in favour of a cap. In particular, some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, seem to relate to questions of migration much more generally. We are talking about the context of the transition period ending on 31 December and a change from 1 January. Are we really anticipating that, all of a sudden, millions of EEA nationals who are not currently in the United Kingdom will want to rush to the United Kingdom to fill jobs? I do not think we are. Surely, if we are interested in fairness, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, talked about, we should think about everybody who might want to come to live and work in the UK. Why should there be a separate status in that sense for EEA nationals?
I cannot see a case for this amendment, and I hope the Minister might, for once, actually agree with me.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, is not speaking on this amendment, so we will go directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has said, and she is much more polite than I feel able to be. This amendment is nasty and it is pointless. It is nasty because it panders to a right-wing obsession with immigration caps that are utterly arbitrary—on an arbitrary group of people or a number—and it is pointless because the Bill already removes freedom of movement. Can we please not bother debating this any more? It is not worth it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is no longer speaking, so we will go directly to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Government will listen to the noble Lord, Lord Green, who has been very persuasive over a great many years. He does his homework and is well worth listening to.
Context is the key issue. It does not take a genius to work out that we will probably have higher unemployment in the next two years than anyone in this House has ever experienced. Against that background, the driving force must be how we get our people back into work. That must be the number one priority.
I had the privilege, with my noble friend Lord Horam, of reading economics at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. We were taught in some depth about Keynesian economics. Keynes came to the fore between the wars, with the unemployment situation. It was his driving force that produced the system whereby the public sector produced public sector works and employed the unemployed. That must be the driving force for the next two years.
There will be sections of society where we need immigration. Two come to mind: we always seem to be short of qualified doctors and we are clearly short of lab technicians, otherwise the testing and the analysis of it might be working together instead of one behind the other. Sections of our economy will need immigration, but it is not beyond the worlds of all of us to sit down and work out where that should happen.
I am pleased the Minister has made a statement today having consulted business—somewhat in contrast to Mr Gove and the haulage industry. Nevertheless—although I have not seen the whole speech—if he is talking to business, that is good.
We need more control. I do not know what the right figure is, but it is 100,000 or under. Our Government should look at that hard and in the context of where we really need some help because we sadly cannot use our unemployed.
I finish with basically the same sentence as I finished up with on the Agriculture Bill: we need to produce more home food. To do that, we need people to work in the fields, bring in the harvests, pick the apples, dig up the leeks, whatever it may be. If there are not enough people among the unemployed in Britain prepared to do that, we jolly well have to take it on the chin and bring in people to do it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I was very sorry not to be able to be here for the debates in Committee on these amendments, to which I put my name. I had an unavoidable business commitment elsewhere. I apologise to the House; I took the trouble to read Hansard carefully.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green. We need a limit on the annual numbers from the EEA and Switzerland seeking employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said we should stop talking about it and just get on with it. She is right in a way, because a cap is inflexible and clumsy, but I have come to the conclusion—somewhat reluctantly—that it is inevitable and the only way we will be able to grasp the challenges that the number of arrivals in this country now poses.
Simply put, without a cap the Government will never get control of this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who I am glad to see is still in her place, asked why we think this. History, particularly recent history, has shown how extraordinarily difficult it is to grasp this problem. We have heard a lot about taking back control, but the awful fact is that, where we have no control over current arrivals—those from the EEA—arrivals are falling, but where we have always had control, they are rising sharply. In 2016, there were 133,000 arrivals from the EU; now there are 58,000, in the figures produced by the ONS a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the non-EU arrivals were 175,000 and are now 316,000—nearly double.
I sat in this Chamber for many hours, hearing all those noble Lords saying that Brexit was going to chase everybody away and no one would come here because we would all be anti-foreigner. I can tell the House that in 2016, 308,000 people arrived here, and the latest figures say that 374,000 have arrived, so that is not a sign that people are being frightened away. Nor is it about no immigration. It is about scale—about 374,000 people. It is about 900 a day and all that means. I will not go through the things other noble Lords talked about, such as houses and the impact. We have 6 million more people in this country, and that is with drastically reduced levels from where we are today. If we go on at the current level, it will be 8 or 9 million more. At 6 million more people, we will build over an area the size of Bedfordshire by 2040. No ifs, no buts, no maybes—that will happen. We will almost certainly be unable to stop it, because you always look 10 or 15 years out when you do demographic planning. We need to be honest and clear about the implications of the decisions that we take in Bills and statutes like this.
How has this happened? At root, it is because it is in employers’ commercial interest to recruit trained but cheaper labour from overseas. Why go to the trouble and the expense of training members of a settled population, many of whom may be quite recalcitrant and not particularly grateful, when you can avoid all that effort by recruiting someone from overseas, who is probably jolly grateful? British industry and commerce have become addicted to overseas recruitment at the expense of our own people. Figures bear that out. My noble friend Lord Horam referred to the think tank Onward. Last year it reported:
“Since 2011 employer spending per trainee has fallen by 17% in real terms”.
Employers have avoided having to put money into training; they have been able to go overseas instead.
In researching the pamphlet I recently published, I investigated the engineering industry, another sector where employers are always bemoaning the lack of UK-grown engineers. I was absolutely astonished to learn that last year, six months after graduation, fewer than half the engineering graduates of this country were working in engineering. I understand that they are not all going to go into engineering, but fewer than half is a surprisingly small number. When I went to talk to some of these young men and women about why they had not moved into engineering, they said that one of the problems is that UK employers preferred to offer jobs to someone with experience—no surprise there. UK undergraduates find themselves in a position where they cannot get experience without a job, and they cannot get a job without experience.
My noble friend will no doubt point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been the subject of a number of our conversations this afternoon, and its enlarged remit. The MAC is a fine body of men and women, but even a cursory reading of its annual report shows the enormous pressure that it is under to effectively abandon all controls. To quote from page 81 of last year’s annual report: “The majority of respondents”—that is, employers sending information to the MAC—
“agreed that there should not be a salary threshold above the National Minimum Wage”.
Secondly:
“There was stronger support for the idea of a salary threshold that was in some way variable to reflect employer needs”.
That effectively means nothing. On page one of the report, the MAC pointed out that this was the inevitable conclusion of “an employer-driven system”.
My noble friend on the Front Bench is a redoubtable Minister, as is the Home Secretary. No doubt there are many redoubtable Ministers in the Government, but they will find themselves under irresistible pressure, carefully argued by employers, about the inability of the UK to compete on a world stage unless more arrivals are permitted. Under that pressure, Ministers will first buckle and finally break. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the full effect of the pandemic has yet to make itself felt. Surely none of us seeks to argue that the consequences for the employment of our settled population will be anything other than lessened. Against that background, allowing annual immigration of 374,000 a year—1,025 a day—must be ill-advised and maybe runs the risk of societal disorder. That is why a cap—clumsy, yes; inflexible, yes—set annually, debated and approved in Parliament, is critical. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Bill is about ending the free movement of people from the EU and EEA, and Swiss nationals. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords oppose the proposed points-based immigration system that relies on measures other than a cap on numbers to control immigration to the UK. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said, on 1 January at the end of the transition period, the rights of EU citizens to come and work in the UK will be replaced by controls based on salary and skill levels. That will also apply to migrants from the rest of the world. The number of EU migrants has already fallen significantly, and will continue to do so, as a result of the end of free movement that the Bill brings about. While we on these Benches regret that, it is the consequence of leaving the EU. That is what the UK people voted for; we have already left and will suffer the consequences.
I shall engage to some extent with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, raised and come back to them on future amendments. He said that the system was entirely for the benefit of business and not of British workers, would cost between 6 million and 7 million jobs, and that there were hundreds of millions of people potentially qualified to come to the UK to take those jobs. He said that the public were in favour of control. However, my understanding is that there will be control but of a different type from setting a cap. Presumably, although the Minister will enlighten us, salary levels and qualification requirements can and will be varied if necessary if consequently we suddenly face a so-called avalanche of people coming to the UK from areas other than the European Union. Any avalanche from the European Union would have happened already because, at the moment, there is free movement.
It is interesting that noble Lords opposite talk about business interests, yet in other debates they argue that we need a strong economy to pay for public services. The fact is that migrants, particularly migrant workers, contribute far more to public services than they receive in public services, and they certainly contribute more than the average UK resident does.
We on these Benches believe that government departments such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care have knowledge of the migrants that the UK economy needs, and that they, not the Home Office, should decide on immigration policy, points-based or otherwise. I will not entirely do the Minister’s job for her but perhaps she can convince the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that his amendment is not necessary because the points-based system will effectively reduce immigration.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, in Committee and my noble friend Lord Rosser responded to that debate. I think it is no surprise that I do not agree with the amendment as worded for several reasons. In particular, I do not believe that it serves the interest of the United Kingdom well. Governments can set targets and give the impression that they are doing something to grab a few headlines but, after that, can fail to deliver what they said they were seeking to achieve. Immigration is often treated like that, so an arbitrary cap that is routinely broken is of no use whatever.
As we complete the Brexit process—I hope that we will have an agreement with the European Union in place shortly—we need an immigration system that responds to the needs of the economy and the welfare of the United Kingdom. That is what is important here. We do not want something that will be bureaucratic and unworkable and that would cause more problems than it would supply solutions. Our economy will have enough problems in the years ahead without the difficulty this amendment could wreak on it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
No. In their contributions, the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to think-tank reports. I will be interested in the reports from those think tanks. I should declare that I am the treasurer of a think tank—the Fabian Society—but I am a bit concerned about these bodies because, unlike the Fabian Society, a lot of them are quite opaque. We do not know who funds them, where the money comes from or who is behind these reports, so I would be a bit more interested in what those bodies had to say if we knew who paid for what. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will speak on the next group, so maybe he can tell us who funded the report to which he has referred many times. I will be interested to hear that.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point about the number of EU migrants coming to the UK. In fact, that number has fallen. I carefully read the debate in Committee on this and on many points I found myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and I have heard nothing so far in the debate to persuade me otherwise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green, for retabling his amendment; I acknowledge and respect his expertise in this area. I also apologise for allowing the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, to intervene because I have now set a precedent. I should never have done that. No one is allowed to intervene.
The amendment effectively intends to reintroduce an annual limit on the number of people who may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up skilled employment. The existing cap, which the Government have committed to suspending, is set at 20,700, and is administered on a monthly basis to those seeking entry clearance as a skilled worker. As outlined in Committee, this sounds like a very sensible measure to control and limit migration to the UK, but we cannot know how many people will seek to come to the UK using the new skilled worker route. The impact of some of the key changes, including the expansion of the skills threshold and the reduction of the general salary threshold, is also unknown. Where possible, Home Office analysts have tried to predict possible impacts, and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made so eloquently may well come to pass.
The amendment provides an opportunity for me to reinforce the importance of implementing a flexible immigration system. Our proposals will do that and ensure that the system can be adapted and adjusted, subject to social and economic circumstances—to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, alluded—but we cannot get away from the fact that the amendment would add to the burden on businesses, considerably slow the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, and create uncertainty among employers.
Any cap, including the one we have at present, creates an odd dynamic when it binds us to consider a migrant a valuable addition one month but unwanted the next. This may only be a perception based on the mechanics of a cap, but it is a perception that we want to address, instead focusing on our commitment to continue to attract those with the skills and talents that we need.
The noble Lord highlighted three issues with suspending the cap. The first issue is that an estimated 7 million UK jobs will be open to new or increased international competition. However, these jobs are currently under more competition due to freedom of movement. The imposition of any control, instead of allowing free movement to continue, protects those jobs. Ending free movement and requiring an employer to meet the requirements of being a Home Office licensed sponsor and pay relevant immigration charges, including the skills charge, makes the employment of a resident worker the simpler option. Again, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the Migration Advisory Committee’s September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK. It said that it did
“not believe that the welfare of existing residents is best served by a cap for two reasons. First, the cap, when it binds, constrains inflows of a group of migrants which the evidence suggests are the most economically beneficial … Second, the cap creates unpredictability when it binds as there can be sharp increases in the minimum salary threshold that skilled visa applications face.”
The salary requirements rise as this is the mechanism for selecting which roles are granted permission.
The noble Lord’s second issue is that the number of potential applicants is huge. That has always been the case. The advancements in education around the globe and the increase in populations inevitably mean that more people can qualify as skilled migrants. Addressing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the MAC also said:
“We believe that if the Government wants to reduce migration numbers it would make more economic sense to do so by varying the other aspects of the scheme criteria”.
Therefore, we have retained the immigration skills charge in the future system and will continue to operate a range of salary thresholds.
Thirdly, the noble Lord advocates that there would be a great incentive for employers to go for cheap, competent, non-unionised workers. To this end, we are maintaining the position in our new immigration system that those under the skilled worker route be paid a minimum salary level, which has been calculated so as not to undercut domestic workers. The level and operation of salary thresholds has been based on the advice of the MAC. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that considering the impact of policies on the UK’s economy is an area that the MAC excels in.
Maintaining a sponsor licence also requires compliance with UK employment laws on treating employees equally. We completely accept that the first stage in our plans for the points-based system will need monitoring to assess the impact of the changes on the resident labour market and key sectors, and we are committed to doing just that. On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers and providing certainty for UK businesses and employers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply an annual cap on skilled workers, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so we return to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I will study very carefully. I welcome her indication that the Government will keep a close eye on the numbers. I hope that that will not exclude the possibility of introducing a cap if, in the light of experience, they feel that they should move quickly.
I am grateful for the widespread and powerful support from most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly appreciated that the proposed cap was to apply to immigration as a whole from 2021. Leaving aside the mechanics of this Bill, the policy issue is for immigration as a whole from next January.
I would like to correct one misapprehension which is important. We are not suggesting that 6 million or 7 million people will arrive. That is the number of jobs that will be open to competition under the new regulations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords again that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 7
Lord Green of Deddington
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the Resident Labour Market Test (as set out in the Immigration Rules Appendix A: attributes) to apply to job offers where a job offer forms part of the application of EEA and Swiss nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that job offers made to EEA and Swiss nationals which form part of an application for that person to enter the United Kingdom should first be advertised in the domestic labour market in accordance with the Resident Labour Market Test.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, the Minister quoted extensively from the Migration Advisory Committee. She said that the MAC had reported that it was “sceptical about how effective” the labour market test would be in giving settled workers the first opportunity to fill jobs—I think she just mentioned that again. She went on to quote the MAC saying,
“We think it likely that the bureaucratic costs of”—
a labour market test—
“outweigh any economic benefit”.
Her third quote was that the MAC thought it
“important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers.”
It continued:
“The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge”. —[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 844.]
Those are the technicalities.
I have checked those quotations. They came from the MAC final report on EEA migration in the UK, dated September 2018. This report specifically recommended that there should be no change in the £30,000 general salary threshold that was in effect at the time—yes, no change. So those quotations have clearly been stripped of their original context.
If the Government are now keen to invoke the MAC, they might wish to note the committee’s previous findings. In February 2012, it said that increasing exemptions from the labour market test would mean:
“Resident employees stand to lose out from increased labour market competition.”
Again, in 2015, it said that the labour market tests
“help protect the domestic workforce from being displaced or replaced by migrant workers”.
Whatever it said most recently and in whatever context, it has clearly consistently recognised the impact of a labour market test. In the light of those previous recommendations and the lack of any subsequent detailed work by either the MAC or the Home Office to consider the potential displacement impact, the complete abolition of the labour market test is of considerable concern.
The context in which these proposals are now being considered, of rising unemployment, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, and increasing youth unemployment, surely requires the Home Office to commission some serious analysis before implementing what could be a drastic step.
Further, the MAC, and worse still the Government, completely ignore the fact that widespread concerns about the abolition of the test are not just about economics. Other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of fairness. These matters are about fairness and perceptions of fairness. That explains why, as I mentioned in Committee, 77% of the public believe that employers should prioritise the hiring of UK workers.
At this point, I should like to recall that this amendment was powerfully supported in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, both basing themselves on their experience of these matters at very senior levels of industry.
It is now obvious that the Government are struggling to justify a complete failure to give British workers an opportunity even to apply for jobs that are to be offered overseas. What this comes down to is whether the Government are going to cave in to the convenience of business or give British workers a fair chance. Which is it to be? Or have they already decided against British workers?
Finally, I notice that both the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespersons avoided taking a view on this matter in Committee. They seemed to be unsighted. Perhaps they will take the opportunity of Report to clarify their positions. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name. Indeed, of the three proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green, this is the one I have most hope of the Government accepting, in the context of the narrow EU-EEA focus of the Bill. I find it extraordinary that we should be thinking of dropping the long-standing requirement that jobs be advertised in the UK before overseas recruitment takes place. This will encourage employers, especially big employers, to recruit overseas without even trying the home market. We already have the benefit of the pool of 3.8 million or so EU citizens who have applied for the EU settlement scheme. Thanks to coronavirus, UK jobs are being lost everywhere, from the high street to our wonderful arts and entertainment industries.
In earlier discussions, defending the decision to dispense with the labour market test and the 28 days of domestic advertising it lays down, the Minister put a lot of emphasis on the salary thresholds and the immigration skills charge. I am not against the points-based system, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seemed to suggest; however, with my experience of a number of industries, I think the thresholds look much too low, especially post-Covid. The skills charge has to be set against the recruitment fees that might have to be paid in the more demanding UK market. I appreciate, of course, that there will be scope to flex these numbers going forward—that seems to be what the Minister has been saying—however, I think this particular change is especially unwise.
While I do not rule out special arrangements for agriculture, mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Naseby, and for health workers—although the latter steals training and talent from countries that sometimes badly need it—we need our jobs to go to the home team wherever possible. We need a mechanism to encourage training, especially in the social care sector, which is crying out for suitable people, as my noble friend Lord Horam explained so eloquently in relation to Amendment 3. We are embarking on a skills revolution in the UK, and a jobs-first pledge, by advertising at home, should be part of our prospectus.
As I have said before, I am puzzled that trade unions such as USDAW, who I have worked so well with and who have done such a fine job in retail, are not strongly supporting the retention of some form of labour market test.
Lord Horam (Con)
This is about the resident labour market test and I find it quite astonishing, like my noble friends who have spoken to the amendment, that this should be removed at the point when we are entering a period of huge unemployment, as predicted by the Chancellor in his Statement only a few days ago. It is completely astonishing that that should be the case at the moment.
It is also amazing that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has so far not supported such an amendment: it beggars belief, frankly, that the Labour Party spokesman is willing to give this up in such circumstances. I hate to attack—rather, argue—with the noble Lord but he did take me on in our last debate. I will not take long over this but he did ask, “Who is this think tank, Onward?” It is a perfectly reputable, charitable think tank. The point it was making, as am I, is that Australia has had a cap on immigration for years. We have imported half the Australian points-based system but are refusing to import the rest, which is the cap. They say in Australia, “no cap, no control”, and that is why they have a cap.
It is the same in Canada, where they have the same system and it is debated in Parliament. It is all perfectly transparent and its Parliament has a role. It is the same in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also said that he was worried about the economy, but Australia and Canada have successful economies and caps on immigration; New Zealand has a successful economy. They are all rather more successful than we are, in many respects. I advise the noble Lord, as a true friend—we served together on the Electoral Commission and I really appreciate him as a stalwart Labour man—to think again about this and reposition his party. Believe you me, if the Labour Party does not reposition itself on immigration, I can tell him, it is in real trouble.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, as the House would expect, but before I get there, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, threw down a challenge and I had better get to that first. I am pleased to be able to tell him that I paid for every single bit of that pamphlet. Every single envelope, stamp, and bit of printing was paid for by me and I am happy to share the receipts and information with him if he wishes. The only time that I used any of the facilities of the House was to distribute the pamphlet, a copy of which went to every Member of your Lordships’ House and every Member of the House of Commons.
I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Green, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Horam. I do not want to go over all that again now. In my remarks on Amendment 6, which we have just dealt with, I explained how employers have become addicted to cheap labour from overseas because it is in their commercial interests to do so. As a result, we have become thoughtless and careless about the employment opportunities for our settled population. We have young people locked into zero-hours contracts. We have members of minority communities locked into low-paid, low-prospect jobs. Increasingly, and really seriously because they are a larger part of our population, the over-50s find it hard to get jobs even as we raise the retirement age. A 2018 House of Commons report revealed that 1 million people over 50 would like to work or work more; 14% of 50 year-olds are out of work and 35% of 60 year-olds are out of work. Removing the resident labour market test opens them up to an even greater degree of unemployment risk.
As many noble Lords have said, as the impact of the pandemic makes itself felt, all these problems will get worse. How do we protect and look after our settled population in these circumstances, particularly since these same economic pressures will make employers ever keener to game the system and access cheaper labour from overseas? The first line of protection would have been a cap but we are not going to have it because my noble friend the Minister has told us so. This amendment is a second line of protection, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, since the resident labour market test prevents the grosser excesses of undercutting wages by recruiting from overseas.
I apologise to the House for not having been present in Committee, but I have read the debates and, following a point made by my noble friend Lord Horam, I was really astonished by a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at col. 843 of Hansard, about the trade unions. Why every union at the Trades Union Congress is not down here supporting this amendment as a way of helping and protecting the working man they seek to represent, absolutely astonishes me. Now, that is for the party opposite to sort out.
The strains that our society will face do not just come from the pandemic. They will come also from the impact of the fourth industrial revolution—from artificial intelligence and robotics, not often mentioned in our debate so far. In those circumstances, policies that will likely result in close to 1,200 people arriving on an average day cannot be sensible.
A key determinant of a person’s self-confidence and sense of self-worth is, undoubtedly, purposeful and secure work. Professor David Blanchflower said in his book Not Working, published last year:
“Unemployment hurts and it hurts a lot.”
The amendment, if the Government accepted it, would help reduce but, sadly, not eliminate that level of hurt, which is why I support it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I begin to wonder whether we should swap Benches at this stage. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, longs for the old immigration regime that he has criticised so much. This time it is the resident labour market test or, as the former leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, may have put it, “British jobs for British workers”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, posited that UK employers were likely to recruit from overseas without even considering UK workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that UK employers were addicted to using imported, low-wage labour. I thought that under the points-based system there was a minimum salary of £25,600, which does not sound to me like undercutting UK labour.
Surely, British employers will look to avoid the immigration skills charge by hiring a UK resident in preference to a migrant, if they possibly can, and British employers will look to avoid having to pay a licence fee to be an authorised sponsor of migrant workers, if they possibly can. Migrants will be deterred from working in the UK, including in the National Health Service and social care, because they will have to pay the immigration health surcharge in addition to income tax, national insurance and VAT—effectively, having to pay twice for the National Health Service. Migrants will also be deterred from working in the UK because they will have to pay far more than the cost price of a visa, and because of the salary and skill levels they will have to attain to secure enough points to get a visa in the first place. From 1 January, all that will apply to all new migrants from the European Union as well as those from the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary and we do not support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 7, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was discussed in Committee. I am all in favour of maximising opportunities for British workers to have employment and skilled employment. Good companies invest in their staff, and it makes good sense to do so. It is much more sensible, when possible, to recruit and train staff locally, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, including the charges that employers incur when recruiting workers from abroad.
This amendment adds a test and a further layer of bureaucracy. For me, the case has not been made for why we should support it. Again, I find myself in agreement with the Minister and her position, as well as with the position of the MAC, which concluded that the likely bureaucratic cost would outweigh any economic benefit of bringing this test back in.
I should say that I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Horam. We are good friends; we served together for many years on the Electoral Commission. My only point about think tanks—and I am heavily involved in one—is that for some we are unclear about where their funding comes from. I am pleased that we now know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, generously funded his own report. Sadly, of course, we do not know where the money of many of the think tanks that we refer to comes from. With all due respect, it is good of him to fund himself.
I do not think that the case has been made for this amendment in any sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. So far, I have heard nothing that could persuade me to support it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for the return of this amendment, on which we had an interesting and mixed debate in Committee; it has been no different on Report.
As I outlined in our previous debate on this matter, this amendment would have the effect of reintroducing into regulations a resident labour market test for EEA and Swiss nationals and reversing a government decision to abolish this test under the UK’s new points-based immigration system. I have to say to noble Lords that the Government did not take this decision lightly or indeed in isolation. On the face of it, it sounds absolutely fair and sensible to require a job to be advertised in the UK for 28 days to establish whether there is anyone suitable in the domestic labour market before the job can be offered to an overseas migrant. However, we should be imposing a resident labour market test only if we think it would genuinely offer extra protection to resident workers and, in turn, support UK employers and organisations to access the skills and talents they need. The Government do not think that is the case. Not only does it add a burden on business and considerably slow down the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, without any guarantee of a vacancy being filled from the resident workforce, but it does so at a time when we are seeking to streamline and simplify the system and give UK employers and organisations the certainty they need.
My noble friend Lord Lilley—I am glad he is in the Chamber—rightly drew our attention in Committee to his experience of visiting Nissan, highlighting its enthusiasm and drive for training and retaining people in the UK. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is something to be celebrated and encouraged. Indeed, it fits with the Government’s clear assertion that immigration must be considered alongside investment in and development of the UK’s resident labour force.
However, I recognise the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is not in the Chamber today, about the immigration system not being the way to enforce and encourage training of domestic workers. Where I would respectfully stray from her view is to say that while our immigration system should not be considered a silver bullet, it absolutely has its part to play in supporting businesses and ensuring that they invest in training to encourage staff retention. We must achieve a sensible balance.
That view and the decision to abolish the existing resident labour market test is not just a government opinion; it is based on the clear economic advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Green, and others in this House are correct in saying that the MAC’s expertise is focused on economics, but one strength of the MAC is that it does not represent any one sector or industry. The MAC is well used to running large-scale consultations and assimilates evidence from many employers, businesses and sectors to produce carefully considered conclusions that apply to the best interests of the whole of the UK. This is exactly what the MAC did in reaching its findings and recommendations in its September 2018 report. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made about the MAC’s view on the salary threshold at the time.
The decision to abolish the resident labour market test was not simply a U-turn undertaken given pressure from businesses. I highlighted this during our debate on this subject in Committee, but it is worth reasserting what the MAC said given the concerns of many Peers—which I and the Government share—around the uncertainty that many UK workers will face as a result of the current pandemic.
In addition to the economic arguments, as part of its September 2018 report the MAC said:
“We do think it important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers. The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge and not the RLMT.”
The Government agree, and that is why we are maintaining a firm requirement in the new points-based system for migrants who come under the skilled worker route to be paid a salary which does not undercut domestic workers.
We are also retaining the immigration skills charge. The requirement to pay that charge—alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the proceeds of which contribute directly to the UK skills budget, helps ensure that employers are unlikely to employ a migrant when there is someone more suitable to undertake the role within the domestic labour force. Given the expansion of the skills threshold and the fact that UK employers will no longer be able to rely on recruiting EEA citizens coming to the UK under free movement, we consider it very likely that the charge will create an appropriate barrier and will result in businesses thinking twice before looking immediately to the overseas labour force.
On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply a resident labour market test, which echoes views heard by the Government from extensive engagement with stakeholders across the UK, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This is not the time to counter anything that she might have said, but I fear that the Government may come to regret their reliance on a group of economists, however capable they certainly are. For example, she made no mention of the concept of fairness. I think that most of us who have dealt with employees of any kind understand the overriding need for people in charge to be fair. Therefore, I was amazed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, care so little, it would seem, about the genuine concerns of what I like to call real working people.
I will leave it at that, except to thank the other noble Lords who spoke with most effective support for our proposals. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Where regulations made under subsection (1) make provision for the minimum salary requirement for new entrants to be lower than the equivalent salary requirement for other migrants, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “new entrant” means an EEA or Swiss migrant who meets one of the following criteria— (a) the migrant is switching from the Student or Graduate to the Skilled Worker route;(b) the migrant is under the age of 26 on the date of their application; or(c) the migrant is working towards a recognised professional qualification or moving directly into a postdoctoral position.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of regulations which would make provision for the recruitment of new entrants to the labour market at pay rates below the general salary requirement under the new Points Based System.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that this is the last of my amendments. I realise that I have not declared my non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK, but I think that that is very well known in the House.
I retabled this amendment because the prospects for young British workers are getting substantially worse as the Covid crisis intensifies, yet the Government seem to be set on a policy that can only make matters even worse for this very important section of our workforce and, indeed, our society. I just cannot understand how they feel that they can brush this matter aside.
The Minister sent a letter to all Peers on 15 September after the second day of Committee. In it she said that, although some of the questions raised in the debate were outside the scope of the Bill—which they were—she has sought to answer them as fully as possible, and I am grateful for that. The annexe to that letter set out the current arrangements for the new labour market entrants from overseas so as to allow noble Lords to “compare and contrast” them with the new proposals. Unfortunately—I say this with care—the effect of this is unintentionally, I am sure, misleading.
The document provides extracts from the current rules that appear to show that new entrants can already be admitted at a similar low-salary level to that proposed with the rather clear implication that little will change. However, no mention is made of at least two fundamental changes that would indeed make a clear difference.
First, the new proposals will allow not just graduates to come and earn £20,000 or so a year, as at present; they will also allow young migrants to come to do A-level jobs for the same money, thus enormously increasing the numbers of those—from all over the world—for whom £20,000 for an A-level job will indeed be an attractive salary. One could perhaps add that many will have families already here who will encourage them and that this can lead to settlement. However, the Government’s own impact assessment states:
“Setting the new entrant salary threshold at 30 per cent below the experienced threshold is estimated to reduce salary thresholds for 55 high-skilled occupations but increase it for 16 high-skilled occupations.”
Secondly, I stress again that there will be no cap under the points-based system; that is quite clear at the moment—they are not putting in a cap. Therefore, the numbers of young people recruited will be constrained only by employer demand. Furthermore, the removal of the labour market tests means that employers can go abroad directly, whether or not willing candidates might be available in the UK. Noble Lords might remember that, some years ago, a factory in Northampton that makes sandwiches brought in a plane of 250 people to work there; they were not necessarily young workers, but they were brought in en masse. I checked later with the Minister responsible and found that that firm had not even been in touch with the local jobcentre.
That is just one example of the way employers have brought in—and could well do so in the future under the new conditions—significant numbers of young workers who would directly take the jobs of our own young workers. Therefore, taken as a whole, the annexe to the noble Baroness’s letter, although described as a response, does not actually answer any of the points I raised. Rather, it confirms that the position is in fact very much as I described it.
In a nutshell, this is a wholesale revision of the so-called new entrant route, to the considerable disadvantage of our own young people. I had hoped that it would be called out in the responses from the Opposition Front Benches, but I have no great hope of that in the light of what they have just been saying. Therefore, I await the Minister’s response again, and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment, with which I have much sympathy. It seems surprising that we are offering a new entrant route, allowing employers to pay a third less than the headline rate, particularly as those with A-levels will now be able to come in as well as graduates, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just explained.
As a businesswoman with experience in quite a number of sectors, the going rates for the points-based system already look low and are likely to make overseas migrants attractive. That is especially true for the various professionals in the paper that my noble friend the Minister has helpfully circulated. That would be good news, for example, for US banks and legal firms in London, which should be employing local talent and not necessarily bringing it in from abroad.
Moreover, I think that the coronavirus will have had a dampening effect on some wage rates, so I think these numbers may already be out of date and, of course, it is important, as the Minister said, that the MAC keeps them under review very regularly. I hope I am wrong, but everybody has been saying that the tsunami of the coronavirus is likely to change the labour market.
Lord Horam (Con)
The contributions to this debate are getting shorter and shorter, and I intend to adhere to that pattern. The simple point I want to make is that this is part of a loosening of the arrangements—I would not call them controls—which were put in place at the beginning of this year and then amplified in July. Of course, since then we have had the coronavirus pandemic. We have the prospect now of an additional two million unemployed, and young people coming into the job market face a very bleak situation. These are not normal times.
The Treasury has responded rapidly and comprehensively to this situation with a major package earlier in the year and the less pronounced package of the last 10 days. What I hope and expect is that the Home Office reacts similarly and recalibrates the ideas it had before the world changed when the coronavirus set in. We really do need it to respond. I do not believe that the Home Office is unfit for purpose, as was once said by a Labour Minister. It has many able civil servants who are perfectly capable of responding to a changing situation, but they need to show it now; otherwise, people will lose faith in the Government.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, one of the weaknesses of the whole Bill is the extent to which the detailed implications are contained in regulations which are only now beginning to emerge. Every Member of your Lordships’ House will be aware that the scrutiny of regulations is much less effective than that of primary legislation; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised that issue in the debate on one of the previous amendments. I should perhaps, just for the record, declare that I am the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I am speaking for myself, not for the committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the regulations are unamendable, so the House is left with what I call the “nuclear option” of complete rejection. Unsurprisingly, the House has veered away from that course of action, except on the rarest of occasions. That is one of the reasons why I support the noble Lord, Lord Green, in this case, because he is actually trying to wrest back a bit of control by having some more specific plans built into the Bill. They are necessary for the reasons that he, and indeed my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, laid out. In its way, this amendment is the third and last line of protection in regulating the extent to which the employment opportunities of our settled population can be undermined.
We already know that there is no cap and that we will have no resident labour market test. Therefore, if my noble friend the Minister refuses to accept this amendment—and I fear that if I could glance over her shoulder at her speaking notes, I would see that she might just be going to do that—it is extremely likely that our future levels of immigration will continue, probably in excess of a quarter of a million each year. It may be slightly below what we have now, at 320,000, but it will be well over a quarter of a million each year.
In Committee I chided the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has been coming back at me this afternoon, when he refused to back my proposal to establish an office for demographic change, which was a planned idea, independent and transparent, to look at the complexities of these issues in the round—environmental, ecological, societal. It is easy to laugh—the noble Lord is already grinning—but the reality is that there are serious issues around water, land quality and species loss which are all related to how our population is growing. They are not entirely due to it, but they are very largely related.
I said to the noble Lord, I hope, gently, because I do not want to upset him—he is a sensitive soul—that his party had to decide where it stood on demographic growth, of which immigration is a part, because it is an issue that really resonates in the country. We have heard the percentages; 60% to 70% of people are concerned about it. In particular, his party must decide where it stands, or all the possibilities of recovering the red wall, now blue wall, seats will be vanishingly small.
However, it is perfectly fair to say that this is not without dangers for my party. We will face quite significant challenges. If those of us who are concerned about what happens if our population grows by 6 million or 8 million are right, and the package of policies before us continues to allow rapid growth—it is not about whether they are foreigners, black or white, or what their colour is; it is about the number of people—we will have two big challenges. First, a lot of the people who turned the red wall seats into blue wall seats did so because we promised a sustained reduction in the level of immigration. If we do not deliver that, they will feel betrayed and let down.
In parallel with that, every year we will have to build 100,000 houses to accommodate the quarter of a million people likely to arrive. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that they pay more in tax than they draw in benefits, but there is a much more complicated issue, with which I will not bore the House this evening, about the capital investment to maintain and extend our roads and structures. They are not covered just by taxes; a much bigger level of capital expenditure is required. He and I can discuss this over a socially distanced cup of coffee, but I will not bore the House with it now.
We will build 100,000 houses a year, and they will be built in our shire counties. These people will not be delighted about it. We know that; housebuilding is intensely unpopular. The coming storm about the planning algorithm, which is now doing the rounds, is just the beginnings of the trouble there will be if we continue down this road. My noble friends Lord Horam and Lady Neville-Rolfe are right. The Government are wrong in believing they have the situation under control.
My noble friend the Minister nobly and loyally marches to the beat of the Home Office drum, which essentially says, “Don’t worry; it will be all right on the night”. I wish I shared the department’s confidence.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my understanding is that what lies behind this amendment is the aim to allow Parliament to set a rate for new entrants instead of it being set at 30% lower than the national average going rate of £25,600 under the points-based system. To restate what I have said before, this Bill is about EU migration, on which there is no restriction at the moment. From 1 January, if this Bill becomes law, there will be restrictions on EU migrants and a salary floor for new entrants.
It seems that the gut reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to the new entrant salary level being set independently based on economic research by the Migration Advisory Committee at £20,480 is that it is a bit low. But as the Minister explained in Committee, the MAC found that those starting in their careers were typically being paid 30% less than those who were established in their role; hence the floor for new entrants is 30% less than the £25,600 set as the salary floor for migrants under the new points-based system. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is arguing that £25,600 is too low and therefore the new entrant salary level is too low, or whether 30% less for new entrants is not typical of a new entrant and therefore it should be something other than 30% less than the established rate.
If the noble Lord’s amendment is agreed, I would have to ask him on what basis he thinks Parliament should decide the new entrant salary level. I understand that the noble Lord believes that migration decisions should be based not on economics but on politics. May I say that I deny that I care little for ordinary working people, as the noble Lord said? If he would care to read in Hansard what I actually said, he will see that I felt that there were alternative protections for ordinary working people to what he was suggesting, which is completely different
We on these Benches believe that economic migration should be based on economics, while immigration by asylum seekers should be based on the compassionate consideration of the evidence of their claim. On that basis, we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 8, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is the third amendment that he has proposed; we considered them previously in Committee. I shall not detain the House for long, but I will say that I listened to the debate on 9 September and I have listened carefully to the debate today, but I am not persuaded by the arguments made so far. These matters are kept under review and if the problem the noble Lord is alluding to is a problem, I am sure that the Government would act. We are probably a bit constrained by our procedures in this debate; in many ways these amendments could all have been debated as one group.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I just do not accept the assertion behind these amendments—that the UK will be flooded with migrants from the European Union when we have heard that the numbers are actually going down, given the difficulties that will be in place at the conclusion of the Brexit deal. I am not prepared to accept what has been suggested. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Tesco and the Co-op are going out to recruit all over Germany, France and elsewhere for people to come and work here, given all the charges that would involve for these companies. All those sorts of companies recruit their staff locally. They have huge staff turnover and they engage people locally.
I am also happy to say that this country has benefited hugely from immigration over many years and we should never forget that. However, the one thing I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about is his point about Bills and regulations. He is right to say that over the past 30, or perhaps 40, years there has been a drift, so that Governments of all persuasions produce skeleton Bills with more and more stuff being dealt with in regulations. There are many times when we have all felt frustrated by how we are dealing with these issues. I accept that.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was interested in and concerned about the position of the Labour Party. I thank him for that. The Labour Party will be fine and we will put forward our position at the next general election. However, I thank him for his concern. I should say, however, that in all the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has spoken, his own Front Bench does not agree with him. He has a problem, I suggest, with the Conservative Party as well. Maybe he should look there.
I take exception to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that I care little for ordinary working people. I care greatly about workers in this country and their families. We do not agree in this House—that is fine—but to suggest that I do not care, or that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with whom I agree, does not care, is wrong. That suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Green, is regrettable. We can disagree on politics and policies. I come from a family of people who have worked hard in this country and care about how the working people in this country are looked after and protected. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for retabling his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken in support or opposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, seeks to put in place separate parliamentary approval for regulations allowing EEA and Swiss nationals who are new entrants to the labour market to be paid less than other skilled workers. I recognise the intention behind this amendment. He is absolutely right that, in using salary thresholds as a mechanism to control immigration, protect the domestic workforce from being undercut and ensure the UK’s economy prospers, we must have confidence that salary requirements are set at the right level. It is for these objectives, in addition to ensuring that migrant workers are not exploited and that a skilled migrant is coming to the UK for genuine skilled employment, that a system of salary thresholds will form a critical part of our new skilled worker route.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke about the risk of losing control of our borders and disadvantaging young people and the unemployed in the UK. The noble Lord also mentioned the Government’s recently launched Kickstart programme and his concerns that its benefits would be reduced due to our young people facing further difficulties and unlimited competition from those overseas migrants who meet the new entrant definition. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this is simply not the case. Our salary requirements for all skilled workers are based on national earnings data for UK workers. Furthermore, while new entrants will benefit from a reduced salary rate, recognising these individuals should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they typically earn around 30% less than experienced workers, they will still need to meet other mandatory requirements to be successfully granted leave. Namely, along with all other skilled workers, they must have a sponsoring employer, a job at the appropriate skill level and be able to speak English to an accepted standard. Furthermore, the new entrant rate is not an indefinite offer. It is designed for those essentially at the start of their careers.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, also voiced concerns about settlement, given that the new skilled worker route will be a route that allows this, subject to meeting relevant requirements. While this is indeed the case, I can confirm that individuals will need to be paid at least the going rate for their occupation by the time they reach settlement. While it may not sway the views of some noble Lords, the Government did not agree this proposal in isolation. We sought independent advice from the MAC, outlined in its January 2020 report on salary thresholds and a points-based system and, following careful consideration of its findings and our own extensive engagement, accepted its recommendations.
I should like to put on the record that reduced rates for new entrants are not new; they have been a part of the immigration system since 2013. While we intend to continue the new entrant salary rate, in future the Immigration Rules will set a more consistent 30% reduction across all occupations. As the MAC identified, the differences in the current system are very large for some occupations. New entrant quantity surveyors, for example, may be paid 69% less than more experienced migrant workers in the same profession.
Turning to the crux of this amendment, the noble Lord is right that there should be parliamentary scrutiny of these requirements, but there is already a long-established procedure for that. The Government are required to set out their immigration policy in the Immigration Rules. This includes salary requirements and reduced rates for new entrants which can determine whether an immigration application succeeds or fails. Changes to the rules must be laid before Parliament, either House may disapprove the changes by negative resolution within 40 days of them being laid and the Secretary of State shall make any changes that appear to her in the circumstances to be required. Any such changes will be laid before Parliament within a further 40 days. I do not think it is necessary or proportionate to introduce a new procedure for salary requirements for new entrants, particularly at a time when the Government are committed to simplifying and streamlining arrangements. Furthermore, there seems to be no particular reason for the procedure for new entrant salaries to be different from the procedure for the general salary requirements or, indeed, any other requirements for skilled workers.
Additionally, as is made clear in recently published policy statements on the UK’s new points-based system, measures will be introduced in a phased manner and we will retain the ability to make adjustments based on experience and, crucially, to respond to the needs of the UK economy. New regulations under an affirmative procedure would lessen this responsiveness and could risk splitting up interconnected policies which together create a robust element of control, protect domestic workers and ensure that those who have the skills and talents that we need and who want to make a positive contribution can come to the UK.
For the reasons that I have set out, and on the basis that we will continue to lay before Parliament the full details of the requirements, including those for new entrants, I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full account of the Government’s policy, which we will study in detail. It is not feasible to do that on the hoof. Let me say first that I certainly did not intend to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, do not care about working people. Clearly, they spend much of their lives among working people and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was actually a trades union official for some time. However, I think they have not correctly judged the likely effect of the measures the Government are bringing forward, and I fear that—from everyone’s point of view—it is going to go pear-shaped. I am grateful for the powerful support of the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
In the end, this comes down to a question of judgment about the raft of measures that the Government are bringing in in January and applying to the whole world. We have dodged some of the technicalities, but we are not talking about applying these things to EU citizens only. We have a brand-new, massively new system and it is very dangerous for the stability of public opinion on this matter. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, hit the nail on the head with some very wise words. She said that this looks as though it is going too far with too many changes at once. That was simply put but none the less powerful, relevant and to the point. In the end, we will see what the numbers do. It will be a while before they take off, but my instinct is that they will, and at a very awkward time for the Government. That is their problem, but they have been warned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 10
Lord Rosser
“( ) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (1) unless—(a) a Minister of the Crown has published guidance on the “reasonable grounds” for permitting applications to the EU Settlement Scheme on a date later than the deadline for application to the scheme;(b) the guidance includes instruction on the immigration status of a person who is eligible to apply for the scheme in the period between the deadline for application and the date their application is made; and(c) a copy of that guidance has been laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent regulations being made under this Clause until the Government has published guidance on what reasonable grounds will be accepted as a reason for making a late application to the EU settlement scheme and how a person will be affected in the gap between the deadline and the date they apply.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 10 and 13, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, both relate to the EU settlement scheme, on which we had debates in Committee. I have tabled the amendments in this group not in order to have a rerun of those debates but to follow up on some specific points.
Amendment 10 would require the Government to publish guidance on the “reasonable grounds” that will be used to permit late applications to the scheme, with particular focus on the interim period between the deadline for the scheme and the date on which a late application is entered. The Minister has said in previous debates that early in 2021 the Government will publish guidance on what constitutes missing the deadline.
Our concern is the gap between the deadline and the date on which a late application is made. If a person applies to the EU settlement scheme after the deadline with a legitimate claim that is successful, there will have been a gap of perhaps some months between the deadline and the date on which they applied, during which they did not have legitimate immigration status in the UK. They might be an elderly person who has continued seeing their GP in that time, or a key worker who has continued going to work. Will there be repercussions for having continued these activities while not in possession of settled or pre-settled status? Or, once a person applies and is accepted, will they be considered to have had that status, which they are entitled to, for the entire period since the deadline? It would be helpful to have some clarity from the Government on that issue.
Amendment 13 relates to the protection of rights during the grace period between the end of the transition period and the EU settlement scheme deadline. I thank the Government for providing an illustrative version of the SI, but some concerns have been raised over its scope. The3million has raised concerns that
“In their current form, the regulations appear to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and whilst their application is pending. The regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were ‘exercising treaty rights’ in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period.”
This appears to mean that EU citizens not exercising their treaty rights would fall outside these protections. That could include a person who is self-sufficient or reliant on their spouse for household income, or someone who is currently out of work and does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. It could also include those who would have a hard time showing evidence of economic activity, such as victims of trafficking or of modern slavery.
The current context of the Covid pandemic and job losses is relevant here. Job losses have been considerable and the prospects of new work can at present be low. To fall within the protection of the regulations, there must be the prospect of acquiring further work following the loss of a job. Stakeholder groups are concerned that there is a serious risk that those who cannot find work by the end of the year will not be protected by these regulations. Can the Government provide reassurance on the scope of the intended regulations? If that is not possible now, will the Minister undertake to look at this issue? I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having introduced this amendment, for the considerate way in which he did it, and for the questions which he posed to the Minister, to which I hope she will reply.
It would be difficult to overestimate the degree of concern that exists among voluntary and civil society organisations which are looking after children and seeing to their protection. I know that across the House, irrespective of party, there is a real concern that we should always be seen in the world as a country which gives genuine priority concern to children.
Among those organisations is of course Amnesty, and it is worth seeing what it has to say on this. Many of these children may do themselves harm; many of them will be British citizens or entitled to register as such. It is vital to their interests that they are encouraged to act on these rights of British citizenship and that local authorities are encouraged and supported to assist children in doing so. If that is not done, these children may lose their rights to British citizenship, either because for some the right is lost on their reaching adulthood since delay may mean evidence becomes increasingly inaccessible to establish, or because an encounter with the criminal justice system may bar their exercise of the right on the basis that they are regarded as not of good character.
Amendments 10, 13 and indeed 18 are concerned with ensuring that EU citizens are not left without settled status. These are important concerns, because being without status or confirmation of it exposes someone to immigration powers and exclusions. These immigration powers include the ability to detain and remove a person from the United Kingdom, and those immigration exclusions include the ability to prohibit a person from such things as working, renting accommodation, holding a bank account, accessing free healthcare and applying for social welfare. There are a number of telling concerns around this area of the Bill, and I thank my noble friend for having introduced the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, late applications are indeed very important, and guidance will be essential. There is a lot of concern about what may lie behind an EU citizen not having applied for settled status, not with the intention of somehow evading the authorities or doing anything sinister or underhand. For instance, as we have said before, people may believe that an application is not necessary because they have a permanent residence document. Many reasons are cited, and no doubt there are many which none of us has thought of. After all, that is the human condition.
There are people whom the Home Office information has failed to reach or who have not understood it. I am aware that the Home Office plans to step up its communications after the end of the year to try to reach those who have not applied. However, it is worth mentioning again that, when the UK switched to digital television, there was an enormous campaign which was generally accepted as successful, but even that success left 3% of households not switching and finding overnight that their televisions did not work, and that was a much more straightforward subject than this is.
The point made within the amendment, and by the noble Lord, about status in the interim period is hugely important, and I hope to come back to that later in this Bill. They have got to be secure in the interim; it would be an enormous breach of faith if that was not the case. In Committee, the Minister sought to reassure noble Lords that there is plenty of time to apply under the EU settled status scheme, but that is not the point; it is what the Government’s “compassionate and flexible approach” will amount to in practice in their pragmatic take on this.
I confess that I had hoped to get an amendment down on comprehensive sickness insurance—essentially, what the position is on the grace period—in time for today, but it defeated me. I refused to be completely defeated and, with a little more energy, got back to it and it has been tabled, but too late for today, so we will have an opportunity on Monday.
We have the Government’s SI in draft in what I understand to be close to its final form, but those who know this subject inside out—and I do not—are still poring over it. That includes the3million, which is doing the most impressive job on all of this subject, both at a technical and at a human level. It is entirely appropriate to seek an assurance that the draft regulations provide the protection that we, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would expect to see during the grace period.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right to remind us of the particular position of children who have not been able to exercise treaty rights, if I understand the position properly. The guidance needs to be as extensive as is appropriate or, to hark back, as is necessary. I say that because on a different matter, on 9 September, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, from the Dispatch Box, said that an amendment which I was speaking to was not necessary, and referred the Committee to the draft illustrative regulations proposed under Clause 4(1), which, as he said, do not include any provisions relating to the subject matter I was discussing. They do not. But reading that afterwards—and I do not think the noble Lord meant it as cynically as I then read it—it was tantamount to saying, “It is not necessary because we are not doing it.” I did read the passage through two or three times.
I have my concerns, as I have said, about the whole of Clause 4, but I am not sure it is appropriate to hold back on all the regulations until this temporary protection is sorted out. But then, frankly, I am not here to help the Government sort out that type of thing. I am glad the noble Lord has tabled this amendment, spoken to it and drawn the potentially precarious position of a number of people—possibly quite a lot of people—to our attention, and I support him.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his amendments. I hope that what I will say will reassure him and that he will feel happy to withdraw them. Both amendments seek to prevent the Government from making regulations under Clause 4 until we have published guidance on late applications made under the EU settlement scheme, the grace period statutory instrument and guidance on its operation.
I turn first to Amendment 10, which concerns the publication of guidance on how the Government will treat late applications to the EU settlement scheme. The Government have made clear their commitment to accepting applications after 30 June 2021, where there are reasonable grounds for missing this deadline. This is in line with the withdrawal agreements, which now have direct effect in UK law via the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, so this commitment is effectively enshrined in primary legislation.
As I mentioned during Second Reading and more recently in Committee, the Government intend to publish guidance on reasonable grounds for missing the deadline in early 2021. This will be well in advance of the deadline. For now, our priority must be to encourage those eligible to make their application before the deadline. This will ensure that they can continue to live their lives here, as they do now, with the certainty that status granted under the scheme will provide them. We do not want to undermine those efforts and risk inadvertently causing people to delay making their application.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd—humanitarian that he is—supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about vulnerable people, particularly children. The Government are doing all that they can, using all available channels, to raise awareness of the scheme and ensure that vulnerable groups are helped to apply.
The published guidance, when it comes at the beginning of next year, will be indicative, not exhaustive. All cases will be considered in the light of their individual circumstances. Apart from asking for the reason for missing the deadline, the application process will be the same; we will consider the application in exactly the same way as we do now, in line with the immigration rules for the EU settlement scheme.
A person with reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, who subsequently applies for and obtains status under the scheme, will enjoy the same rights from the time they are granted status as someone who applied to the scheme before the deadline. However, they will not have those rights in the period after the missed deadline and before they are granted status, which is why we are encouraging and supporting people to apply as soon as possible. It is very pleasing that over 3.9 million people have done so.
In addition, it is important to remember that the regulations under the Clause 4 power include provisions relating to the rights of those with status granted under the EU settlement scheme. To delay those provisions, as envisaged by this amendment, would therefore be counterproductive in our collective effort to protect the rights of those resident in the UK by the end of the transition period, as well as Irish citizens.
Amendment 13 would require the Government to publish the draft statutory instrument that will temporarily protect the rights of EEA citizens who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme but have not done so by the end of the transition period, together with accompanying guidance. That instrument, as noble Lords know, is the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which I will refer to as the grace period SI. An illustrative draft was shared with this House before Committee. Since then, on 21 September, the Government have formally laid the SI in Parliament.
The purpose of the grace period SI is to set the deadline for applications to the EU settlement scheme as 30 June 2021 and to protect the existing rights of resident EEA citizens and their family members during the grace period. It will save relevant legislation otherwise repealed by Clause 1 of and Schedule 1 to this Bill at the end of the transition period. This will mean that EEA citizens can continue to live and work in the UK as now throughout the grace period and pending the resolution of their application to the EU settlement scheme, providing they apply by 30 June 2021.
I reassure noble Lords that EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.
Noble Lords asked me about the scope of the regulations. People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says. The statutory instrument will be subject to debate and approval by Parliament and will need to come into force at the end of the transition period. Where relevant, Home Office guidance will be updated to reflect the statutory instrument before the grace period commences.
I hope that I have explained that clearly and that, therefore, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their contributions to this brief debate, and the Minister for her response, which I shall read carefully in Hansard. At the moment, I am not entirely sure whether I have had the reassurances that I sought; maybe I have and I shall realise that when I read her reply.
I raised the issue of someone who applied late and ended up with a gap of some months between the deadline and the date when they applied, in which they did not have a legitimate immigration status in the UK. I sought an assurance that, once a person in that situation applied and was accepted, they would be considered to have that status to which they were entitled for the entire period since the deadline. I am not quite sure whether the Minister was saying that they would, or not, but I shall read her reply very carefully.
I was not entirely clear again whether the Minister accepted the view of the3million organisation that the regulations would exclude a cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period or whether she was saying that would not be the case. Again, I shall read her response carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am afraid that we need to have a very short break to assist those who are looking after us technically.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 11
Baroness Hamwee
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members.(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—(a) children (including adopted children), and(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist; “Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill and very late in the debate on this amendment, which was then in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—I am glad that he is able to be here this evening—having listened to the Minister I asked what she would advise a couple living in the EU, one British and one an EU national, if they both have elderly parents, on one side of the family in the UK and on the other in that EU country. They would be—they are—faced with not just the end of free movement but an impossible choice: not just where they should live after March 2022 but which parents they should decide to care for personally. They will have to make that decision within the next 18 months—15 months after the end of the transition. The Minister had an impossible task in responding to my question as to whether picking between parents was a humane response. She argued that people will have had plenty of time, but does that really address the point?
Since Committee, I have had so many emails, as no doubt have other noble Lords, making it clear how many different family situations there are, but all presenting families with similarly impossible choices. I thank everyone who has written to me and to other noble Lords. They have taken such care to contact us, not with standard formulaic emails but with powerful descriptions of their situations, their concern and their distress. Noble Lords will understand that I want to read some of them into the record, and that I cannot read them all. As examples, however, there is a lady of 75 living in the Netherlands supporting a Dutch companion, and vice versa, whose mother is 96 and in a care home there. There is a lady of 79 in the UK who expected to receive support and part-time care from her daughter, who would be prepared to give it provided that her French husband is able to move to Britain. A couple in France with a 12 year-old son are faced with whether to uproot him from school. There is a family in Italy, one parent British and one Italian, with two teenagers of dual nationality—one of whom has just started at university in the UK, while the other may want to make her life here; the parents may want one day to follow their daughters. And so it went on.
We are a global society. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and in all places. Many people make the point that their residence outside the UK makes them feel no less British and that they are surprised to find themselves writing as they do. Many say that the prospect of separation from family is unbearable. All say that when they moved abroad, they had no idea that there could be restrictions or conditions on returning as a family.
The amendment provides that the regulations
“must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of”
the agreements referred to
“to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members”
without
“conditions on the entry or residence of close family members … which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement … on the day on which this Act comes into force.”
I have been asked about a detail of the amendment: the reference to “close family members”. As it happens, in a Select Committee yesterday the Immigration Minister used exactly that phrase in discussing family reunion. I suppose the technical answer is that these provisions would be implemented by regulations which would be precise, but by anyone’s definition partners and parents “where that relation subsisted”, which in the case of parents it obviously would, at the end of the year and continues to do so would fall within it, as well as children.
The Minister explained in the context of various amendments in Committee that the Government were seeking to be not discriminatory but to end discrimination between, on the one hand, EEA/Swiss citizens and, on the other hand, other citizens. But the Government’s proposals for ending the current arrangements in March 2022 would discriminate between those families of mixed nationality who happened to have settled in the UK and those who settled elsewhere in the EU. They would require Britons who wish to return to meet conditions for sponsoring a spouse and children.
The financial requirements—the minimum income requirements—are not easy nor by any means available to everyone. Some 40% of UK workers could not reach the minimum income requirement, and the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only after six months, assuming he or she can get here in the first place. If you want to bring elderly parents, they have to be so much in need of care that, according to evidence given to a working party that I chaired some years ago, they would probably be unfit to travel. If you yourself are older and no longer earning, can you reach the income threshold? This would be discrimination against our own citizens, imposed retrospectively on citizens who had no expectation that this choice might lie ahead.
Lifting the end date would not mean unlimited numbers of people coming here with their families. As I have explained, we are talking about people who fall within the agreement, their families and children, and others with whom the relationship subsisted before January 2020. I asked rhetorically in Committee if this was really humane. I ask now whether it is the right approach—to ask that, I think, would also be rhetorical. Since Committee, I have begun to realise just how inhumane it is, so I give notice now—I suppose it is notice for Monday—that, barring assurances which I cannot say I anticipate, though they would be very welcome, I will press the matter to a vote in accordance with current procedure. For the purposes of the debate this evening, I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. When I spoke to it in Committee, I genuinely thought that this was something the Government had overlooked. I discover that this is not the case and that there is some history behind the Government’s position. The reason perhaps for my naivety is that the argument as I saw it, and as I still see it, is very simple: it would be wrong to put a deadline on British citizens returning to the UK with their families. It would be deeply unfair to do so, and I am glad that the noble Baroness intends to press this to a vote if the Government do not accept the amendment.
The Minister cited in Committee the case that the Conservative Government of the day brought against Surinder Singh in 1992, and said at the beginning of her reply that the amendment
“refers to a specific cohort of people relating to what is known as the Surinder Singh route for family immigration.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 827.]
I fear that this statement betrays an element of cynicism in government thinking about this issue—for which I of course do not blame the noble Baroness. However, this is an inappropriate analogy, in the sense that the Government have clearly not accepted the decision made in Surinder Singh’s favour. It is an inappropriate analogy for a couple of other reasons. One is that there is a universal cut-off point that applies both to British and European families, which is of course the end of this year. We will not then be part of the EU and there will be a limit on the number of families, European and British, who might then come to this country from Europe.
The second thing to say is that we are talking about many British citizens who have been married for many years, often to other European partners—though it should not matter where in the world their partners have come from—and often they are building families with strong and complex roots in the UK and the rest of Europe. They have done so believing at the time that they had a settled life in Europe, wherever that may be in Europe; that was their bone fide position. Yes, people get divorced—and indeed married—for all kinds of reasons; that is life. But this Government are applying the Government of 1992’s perception of that case to generalise about all British families living in Europe. British citizens and their families in Europe are not that cohort, as this Government perceive it, and it is insulting to all British families currently living in Europe that they should draw that analogy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, after the powerful debate we had in Committee, I am very sorry that it was still necessary to put this down again.
In our debate on Amendment 6, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, referred to the long and continuing discussion the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and many others—including myself—had in Committee about the many amendments that we sought to have applied to all affected by immigration law, the ruling out of the scope of those amendments and the claims from the Minister that what we were tabling was subsequently discriminatory. However, that is an argument that cannot—or, certainly, should not—be applied to this amendment; the situation of Britons married or partnered with Europeans is particular, but it can only be said that it is particularly awful.
No one with a non-EU spouse or partner could have predicted the “onerous” and “unjustified” minimum income requirement applied in 2012. Those are not my adjectives but those of a High Court judge. What I would call an unreasonably harsh assessment might be to say “Well, they should have known that the rules could change when they made their family arrangements”. Yet the many Britons who have been writing to me—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, no doubt to many other Members of your Lordship’s House—who established families in Europe decades ago, in many cases, could not conceivably have imagined the dreadful state of British politics over the past five years that has brought us to the current pass. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking all of them for taking the time and having the courage to share their circumstances with us in the hope that we can get the Government to listen.
Rather than making my own arguments, I want as closely as possible to let Jane, a Briton who gave me permission to share her story, speak for herself in your Lordships’ House. She says:
“I am a British citizen, resident in Italy since 1993 with my Italian husband and children; I have my widowed mother, aged 76, living alone in the UK. She is fortunately in good health at the present time. However, one must be realistic. In time, she may need extra care. As her only child, I, with my husband, have always reassured my mother that we would be there to care for her in her later years, but due to the possible outcome of this Bill, we are increasingly worried.
Like many other Britons who moved to the EU while Britain was a member, I had—and expected to keep—an almost unfettered right to return to the UK with my family. My mother and I were safe in the knowledge that I could always come back should the need arise. I do not want my mother to have this worry. I would like her to grow old knowing that we can come back to the UK should that need arise. Unless this Bill is amended, this right will be removed on 29 March 2022, creating impossible choices for me and thousands of families like mine.
The Government’s answer is that we are given 15 months from the end of transition to return with our families to the UK. This is ignoring the massive practical difficulties of uprooting ourselves from family life and work in our country of residence. I have my own business here in Italy, not to mention my husband’s work and our children’s education, and there may be no need for that uprooting.”
Will the Minister personally respond to Jane and tell her what the Government’s justification is for putting her and her family in this situation?
The Green Party group wholeheartedly offers the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, its support if she chooses to put her amendment to a vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was prompted to speak in support of the amendment by an email that I received this week from a British citizen born of British parents in Britain. During voluntary service overseas, she met and married an Italian. She lived in Italy, working for a UN agency for 30 years. They adopted a boy whose nationality is Italian. After her husband died, she hoped to return to the UK, where her brother and sister live. However, this would now mean her leaving her son behind, which, she writes,
“I could never do. We are very close. I could never leave him behind, with me in one country and him in another.”
Both she and others in a similar situation cannot believe that their families will be split up in this way in future.
I refer to what the Minister said in Committee at the end of the debate on another amendment relating to family reunion. She appeared to agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for raising the minimum income threshold—referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—from £18,600 to £25,700, or even £38,000, to cover the cost of public services or make a net contribution to public finances. I know that these figures came from the Migration Advisory Committee but they are premised on a narrow understanding of what constitutes a contribution to our society. It is the same kind of thinking that will exclude care workers and other key workers from immigration, as we heard during the debate on a previous amendment. The argument discounts the importance of the right to family life. I hope that the Minister will say now that I misread what she was saying and that she was not supporting the suggestion to raise the threshold.
The damaging impact of the minimum income threshold has been documented in a number of studies, most recently from the University of Bristol. It wrote of
“not just emotional impacts of separation, but financial, mental and physical hardship.”
The family reunion rules divide far too many families already. They need reviewing. For now, we can at least prevent even more families—like those of the mother who emailed me and the many other people who have emailed other Members of your Lordships’ House—being split up in this cruel and heartless way. We can prevent that happening by supporting this amendment.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already eloquently set out the powerful arguments for this amendment, as have the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Lister of Burtersett.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee told us, in Committee she asked the Minister how she would advise a couple, one British and one an EU national, who both have elderly parents, in which country they should choose to live. Which set of elderly parents should they pick? In response, as my noble friend reminded us, the Minister said that the Government had given people “plenty of time”, but that is not an answer. It does not matter how much time they have had; they could have had all the time in the world. It does not change the fact that the Government are forcing them to make an invidious choice, to make it by 2022 and to live with it ever after. If they need to stay in the EU member state of the EU national to look after his or her parents, after 2022 they will no longer be eligible to return to the UK together. I ask the Minister once again: how should that family make their choice? I would like her to provide an answer to that essential question—which she failed to give to my noble friend—because it goes to the heart of the issues and the terrible choices that will be inflicted on our citizens and their families as a result of the Government’s policy.
The Government have made much of taking back control. This is a test for Ministers of what that control will mean in practice. Will they act with compassion or with cold-hearted indifference and in doing so inflict intolerable injustice on thousands of families of our citizens? I am sure I am not alone—and we have heard testimony from previous speakers—in having been contacted by numerous British citizens with heartrending stories of the misery that the Government’s present policy will cause to them and their loved ones. People who settled as British citizens in the EU and who made their lives there with their partners, who now, through no fault of their own, face their future plans being torn up by ministerial obduracy and callousness.
One such example is Fiona, who lives in Luxembourg with Miguel, her German-Chilean husband. He studied his O and A-levels in the UK, where his father was a professor. He later took a job as a translator in Luxembourg, where Fiona joined him. They have now been married 25 years and have lived in Luxembourg all that time. They always assumed they would be able to return together to the UK, as Miguel was an EU citizen, and they made their life plans on that reasonable assumption. Now—through no fault of their own—unless they return before 2022, Fiona would only be able to do so alone. In theory, her two children could come with her, as they are dual nationals, but if this is the way the UK intends to treat their German father they have no wish to do so, and I cannot say I blame them. Fiona says: “As a British citizen, I feel exiled from my country of birth and the rest of my UK family.” That is the reality of the Government’s position: to de facto exile British citizens from the land of their birth.
The only argument I have heard Ministers advance to justify the injustice they are about to inflict is that somehow maintaining the existing position would not be fair on British citizens living outside the EU who are married to non-UK nationals. This is the hollowest of empty arguments. British citizens moving to live in an EU member state had the reasonable expectation that they would be able to return to the UK with their partner at any point. The gross injustice lies in the fact that existing rights are being stripped away. If the Government do not move on this policy, British citizens will face a very stark choice come 2022: they will either have to return alone, without their wife, husband or other family members, or not at all. That is the reality.
I hope that all Members of the House will be clear, when they eventually get to vote on this amendment, that they will not be voting on some abstract piece of policy; they will be deciding the future of thousands of British citizens and their families. They will be deciding whether those families have to pick which elderly parent they will stay to care for, or which life plans they have to tear up. Above all, they will be deciding whether to lift a massive burden of anxiety from the shoulders of our citizens in the EU or to impose a further weight of misery upon them. Even at this late stage, it remains in the Government’s hands to show, by accepting this amendment, that they have a human face. However, if they do not, I hope that they will be resoundingly defeated when the virtual Lobbies function once again.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her stamina and courtesy in enduring a lot of Second Reading speeches earlier. I wonder whether, like me, she misses Lady Mar, who was very good at intervening on Report to criticise those making Second Reading speeches. This debate is rather different and I sympathise with the Minister for a different reason: she has a very difficult task in answering the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, repeated again tonight.
The oddity of this debate is that we are seeking to avoid discrimination against UK citizens. The EU citizen who is here now or will be coming here by the end of this year has, quite rightly, the right to keep here or bring in family members, but from 2022 the UK citizen living abroad, where he or she went exercising legitimate expectations, will have that right withdrawn. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just said.
I find it hard to understand the response that the Minister gave to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, last time. I am particularly puzzled by the Catch-22 situation: from 2022, the accompanying partner will have to satisfy the minimum income requirement, but how will the returning partner be able to demonstrate the six-month history of earning in order to satisfy the requirement? It seems to be a really rather vicious Catch-22.
However, the core of the matter is the extraordinary callousness of requiring our citizens living abroad to make the difficult choices that are spelled out in our email inboxes these days: whether to break up the family, to favour looking after a dependent relative in the country of residence somewhere in the EU 27, or to come back to look after a dependent relative in this country. Those are the only three options available. It really is extraordinary that we should put our citizens in that position. They exercised their legitimate expectations and expected to lose none of their rights—and were told that they would lose none of their rights—when they chose to marry and live somewhere in the EU 27, or 15 or 12, or whatever it was at the time.
We need a proper answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we do not get one—and I feel sorry for the Minister, because I do not think that she will be able to answer satisfactorily—then I will certainly vote for this amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, was absolutely right. Do we want to be a society based on compassion and concern, or to become a nation without a beating heart on humanitarian issues of this kind? As far as the European Union is concerned, there is of course a special challenge because citizenship means citizenship, going right back to classical times, but we took away what people in good faith had come to understand as their citizenship and the rights that followed from it when they went to make lives, futures and careers overseas. They never dreamed that they were breaking links with their home base. Many of them wanted to return at some point and of course, as we have heard from one speaker after another, many have families rooted here for which they feel responsible; they want to be able freely at a time of crisis to return and succour the needs of such people.
It is altogether good news that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has moved this amendment; it represents the kind of Britain in which I want to live, given the values behind it. Do we believe that families are fundamentally important psychologically, for mental health more generally, for physical health and to the well-being of citizens, or not? Do families provide a unit of stability in the midst of an increasingly complex, demanding and unpredictable world, or do they not?
What are we doing with this Bill? It is almost impossible to understand how the Government have got themselves into this position. I hope we stand very firmly behind the noble Baroness this evening, or whenever it is we are allowed to vote on this matter.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That probably comes as no surprise to noble Lords.
I am going to do something that I normally try not to, and that is to rehearse one of the arguments that has been going on for years. For five of the six years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House we have been talking about having a referendum on leaving the European Union, having that referendum, and then trying to deal with the fallout from it. The debates that we were having in October 2015 have been rehearsed again and again. I have tried not to rehearse them; I recognise that the UK voted to leave, that we have left and that at the end of the transition period things will be different.
However, one of the points made during the debates on the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was the importance of enfranchising EU nationals resident in the UK but also UK nationals resident elsewhere in the EU. That was suggested precisely because those groups of people were disfranchised yet were potentially going to—I will not use “suffer”, as I realise that that could be seen by some as inflammatory—be more clearly affected than many of the rest of us who are not actively using our rights as EU citizens. British citizens who have opted to use their rights under EU law to marry, reside and exercise the right to family life as EU and UK citizens should not have those rights torn away from them.
We have heard many individual cases this evening, but I will take a slightly more general approach. When an EU national is working abroad in another EU country, family members also have the right to reside and work in that country, regardless of their nationality. That has applied to UK citizens. The Minister puts forward the idea that somehow people have 15 months to make a make-or-break decision: “You can come back now or stay away. You can’t come back with your spouse, your children, your in-laws, your close family members.” Is that really what people thought that they were voting for? Taking back control surely is about us making the right decisions. They do not have to be xenophobic or exclusionary, or choices that say no to people. Why should we make it harder for those British citizens who have chosen to live in other countries—because they were exercising their rights and living with people they loved—to be back in the United Kingdom after March 2022 than it will be for EU citizens with settled status? We should at least be as generous to our fellow British citizens who have used their EU rights as we are to EU citizens who will benefit from settled status. Can the Minister please talk to her colleagues in the Home Office and make the Government think again?
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Government have already seen what course of action they should take. I can see absolutely no sensible reason for the proposals being as they are and, apart from the issue of acting in a civilised way towards individuals, I cannot believe that so many people or such high costs are involved, so I cannot understand why so far the Government have been stuck on this issue.
As we know, the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the rights of UK nationals living in the EEA and Switzerland who return to live in the UK in future to bring with them or to be joined by non-British family members on the same terms as at present. Unless this Bill is amended, British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while the UK was a member of the EU will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children, unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many. If they need to return to look after an elderly parent, thousands will now have to choose between returning alone and leaving their families behind or abandoning their parents to stay with their non-British families in the EEA. Nobody should have to face such a choice.
The problem is that the Government are using the end of free movement to make these British citizens for the first time meet the minimum income requirement for family reunion. The MIR has been roundly criticised, because it is so high that 40% of UK workers would not be able to reach it, and because of the Catch-22 rule that the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only if they have been working in the UK for six months. How can they get into the UK if they cannot satisfy the MIR? The MIR is harsh but what makes it doubly unfair to apply it to this group of British citizens is that the change is, in effect, retrospective. When they left their homes in the UK to move to the EU or EEA, those people were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while they were abroad they could bring them back to Britain, and the British parents they left behind had the same expectations.
It also leads to the perverse result that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens: while British citizens who have moved or will move to the EEA before the end of 2020 will face these restrictions, EU citizens who have moved or will move to the UK before the end of 2020 will not. They will have the right under the withdrawal agreement to bring existing family members here for life, as well as keeping their existing rights to return to their country of birth with families they have made in the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, makes herself available and is happy to give us briefings and have chats about impending legislation. I had quite a long chat with the Minister the other day about this Bill and this amendment.
I cannot help feeling that the Government are making an enormous mistake. This is not the way to treat people; this is not the way to behave. We were told that people will have 15 months to sort themselves out, but this proposal takes away a basic right—whether you have 15 months or longer to accept it, it is still taking away a basic right. That is surely unacceptable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, just said, this is retrospective legislation. Nobody knew at the time; this has been invented subsequently. Not a single person in this position—and I have had masses of emails, as we all have, with terribly sad stories of people who are bewildered and agonised over what to do—had any idea that this was going to happen to them. None of us did until recently. For a year or two after the referendum, we had no idea that this would be the case.
When I had a chat with the Minister and her officials, one of the arguments put—I do not think I am out of order in putting the argument, as she is bound to put it herself later—was that we would have two sorts of British people. Say we had a British person married to an American, compared with a British person married to a French person: the British person married to an American would not have the right that we are arguing for on behalf of the British person living with an EU partner. But, of course, no British person married to an American ever thought that they would have that right, but we are taking away the right from people who expected to have it all along.
As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, also said, this discriminates against British people. How does it do so? An EU citizen living in Britain with a British partner has the right to go backwards and forwards to EU countries with no constraints of the sort that we are seeking to impose on British people. We have retrospective legislation that will discriminate against British people, which is surely outrageous, and the arguments do not stand up. I honestly believe that the Government should back off. This is a very big mistake.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will not go through and repeat all the arguments in favour of this amendment, so eloquently put by many noble Lords. I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said. I want to read from one of the emails that I have received. It says: “I am a British citizen, born and bred in England, who currently lives in France with my Dutch partner and our 12 year-old son. My ageing parents still live in the UK and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that at some point in the future, I would like to return to live in the UK, principally to be closer to my parents and to help look after them in the autumn of their years. I was horrified to learn that, as things currently stand, from 2022, I would face a means test in order to return to the UK with my family—a means test to return to the country of my birth and of which I am a fully fledged citizen. I am sure you can appreciate what an absurd situation this is. Like all other British citizens who moved to the EU while Britain was a member, I had and expected to keep a right to return to the UK with my family. At the time I left the UK, my parents were safe in the knowledge that I could always come back, should the need arise. Many of us met a non-UK partner while living in the EU and made a family with them, believing that our family would remain united wherever we lived. Unless this Bill is amended, our right to return home with our families will be removed from 29 March 2022, leading to impossible choices for me and thousands of families like mine. This would be a completely inhumane situation.”
I shall read just the last sentence of another email I have received. It says simply: “Unless this Bill is amended, the right of UK citizens to live in their own country with the partners of their choice will be negated for no obvious benefit to anyone. Is this a humane or necessary approach?” No doubt that is a question that the Government will answer in their reply, but I say now that if this amendment is put to a vote, we will be supporting it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to Amendment 11, which seeks to continue the current family reunion arrangements provided under EU law, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, pointed out, by the so-called Surinder Singh route. This amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Flight in Committee. It would require the regulations made under Clause 4 to provide a lifetime right for UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied or to be joined by their close family members under current EU free movement law terms. The amendment seeks to provide this cohort with preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that the family members of such UK nationals would forever bypass the Immigration Rules that otherwise apply to the family members of UK nationals.
Family members of UK nationals who are resident in EEA states and Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreements. However, the Government made the decision to provide arrangements for them. They will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members —a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after this date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Those family members will then be eligible to apply for status to remain here under the EU settlement scheme. Family members will, of course, be able to come to the UK after 29 March 2022 but will then need to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules applying to family members of UK nationals, irrespective of where they come from.
A number of noble Lords asked me to advise them on what choices they would make. For a number of reasons, I cannot do that, not least because I am not an immigration lawyer. But it is not the case that UK nationals who wish to return to the UK from living in the EEA after 29 March 2022 will be required to abandon family members overseas. Those families will have to meet the requirements of the UK family rules, as I have just said, the same as family members of other UK nationals who already have to do this. This is a matter of simple fairness.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Flight, was concerned that we were affording lesser rights to UK nationals than to EU citizens in this regard. Under the withdrawal agreements, EEA and Swiss citizens have lifetime rights to be joined here by existing close family members, but only if they are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period. UK nationals in EEA states and Switzerland have the same rights of family reunion in their host countries. By contrast, the amendment does not specify a date by which the UK national must return to the UK, meaning they could return at any point in the future and continue to benefit from EU family reunion rules. Such preferential treatment is unfair and cannot be justified in relation to the family reunion rights of UK nationals outside of EU law. The rights for those affected by the end of free movement should, after a reasonable period to plan accordingly, which our policy provides, be aligned with those of other UK nationals who have always resided in the UK or who seek to bring family members to the UK after a period of residence in a non-EEA country. To do otherwise would perpetuate a manifestly unfair situation for all other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Flight touched on the minimum income requirement. I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords raised in Committee. We think that the threshold is set at a suitable and consistent level and promotes financial independence, thereby avoiding burdens on the taxpayer. The MIR, as it is called, has been based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The Supreme Court has also endorsed our approach in setting an income requirement for family migration which prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures that migrant families can integrate into our communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, referred to something that I mentioned in Committee. I am not sure that I am going to get this right. If I do not, I shall write to her or we can come back to it again. She was talking about £25,700. I understand that the minimum income requirement for a partner or spouse is £18,600, rising to £22,400 for sponsoring one child and the same again for sponsoring another. Can we speak after Report, or I will write to her after looking at Hansard?
My noble friend Lord Flight and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about Catch-22 in meeting the minimum income requirement. It does not exist as noble Lords described, as the minimum income requirement is generally to be met from the UK national partner rather than from the foreign national partner.
I know that I shall not have reassured noble Lords, because many of them tell me that they are going to vote on this, but that is my explanation of the logic of what the Government are doing. I hope—but I doubt—that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness on one thing: I am not going to withdraw my amendment. I thank all the speakers, all those who have written to us and the organisation British in Europe, which has helped us understand the position and made sure that so many British people in Europe understand it.
It was notable to me that the speakers all used different examples. I think all of us have had the experience of being briefed and finding that one’s briefing is anticipated by several previous speakers—not so today. Our correspondents have written a variety of speeches for us. What I had not known until this evening was the position of veterans who served in the Armed Forces abroad, and who—this is very powerful—are making their views known. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that.
The Minister said we were asking to for ever bypass immigration laws. That is a very loaded way of putting it. She talked about simple fairness; well, simple fairness demands not changing the rules affecting our fellow citizens, who could never have anticipated the situation, nor anticipated that their own spouse would be regarded as an unacceptable burden on the state.
We should not be callous, to adopt one term that is being used, about the legitimate expectations of our fellow citizens. Let us not be callous, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, let us be civilised. So, I do not beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I will put it to the House when we are able to have a Division on the matter.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I will now put the question on Amendment 11. Notice has been given of the intention to press this amendment to a Division. I will need to collect the voices, but if there is a dissenting voice, the Division will have to be deferred.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
“( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power created in subsection (1) can only be used in ways that are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is an amendment I moved in Committee. I said then that there was nothing subversive about it, no cunning plan; it simply seeks to ensure consistency with the withdrawal agreement in the light of the power in Clause 4 to make regulations which may modify primary legislation.
When the amendment was originally drafted, the issue was not so topical as it has subsequently become—in another context, of course—and it is still topical. But I do not need to go there. The objection is to Clause 4. The withdrawal agreement is an international treaty; we should be entitled to rely on it and not have the risk of the Government resiling in any way from it through any means, and certainly not through inherently low-profile secondary legislation, which is, in effect, unamendable and unstoppable.
Immigration law is fiendishly complicated and quite often changed through rules. I am not accusing Ministers of attempting to slip something through, but mistakes can happen. We should stick with where we believe we are on the withdrawal agreement. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Flight, who will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Flight (Con)
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the power created by this clause can be used only in ways which are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Clause 4(2) enables regulations to be made to amend earlier primary legislation. The UK-EU withdrawal agreement is incorporated in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended. It follows that, as drafted, the Clause 4 power enables the Secretary of State by regulation to modify the application in the UK of the withdrawal agreement.
The withdrawal agreement is the vital underpinning of the rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living here. It is a matter of constitutional concern that it should be given the maximum possible legal protection. As regards immigration, it underpins the UK’s EU settlement scheme for EU citizens in the UK. It is therefore essential both for EU citizens in the UK and for British nationals in the EU that the withdrawal agreement remains sacrosanct.
It will no doubt be said that a UK Government would never act in breach of an international treaty. Be that as it may, Clause 1, enabling legislation, should never be drafted in such broad terms that this could happen. On Clause 2, where proposed legislation might be seen as a breach of the withdrawal agreement, the decision on whether it does in fact do so should be a matter for Parliament to consider properly through primary legislation.
Given the complexity of immigration legislation in the UK, without the amendment it is also possible that a regulation may be entirely unwittingly in breach of the agreement but that that inconsistency is not spotted. There is no downside to our proposed amendment. It does no more and no less than ensure that the withdrawal agreement is honoured.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, she tabled this amendment in Committee. It would prevent regulations that are made under Clause 4 being able to include any provisions that could be inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. Its intention is to make sure that nothing can be done that undermines the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens here that were guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement. I await with interest to hear the response. I assume that the Minister will be able to provide adequate reassurance that rights in the withdrawal agreement are protected. There would certainly be an issue if the Government were not able to provide that reassurance.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to Amendment 12, which as she said was previously tabled in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Flight and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for speaking in this short debate on it.
Amendment 12 seeks to prevent the Government using the power in Clause 4 to make regulations which are inconsistent with the EU withdrawal agreement. The Government have placed a very high priority on ensuring the protection of the rights of EU citizens who have made the United Kingdom their home. Our commitment is, I hope, evident in the effort and resources that we have already devoted to the EU settlement scheme. I am happy to restate that the Government have absolutely no intention of acting incompatibly with the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreements.
As has been explained, we already have a legal obligation to comply with those agreements, which also have direct effect in domestic law in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. If further reassurances were needed—and it sounded as if noble Lords wanted some—a formal independent monitoring body is being set up by the Ministry of Justice under Article 159 of the EU withdrawal agreement to ensure compliance by the UK with Part Two of the withdrawal agreement concerning citizens’ rights.
The Independent Monitoring Authority has been established under Section 15 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. It will be a new, independent body which is fully capable of monitoring our domestic implementation and application of the citizens’ rights aspects of the agreements. It can launch inquiries, receive complaints and bring legal action to identify any breaches in how the agreements are being implemented or applied in the UK.
For these reasons, we continue to think that this amendment is unnecessary. Moreover, adopting it would call into question why this restriction has not been included in every other item of legislation across the statute book. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is fairly recently that some of us have felt it necessary to require assurances that legislation that a particular Government make will not be changed and broken—even in a specific and limited way. One understands that successive Governments may do so. It seemed necessary to make the point again because we are in such a strange situation. I was not sure about the powers of the Independent Monitoring Authority; I was under the impression—this is my failure to do my homework properly—that it would not have the power to take legal proceedings in a way which met this point. I am interested to know that.
I am clearly not going to pursue this. I want to take what is said at face value and I hope that the noble Lord’s successors do not prove me too naive in doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
“Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: entitlement to remain
(1) Any child who has the right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in Part 1 of this Act, and who is in the care of a local authority or entitled to care leaving support, is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain within the United Kingdom under the EU Settlement Scheme (“the Scheme”).(2) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (1), issue guidance to local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland setting out their duty to identify the children of EEA and Swiss nationals in their care or entitled to care leaving support.(3) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the relevant Scottish Minister;(b) the relevant Welsh Minister; and(c) the relevant Northern Ireland Minister.(4) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data relating to nationality processed by local authorities for purposes of identification under subsection (1) is used solely for this purpose.(5) Any child subject to subsection (1) who is identified and granted indefinite leave to remain status after the deadline for applications under the Scheme will be deemed to have had such status and all rights associated with that status from the time of the Scheme deadline.(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed and remains in effect for 5 years from the day of the deadline of the Scheme.(7) For the purposes of this section, children “in the care of a local authority” are defined as children receiving care under any of the following provisions—(a) section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: general);(b) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision);(c) section 75 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (general duty of local authority to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children);(d) section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (provision of accommodation for children);(e) Article 25 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (interpretation); and(f) Article 50 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (care orders and supervision orders).(8) For the purposes of this section, a child “entitled to care leaving support” means a child receiving support under any of the following provisions—(a) paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (preparation for ceasing to be looked after);(b) section 23A(2) of the Children Act 1989 (the responsible authority and relevant children);(c) section 23C(1) of the Children Act 1989 (continuing functions in respect of former relevant children);(d) section 104 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (young people entitled to support under sections 105 to 115);(e) sections 29 and 30 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (advice and assistance for young persons formerly looked after by local authorities); and(f) Article 35(2) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (persons qualifying for advice and assistance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause aims to ensure that the children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted automatic Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme to ensure they do not become undocumented.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I express my thanks to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for a very helpful conversation we had about this and other clauses in the Bill. I am afraid that, despite that, it is my intention to seek the opinion of the House when we get to vote on it next Monday. I am still grateful to her—I do not want her to feel that conversations with me are totally without benefit for me; it was very useful to have had it.
The purpose of this amendment is to fast-track children in care and care leavers who are resident in the UK through the EU settlement scheme and grant them settled status. The idea is that they should have that settled status and not be undocumented, as they might otherwise become.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just explained, the amendment would ensure that children in care were entitled to remain in the United Kingdom.
When the same amendment was debated in Committee, several of your Lordships emphasised that post Brexit it is both logical and necessary for children who are already in care, along with those entitled to care, to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, for otherwise where would these children go?
Nor, of course, can it be in the child’s best interest to be removed from care in the United Kingdom simply because we are leaving the European Union. Equally, under our own law and that of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are obliged to look after the child’s best interest in all respects. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister affirmed that this is what we will do.
However, the Government are concerned that post Brexit an automatic right to remain in care in the United Kingdom would encourage local authorities not to apply for leave to remain for each child currently in their care.
Yet surely local authorities providing care to EEA and Swiss children ought not to have to face the additional administrative burden and red tape implied—to have to make an application for leave to remain for each and every child before the given deadline.
Would it not be much better and far less time consuming if, rather than dealing with the majority of cases, local authorities instead had to deal with only very few of them? Those are the cases where it might not be in the child’s best interest to remain in the United Kingdom. For the latter cases, an administrative act could easily be made before the given deadline in order to avoid the automatic or de jure leave to remain after having left the European Union.
Therefore, without the amendment, local authorities would have to shoulder an unnecessary burden just at a moment when they had many other pressing tasks to perform.
Yet, at the same time, acceptance of the amendment means that children currently in care would no longer be uncertain about their future care if, for whatever reason, local authorities should not be able to meet the deadline for an application for leave to remain.
Worse still, without the amendment there is also a risk that, after the given deadline will have passed, some children might then be deported.
For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposes.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which seeks, of course, to offer security to EEA children in care in the UK and those entitled to care-leaving support. The noble Lord and his colleagues have set out the case for the amendment very clearly and I certainly do not want to repeat their comments, but I want to add my support as someone who worked in mental health services for many years—decades, actually—originally on the front line. My recollections of the vulnerability of those children remain with me even after what is perhaps four decades.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her helpful letter explaining the Government’s position. I welcome her assurance that protecting the rights of EEA citizens who are resident in the UK has been the priority since the outcome of the EU referendum, and that the Government have been working with local authorities and others to ensure that vulnerable children obtain immigration status. It seems that the Government agree with the sponsors of this amendment that it is essential that children in care and care leavers have secure UK status.
The Government may have identified a weakness in our amendment—that it would not in fact provide these children and young people with the clear status we all want them to have—although I was very much reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hope the Minister can clarify this point, because it really is of fundamental importance.
If needed, I hope the Government will table their own amendment at Third Reading to make sure that the Bill fulfils what are not only our objectives, but theirs. I think the Minister would welcome the fact that the amendment places a duty on local authorities to identify which children in their care are at risk of losing their status when the UK leaves the EU, and therefore which children need support to get through the hoops to achieve settled status. This is so important, because local authorities do not routinely collect nationality data on children in their care. They may assume that none of their children are from the EEA and will not take any action on this important issue. It is easy to anticipate that, through no fault of their own, these children could end up undocumented.
The evidential burden for settled status is another problem, particularly when people are up against a deadline. By reducing the evidential burden, many of these vulnerable children will be rescued from having undocumented status after the transition period. The Home Office has previously stated:
“Children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers”.
If the Home Office is committed to the principle of late applications for these vulnerable children, why not support that principle through this amendment? Or does the Home Office have in mind that these children be given pre-settled or temporary status? If so, Ministers will know that this only defers the problem of lack of documentation when they come to apply for permanent status. I would be really grateful if the Minister clarified this point.
Finally, the numbers of children involved are perfectly manageable: 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers across the whole of the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme. My preference would be for a government amendment, if necessary, meeting the precise objectives of this amendment, to be tabled at Third Reading. If, however, the Minister is unable to agree to work with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others to generate the right amendment for Third Reading, if necessary, I hope that he will press this amendment to a vote, and I will certainly support it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I can be brief, because this amendment has cross-party support, but I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I did not read the amendment as declaratory. My reading was that looked-after children should be given settled status. I assume from the Minister’s letter of earlier today and the comments on the declaratory scheme that the problem with Amendment 14 lies in proposed new sub-paragraph (1):
“is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
Perhaps “is deemed to have” suggests that that person will not have any documentary evidence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, if that is indeed what the Minister understands by the declaratory nature of the amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister considered a rephrasing in a government amendment that would have the import of granting settled status to looked-after children and care leavers. Then, they would have settled status and documentary evidence, since the only reason that such people would end up in a Windrush-style situation is if the Government left them there.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I too speak in favour of this amendment and support fully the explanation of why it is needed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but also the very helpful interventions by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Smith, who asked for clarification of just what the objection is. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I do not read the amendment as declaratory. It is about being granted indefinite status but, as both noble Baronesses said, if the Government can come up with slightly better wording, fine.
I simply remind the Minister and the Government that it is their responsibility to protect the most vulnerable children in our society, which surely includes children in care. They have an added vulnerability when they have uncertain status, so it is absolutely the Government’s responsibility to ensure that these children are not left with anything indefinite at all about their standing, and that their welcome as part of our society is clear.
In the Psalms, the King is told that he is to
“defend the cause of the poor of the people”
and
“give deliverance to the children of the needy”.
The King in those days, of course, had absolute rule. For our current purposes, it falls upon the Government to defend the cause and give deliverance to the children of the needy. I hope the Minister will agree that this amendment is necessary and that if it needs altering, she will bring back the relevant changes at Third Reading.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I refer to my interests as recorded in the register. In the letter that the Minister was good enough to send us at lunchtime today, she said of this amendment that
“it would risk putting children in a more vulnerable position because they would effectively be required to prove that they were once a child in care every time throughout their adult life that they were required to prove their status. We cannot put our most vulnerable children in this precarious position and the Government is adamant it will not do so”.
Yes, but I would like to encroach, very rashly, on the territory of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and refer to King Herod. I am sure King Herod was quite adamant that it would be entirely wrong to make all boys in and around Bethlehem prove throughout their adult life that they were not the King of the Jews, particularly when a simpler remedy was at hand. The statement in the letter is odd.
I supported this amendment in Committee because it seemed to me that there was a real risk of these children falling into a crack and that we had a duty to make sure that they did not. I do not think that their problem, if this amendment were now carried, would be that they had, for the rest of their lives, to carry proof that they had once been in a care home. I do not see that at all. I listened very carefully to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Smith, and it seems to me that they would be carrying proof of their status, which would have been established; that would be the proof they would carry, not proof that they had once spent time in a care home.
If there is a technical problem with the drafting of the amendment that enables the drafter of the Minister’s letter to conclude or pretend that we who support this amendment are ready to see people having to prove, for the rest of their lives, that they were in a care home, let us correct it. I think the amendment does not indicate that this is the risk; it requires local authorities to act in loco parentis and, if it is in the best interests of the child, to get the process under way to give children the proof of the status that they will enjoy like anybody else who has citizenship, pre-settled or settled status, leave to remain or whatever. That would be the proof they would need to carry and, yes, that might be quite onerous, but the Minister could assist us on this when we come to Amendment 18 and agree with those of us who think that it would be a kindness to allow physical proof.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am always attracted to any amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as he is inestimable in this field. I was going to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench some questions, but they have already been asked.
We have one advantage—or I do—which is that, because we are talking about a deferred Division on Monday, I can listen to my noble friend the Minister’s replies and, more importantly, have the weekend to digest them before I decide whether I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in this amendment. I agree with those who say that, if the amendment is deficient in some ways, I would like to hear that something will be brought forward that could rectify this and make it possible for the sentiments in the amendment to be raised.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always a particular pleasure for me to support anything put forward in this context by my noble—and very good personal—friend Lord Dubs. As I have asked on other amendments, do we or do we not see the well-being of children as one of our high responsibilities in any future society that we want to become? How can it be in the interests of stability and security to have children who are semi-alienated by the situation in which they find themselves? That spells trouble for the future.
However, it is not just about our security. It is about wanting to ensure that children who have been through God knows what—it is very difficult to imagine the traumas that they must have had—are given the certainty that they need, with the backing of local authorities. This is not just a technical matter. In requiring local authorities to play their part in this, we will be building up a culture in which the nation shares in this commitment to children.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, yesterday the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee was discussing refugees and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with the Immigration Minister. He said, and I made a particular point of noting it—the Minister here does not need to look worried—“We always listen very carefully to Lord Dubs.” Well, that will be important for the next amendment, but I will apply it to this one as well, and I am very pleased to have added my name to the amendment on behalf of these Benches.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie said at the last stage:
“We all know that children in care are especially disadvantaged, almost by definition”.—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1292.]
I much prefer that term to “vulnerable” because many of them are extraordinarily resilient. But, however resilient you are, if you do not neatly fit a Home Office category, you are likely heading for problems and any parent, including a corporate parent, should do their best to pre-empt that.
In Committee the Minister explained the support services, I think she called them, for looked-after children and care leavers to assist them to make applications. That is of course welcome, but it would take someone much more confident than I am to be certain that no one will slip through the cracks.
In view of the time and in particular of the very thorough analysis of the amendment, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I do not think I should take more of the House’s time, other than to encourage noble Lords to support the amendment—unless of course we hear from the Minister that the point is going to be taken up.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I fully support Amendment 14, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which would add a new clause to the Bill. This clause was debated in Committee. I was persuaded by my noble friend’s argument then, and I am very much of the opinion that he is right on this issue and deserves the full support of the House when we vote on this issue next Monday, if the Government are not prepared to give way.
The clause would provide for children who are EEA or Swiss nationals and in care, along with those entitled to care leavers’ support, to be granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. The amendment, as we have seen tonight and as we saw in our debates a few weeks ago, has cross-party support. I am sure the Government have seen that support, and it would be good if the Minister could tell us what discussions took place at the Home Office between Committee and Report. I would be interested to know that; I hope this has not just been rejected out of hand.
My noble friend Lord Dubs said that the amendment would ensure that none of the children became undocumented. Identification is a serious problem for individuals, as my noble friend has outlined. There is also the whole issue that my noble friend talked about of local authorities all having different practices.
The amendment would speed up the process and enable social workers—who generally do a fantastic job, and we all know how much pressure they are under —to go straight to the Home Office and not have to deal with consulates and embassies, getting documents from abroad and the general bureaucracy of dealing with another country. It would avoid all that paperwork. My noble friend also set out the real problems that these children could suffer if the amendment is not agreed.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This really is a sensible amendment that deserves a positive response from the Government. I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
This is the decent thing to do for these children. We are talking about a relatively small number of children, but the amendment would ensure that no one fell into the trap of becoming undocumented. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned in the previous debate, children in care face all sorts of additional challenges. They are not with their parents. In effect, the local authority is the parent looking after them. All this amendment seeks to do is ensure that they do not have further issues to deal with, either as a young person leaving care or in many years’ time when being undocumented may pose a problem and leave them unable to establish their identity properly. The Government should give way on this small measure.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the new clause proposed by his Amendment 14. I also thank the noble Lords who spoke to it.
We are all absolutely united on one thing: that children in local authority care need secure status just as much as any other EU citizen needs secure status. On that, we are absolutely as one, I think. However, the amendment does not provide for the fast-tracking of children through the EU settlement scheme because subsection (1) of the proposed new clause says that a relevant child
“is deemed”—
that is the word used; we assume that it is a declaratory system—
“to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
It therefore bypasses the EU settlement scheme by giving indefinite leave to remain without the need for any application to the scheme—that is, no secure evidence of status is documented and the child would have to prove constantly that they were in the scope of this declaratory system. The only way to prove status is through the EU settlement scheme, in my view.
A near-identical new clause was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee. It called for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to be granted ILR—indefinite leave to remain; that is, settled status—under the EU settlement scheme automatically, removing any requirement for a local authority to apply on their behalf.
I am afraid that those good intentions—they really are good intentions—will not be well served by this proposed new clause. I am trying to be helpful rather than resistant to what noble Lords are saying because Windrush has shown us that a declaratory system under which immigration status is conferred on people automatically, without providing secure evidence of it, does not work. We need to learn the lessons of that.
The proposed new clause would place a vulnerable group at greater risk of ending up without secure evidence of UK immigration status. That is not an outcome that the Government can accept or one that your Lordships would want. We are focusing our efforts on working closely with local authorities—I will go into more detail on that—to ensure that these people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This will provide them with secure evidence of that status and ensure that they can prove their rights and entitlements here in the years ahead. That really is the right practical approach.
We have discussed and agreed with local government its role and responsibilities towards children and care leavers under the scheme. Local authorities and, in Northern Ireland, health and social care trusts are responsible for making an application under the scheme on behalf of an eligible child for whom they have parental responsibility by way of a court order. Their responsibilities in other cases to signpost the scheme and support applications have also been agreed, including where care leavers are concerned. That is reflected in the guidance issued to local authorities regarding their role and responsibilities for making or supporting applications to the scheme in respect of looked-after children and care leavers. We have also provided a range of support services—such as the Home Office-run EU Settlement Resolution Centre, which is open seven days a week—to ensure that local authorities can access help and advice when they need it.
We have heard estimates of the number of children in care. In the absence of local authority data, the Home Office made some broad initial estimates. These were based on data from the ONS, which put the proportion of EEA citizens per local authority at 5.8%, and on government data on the volume of children in care and care leavers per local authority. The resulting figures—of around 5,000 children in care and 4,000 care leavers—provided a reasonably generous basis for the new burdens assessment.
We have also recently conducted a survey of local authorities across the UK as part of the support that we are offering them with this very important work. The survey asked them to provide an assurance that they have so far identified all relevant cases. Just under 80% of local authorities have responded so far, and I thank them for that, given the pressures which the pandemic has placed on them. The emerging picture is that actual volumes of eligible cases might be significantly lower than the overall estimate of 9,000. The results are still being collated, but we have so far identified fewer than 5,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with around 40% of these having already applied for status under the scheme and most of that group having already received an outcome of settled status.
Obviously there is more work to be done to check and analyse the results, but the initial indications are that local authorities have the work to identify and support relevant cases well in hand. We will be sharing that data from the survey with the EU settlement scheme safeguarding user group, comprising experts from local authorities and the voluntary sector, to help them discuss the scheme’s progress. As noble Lords will know, we have also given money to voluntary organisations, and earlier this year we announced a further £8 million for this work in 2020-21. In addition, the withdrawal agreements oblige us to accept late applications where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline of 30 June next year—a matter I talked about earlier.
I think noble Lords can see that the Government are doing everything they can not only to identify these children but to ensure that, through the EU settlement scheme, not through a declaratory scheme, these children will have the secure status that they rightly deserve. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to ask short questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has talked about declaratory arrangements, and said that the lessons of Windrush are that this is dangerous. Is the problem not how the Government respond to situations in the future, rather than what type of scheme it is?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I hope I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that I want each child to have secure status, and a declaratory system does not ensure that, both now and in the future.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Just to pursue that point, can the Minister set out why that is the case? If you have the children—you know who they are and you have their details—the Government can then set out that the children have settled status, and then you would have records. The problem with Windrush was that there were no records, and that was the dispute, but if the Government actually set out to create records then you have got that system there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that an application to the EU settlement scheme is an application, with a result of settled status being either confirmed or not. A declaratory scheme confers a deemed leave on a sort of blanket basis, as opposed to each individual applying to the scheme. Therefore, children in years to come might have to prove that they were in the scope of that declaratory scheme; that is what I mean. We are not seeking different ends in this; we are just talking about different ways of going about it. I am trying to explain why an actual application is a more secure way of going about it.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part and contributed to the debate, even if one or two of them posed a few questions, which I shall try to deal with. I am also grateful to the Minister for her positive attitude to the end we all seek, even if the path to that end may differ in her view from our view. I emphasise that this amendment had cross-party support in the Commons and has cross-party support here, so there is a wide level of support for this.
On the question of declaratory or granted and so on, my understanding is very clearly that the intention behind it was that children would be granted settled status—not declaratory status, but settled status. The fear was that if any of them were undocumented and slipped through the net, they would be in the Windrush situation, not the other way around.
The process is, I believe, as follows: the social worker would be able to contact the Home Office directly about the individual and their background, the result of that application would be that settled status would be granted, and that would be indisputable and there could at no point in the future be any doubt about it. That seems to me pretty clear. The danger that the amendment refers to is that if there is no settled status, and the child is undocumented, then trouble can begin. In many cases, I agree that that would be picked up, but it may not be picked up in every case, and the dilemma for any young person who finds that they are undocumented and have all sorts of difficulties seems to me awful. That is the purpose of this amendment.
I might be persuaded by the Minister if she said that at Third Reading she will put forward an amendment which will deal with this apparent difficulty—I do not think it is a difficulty. I repeat that the purpose of the amendment is simply to say that they should be granted settled status—not declared to have a status, but granted settled status. That seems to be absolutely clear, and that will be the result of the social worker approaching the Home Office. In the circumstances, I beg leave to press the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I will now put the question on Amendment 14. Notice has been given of the intention to press this amendment to a Division. I will need to collect the voices, but if there is a dissenting voice, the Division will have to be deferred. We heard the mover, taking part remotely, say he wishes to divide the House in support of this amendment, and I will take that into account.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 30th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords 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)
Sentencing Bill [HL]
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text