House of Commons
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
This week the ninth round of negotiations with the European Union is taking place. Since the last round of negotiations, as set out in the terms of reference, UK negotiators have continued informal discussions with the Commission in both Brussels and London. Differences, of course, still remain, but we are committed to working hard to reach agreement within the timeframe that the Prime Minister has set out. On financial services, we are still seeking to provide a predictable, transparent and business-friendly environment for firms that undertake cross-border business.
Tom Hunt
Stopping illegal crossings of the English channel must be a top priority, but my understanding is that, while we are still in the transition period, our ability to tackle this issue at sea in a robust way is significantly curtailed. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that a plan is in place to deal with this issue swiftly as soon as the transition period is over?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises a very important question that is of concern to constituents across the United Kingdom. We are actively looking at the steps we can take after we leave the transition period to ensure that we can both maintain our commitment to providing a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution and safeguard our borders. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has appointed Dan O’Mahoney to lead the United Kingdom’s response in tackling illegal attempts to reach the United Kingdom.
Harriett Baldwin
Financial services are this country’s biggest export sector. The Treasury Committee heard evidence from the Bank of England last month that equivalence could be a real problem, as it could be withdrawn quickly. Could the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on how negotiations on financial services regulations are going?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, as a former Treasury Minister and a very effective advocate for one of the most successful parts of our economy. The granting of equivalence is an autonomous process within the European Union, but we are confident that the high standards of financial services regulation in this country command confidence not only in the EU but elsewhere. It is also the case that it is in the interests of EU citizens and companies that they have access to the broad and deep capital markets in London and across the United Kingdom.
Justin Madders
Vauxhall Motors in my constituency exports the majority of its vehicles to the EU, but at the moment it does not know where it stands on rules of origin, and it does not look like that will be a priority in the next round of negotiations. Is it not time that the Government actually supported the UK automotive sector and made that a big priority in the next round of negotiations?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. If I may gently correct him, we do put the interests of the automotive sector front and centre. When it comes to rules of origin, diagonal cumulation or seeking a tariff-free and quota-free deal, that is at the heart of our negotiating approach, and the interests of his constituents are at the heart of the approach that Lord Frost is taking.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union was told by representatives of the UK chemicals industry that the cost to the sector of registering all chemicals under the new UK REACH system after 1 January will be about £1 billion because of the Government’s negotiating decisions. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the midst of an economic crisis, the Government have chosen to impose such enormous costs and red tape, to no benefit whatsoever, on one of our most important and successful industries?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the chemicals sector is one of the many economic success stories of the United Kingdom. It is an inevitable consequence of leaving the European Union single market and customs union and freeing ourselves from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union that we have to have our own regulatory systems in place. They will enable us to be competitive and to take advantage of increased autonomy and independence in the future. One of the great prizes of leaving the European Union is that, when it comes to life sciences and other areas, we will be freed from the often anti- science and anti-innovation approach that the EU has had hitherto.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Government have said repeatedly, and I have heard the Minister say it many times, that they want a Canada-style deal. The Minister will know that Canada’s deal with the EU—the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—contains many commitments on a level playing field, with both parties signing up to an entire chapter on workers’ rights and two chapters on environmental standards. Could he try a straight answer to this question: will the Government be prepared to sign up to similar commitments in their deal with the EU?
Michael Gove
Absolutely—we are totally committed to ensuring that there can be reassurance on workers’ rights and environmental protection. In a previous life, I was the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and as a result of our endeavours in the Environment Bill, the creation of the Office for Environmental Protection will mean that the UK is a world leader in upholding environmental standards. We will be upholding them to a higher level than the European Union does. What we cannot accept, however, is the European Union seeking to tie the United Kingdom to its laws and its jurisdiction. We are an independent country. The people voted in a referendum and a general election for us to reclaim our sovereignty. It is a pity that the Labour party thinks that the British people, when they have the freedom to choose, will choose lower standards. That is a lack of faith in this country and a lack of faith in democracy.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Our Union is strong.
Tommy Sheppard
Given that the Cabinet Office refused to answer my written questions within the agreed timescales, will the Minister confirm whether his Department undertakes opinion polling and research into public attitudes to the Union? If that is the case, will he commit to putting that information in the public domain, since it is paid for by the taxpayer?
Michael Gove
First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for any delay in answering his written questions. I will take that up with the team in the Cabinet Office.
Of course, Government do undertake research, and that research reinforces to us the vital importance of serving every part of the United Kingdom effectively. The research that we undertake, for example, reveals that, across the United Kingdom, people believe it is vital that Governments work together to deal with the current covid pandemic, and it is important that the good co-operation that we have recently enjoyed with the Scottish Government continues.
David Linden
It seems to be the approach of a slippery fish from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. How much money—UK taxpayers’ money—is he spending on this private polling? Given that all public polling shows that there is an increase in support for Scottish independence, is it not correct that support for the Union is pretty weak at the moment and it is only a matter of time before Scotland becomes an independent country?
Michael Gove
Talking of fish, slippery or otherwise, one of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that we will be taking back control of our territorial waters. As the Scottish Government have pointed out, and as I know the hon. Gentleman is aware, there will be hundreds of thousands of new jobs and millions of pounds of new investment in the north-east of Scotland as a result of leaving the European Union. We do not need any opinion polling to tell us that that is a Brexit boost for the north-east. These are facts, and facts are chiels that winna ding. Therefore, that is a ding-dong for the Union.
Anne McLaughlin [V]
This House has approved a Bill that allows the democratically elected Scottish Government to be overruled by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—happy to ignore laws they have not made, happy to break treaties and hungry to take power from everywhere they can. Alongside this appalling level of respect for the law and for Scotland, can I at least highlight one silver lining and thank him for the contribution he is making towards Scotland’s independence?
Michael Gove
It is always flattering to receive compliments from colleagues across the House and across parties, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the gracious compliment that she pays me, but it is one that I am afraid I must gently turn down, because the Scottish Parliament will be receiving additional powers—a power surge—as a result of our departure from the European Union. That proves that devolution works. I think, and I think the majority of people in this House think, that devolution provides the people of Scotland with the best of both worlds—a strong Scottish Parliament and a strong UK Parliament. The Scottish National party, I am afraid, would force people to choose between being Scottish and being British, and I do not think that people should be forced to make that choice. They should, as Andrew Wilson, the author of the Scottish Government’s growth commission report, recently pointed out, take pride in being both Scottish and British.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
If the right hon. Gentleman’s Union is so strong, as he contends, can he tell me why he thinks Scottish independence is at a record high of 55% and has been at a sustained majority all year?
Michael Gove
The evidence of my eyes is that support for our United Kingdom across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in England, is strong. People recognise that it is the broad shoulders of the UK Treasury that have been responsible for helping to ensure that we can borrow money cheaply and invest in the people of Scotland’s welfare. In the conversations that I have had with Scottish Government Ministers, they always express their thanks and gratitude for the support the Treasury is giving. Whether it is the furlough scheme, Eat Out to Help Out or the support we have been giving to investment in hydrogen technology in Glasgow and in Aberdeen, the United Kingdom Government work with both the Scottish Government at Holyrood and Scottish local government to strengthen our United Kingdom. This has been a partnership for good for hundreds of years, and I know it will endure for many more.
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman will not produce his own opinion polls and he will not believe actual opinion polls, so maybe I will give him a few suggestions as to why support for Scottish independence is so high. He can see if he agrees with me in this. How about this? The power grab; the attacks on our democracy in Parliament; the contempt this place shows for our beautiful country; the constantly saying no to a majority of our people in Scotland; taking our nation out of the EU against our national collective will; the Prime Minister; him. Do any of them sound familiar to him at all?
Michael Gove
What an impressive list. What a pity that so many of the items in it sadly do not stand up to scrutiny. There is no power grab; there is a power surge as the Scottish Parliament receives additional powers as we leave the European Union. I think the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “contempt”. Actually, one of the things that the beautiful country of Scotland has achieved throughout our time in the United Kingdom is improved productivity, improved competitiveness, improved employment and a stronger health service. Sadly, over the last 10 years, some things have blighted progress in Scotland: a declining level of educational attainment as Scotland has gone down international league tables; a failure to procure the basic ferries that will mean that Scotland’s islands are connected to its mainland; and a failure to invest in the sick kids’ hospital in Edinburgh and elsewhere. All of those are failures of the Scottish Government. It is a sad state of affairs when the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, who have so often committed to working together, are faced with a situation where the Scottish Government have comprehensively failed in these areas, but we stand ready to help the people of Scotland do even better in the future.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
We have created a £200 million port infrastructure fund to provide financing support directly to ports. Furthermore, in July, to help the whole of the border industry prepare, we published a border-operating model for the border. An update will be published shortly, providing further details on policies and processes for the end of the transition period.
Neil Parish
Can the Minister assure me that, when it comes to imports, we can actually get our ports ready and get imports through? When it comes to exports, this is much more difficult. Of course, our French cousins have form on this. They have stopped British lamb and British beef in the past, when we have been part of the European Union. What reassurances can we have that we will be able to get exports out, so that our great farming, food and all businesses can export into Europe through France successfully?
Penny Mordaunt
We think it is sensible to agree reciprocal arrangements to allow road transport operators to move to, from and through the UK and the EU. We hope to secure those arrangements; we do not want unnecessary burdens to be placed on hauliers or other road transport operators. It is in everyone’s interests that we do that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
We evaluate the effectiveness of Government communications. We constantly monitor and gain insights on public awareness and compliance from regular evaluations. This question affords me the opportunity to pay tribute to the Central Office of Information for its work not just on covid-19, but in preparation for the end of the transition period.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Minister for that answer. The Cabinet Secretary said that consistency commands confidence. We all heard the Prime Minister last week on TV telling us to work from home again where possible to slow down the second wave of coronavirus. However, according to the Public and Commercial Services Union, civil servants, who have managed stoically, even heroically, during the crisis to keep the machinery of state running while mainly working from home, have now been instructed to return to their offices in order for the Departments to hit arbitrary and outdated Cabinet Office targets. The Government are saying one thing to the country and something entirely different to their workforce. Can the Minister correct this anomaly?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has examples of that. As far as I am aware, there are certain areas of government that do require people to come in to work. For example, some of the things that the Cabinet Office deals with have to be done in a secure environment, but we are following the same rules and guidelines that the rest of the UK workforce are. If he has specific examples that he wants me to look at, please send them to me.
Chris Elmore
Genuine concern has been expressed by the First Minister of Wales about the lack of engagement from the Prime Minister in terms of cross-Government discussions. May I raise a specific point with the Paymaster General? In England, people in restricted areas are able to travel into Wales to go on holiday. In Wales, people in a restricted area, such as in my constituency, are not allowed to travel to go on holiday. This has been asked of the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister this week. Could the Paymaster General, or indeed the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, urge the Prime Minister to say to people living in England, “If you are in a restricted area, please don’t go on holiday, please don’t travel into Wales, please don’t spread the virus”?
Penny Mordaunt
I will certainly take that up on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf. One of the benefits of the four nations working together is that we try to have as much consistency as possible and anticipate the impact of one set of rules on others, particularly communities living near the borders. I will follow that up for him and be in touch.
Fleur Anderson
Government communications this week have been quite shambolic. My constituents have been writing to me to ask for more clear messaging. The Cabinet Office has spent more than £50 million on untendered contracts for media and consultancies, yet Ministers have found it hard to explain local measures this week. It has been reported that mask wearing in shops is going down instead of up, in contradiction to communications, and more people have been told to get the flu jab yet cannot get one. How are members of the public expected to understand and keep up with the changes if Ministers cannot?
Penny Mordaunt
I fully recognise that the rules have got more complex—were Matt Lucas recreating the “Baked Potato Song” now, he would have to write an opera. They are more complex because we have regional and local lockdowns, as opposed to a blanket lockdown, and I think that is what the nation wants: we want to keep our economy going and to give people as much freedom as we possibly can, while fighting this virus. By and large, although the public are fed up, they are following the rules and they are working together, with collective responsibility, to beat this virus. All Members of this House can help to deliver the messages by putting them on their Twitter feeds and by communicating them. Only by working together are we going to defeat this virus.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Mr Speaker
I welcome Minister Lopez on her first outing at the Dispatch Box.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Chamber has changed in many ways since I went on maternity leave, but I am glad to say that the atmosphere has markedly improved for the better thanks to your warmth and good humour.
The Government are committed to levelling up opportunity in every corner of the United Kingdom, including as we respond to the economic impacts of covid-19. This work has many strands, from the winter economy plan to protect jobs and businesses to the lifetime skills guarantee and the investment we are making in major regional infrastructure. In the Cabinet Office, we are playing our part through our Places for Growth strategy, locating more high-quality civil service jobs beyond the capital so that the Government are better connected to all the communities we are here to serve.
Paul Bristow
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place on the Government Front Bench.
The Government plan to bring decision making “close to people”. Peterborough is a city just 50 minutes from London. It is on the east coast main line and has a bustling hospitality and retail sector and a hard-working and skilful population, and a university is coming. Can my hon. Friend think of a better place for a civil servant to work than Peterborough? Will she consider the city in the latest round of civil service moves?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate pitch for his city. We completely agree with him that Peterborough, with its fantastic transport links, entrepreneurial people and broader economic offering, would be a great place for a new Government hub. That is why we are locating one at Fletton Quays, where I hope to visit next week to demonstrate our commitment to locating more civil service roles in the regions and nations of the UK.
Antony Higginbotham
Constituencies such as mine have for too long been left behind, with London taking the lion’s share of infrastructure and small and medium-sized enterprise finance. That means that good, viable businesses in Burnley are left to grow at a slower speed than if they were elsewhere in the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that development banks, which are such excellent mobilisers of capital, could prove a solution to that problem?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion of Burnley’s small businesses since his election. The Government are determined to reduce imbalances in access to finance for smaller firms. Some 83,000 SMEs outside London have already benefited from programmes run by the British Business Bank, which is the UK’s Government-owned economic development bank. Infrastructure is also central to our economic plan, providing opportunities for SMEs throughout the supply chain. We will publish a national infrastructure strategy, including our ambitions on levelling up across the whole UK, later in the autumn.
Mark Logan
Pubs and restaurants in Bolton have been harder hit than those in nearly any other of the UK’s 650 constituencies, largely due to an unfairly enforced economic lockdown. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government are doing everything they can to support businesses in Bolton? I urge the Government to align our restrictions with those in the rest of the region.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is an incredibly challenging time for constituents in Bolton North East and in many other areas of the country, and I know they will appreciate his advocacy. Local lockdown decisions are determined following advice from national medical experts, local leaders and directors of public health, in accordance with data provided by the Joint Biosecurity Centre. We consider case rates, trends in the data and causes, but also local geography, before making judgments about whether restrictions are needed. We of course keep all these measures under constant review.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern for the hospitality sector, and I have spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), about the taskforce he is setting up as Business Minister to work through some of the issues for the night-time economy in particular.
Joy Morrissey
In Beaconsfield, many of my constituents work in aviation or other sectors directly affected by covid-19. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that anyone who finds themselves unemployed due to businesses having to adapt or close because of covid-19 can find the education and qualifications they need for the future?
Julia Lopez
The new Member for Beaconsfield is another very refreshing change in this Parliament, and I thank her for her question. She might wish to point her constituents to the Chancellor’s plan for jobs, which is designed to help unemployed people find work through training to develop their skills. That support includes incentive payments for employers to hire new apprentices and funding to triple the uptake of traineeships. The Prime Minister also set out his commitment this week to lifelong learning. As part of that, adults who do not have a full level 3 qualification will be able to take level 3 qualifications in high-value subjects for free from next April.
Paul Howell
I also welcome the Minister to her place. Economic growth in the regions will be maximised by the public and private sectors working in partnership. Currently, there are 92,000 civil servants in London, 56,000 in the north-west and only half of that in the north-east—and two thirds of those are in Newcastle, leaving negligible numbers in Durham and the Tees Valley. Does she agree that any relocation of Government Departments to the regions can be a critical lever and that it is important that they do not all now just move to another metropolitan centre? It is imperative that Departments such as the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consider locating to areas such as Sedgefield, which sits on the intersection of the Tees valley and County Durham and has all the rural challenges, but also has excellent connections to London.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He also makes a passionate pitch for his constituency. The Government are committed to levelling up across the UK, ensuring that this Administration is much less London-centric. The Places for Growth programme is working with Departments on their relocation plans ahead of the spending review and continuously exploring opportunities to build clusters of civil servants across the whole UK. I welcome my hon. Friend highlighting what Sedgefield has to offer, and I am sure the north-east will benefit from the relocation of civil service roles.
Matt Vickers
There is an amazing world of opportunities, talents and skills outside London, and nowhere more so than in Teesside. We are on the up. Our airport is reborn. We are leading the green technology revolution. We have the brightest and best entrepreneurs, manufacturers and exporters. We are fighting for a freeport and gagging for growth. Could my hon. Friend confirm not if but when civil service jobs from Whitehall will make their way to Teesside?
Julia Lopez
Another very passionate case—perhaps a bit too passionate. It is incredible to see how firmly Teesside has been put on the map over the past few years because of its Mayor and hon. Friends in this place, and it is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) join their number. The Government are committed to relocating 22,000 civil service roles out of central London within the next decade, with the majority going to other regions and nations of the UK. We will continue to engage with the Mayor and others to ensure that the north-east benefits from our ambitions.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The private sector has played a vital role in the Government’s response to the covid-19 outbreak, such as delivering over 15,000 ventilators in under four months to support the NHS and changing production facilities so that by December we expect that UK manufacturers will be meeting 70% of the demand for personal protective equipment, compared with just 1% before the pandemic. Being able to procure at speed has been critical in providing that response. However, we have been clear that all contracts, including those designed to help tackle coronavirus, must continue to offer quality public services and achieve value for money for taxpayers.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister’s response says more about the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of Operation Cygnus than it does about their ability to implement an effective response to the pandemic. The Government have bypassed the NHS, outsourcing billions of pounds-worth of contracts in back-room deals with their mates that then failed to deliver—failed to deliver PPE that fits on time, failed to deliver the testing capacity that is needed and failed to deliver a national tracing programme that contacts everyone affected. The Government’s actions are not just incompetent; their failure to comply with transparency obligations is potentially unlawful. Therefore, will they stop wasting more taxpayers’ money defending the indefensible and provide my lawyers with the information on these contracts that my co-complainants and I have requested?
Julia Lopez
The DHSC has procured over 32 billion items from UK-based manufacturers and international partners—an incredibly difficult task at an incredibly difficult time. We received over 24,000 offers of help from 15,000 individual suppliers, and all were prioritised according to volume, price, clinical acceptability and lead time, meaning the time from an offer being accepted by the DHSC to a supplier delivering the items. Of course I am happy to look into any offer of help from a business that was found wanting, but I refer the hon. Member to the view outlined by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who praised the Department’s response to procurement.
Ruth Cadbury
Track and trace services, when led by experienced public health teams, have been more effective, and at lower cost, than the outsourced system in NHS England. In Wales, the contact rate for track and trace is over 90%, whereas in England, it hovers at a little over 70%. When will the Government recognise the importance of value for money and redirect their multimillion-pound procurement towards long-established local health networks?
Julia Lopez
It has been an extremely challenging time, as I have said, and the private sector has been a valuable partner in everything we have done. The contracts awarded have been extremely valuable in ensuring that we can deliver capacity at pace. If the hon. Lady has any concerns, I am happy to look into them.
Ian Byrne [V]
The Minister will be aware that the Competition and Markets Authority is now investigating the proposed merger of two outsourcing giants in the facilities management industry: Mitie and Interserve. Given that both companies hold Government contracts worth over £2 billion, what steps is she taking to review the implications of the merger, considering the clear risk to public funds, as well as to the terms and conditions and future employment of over 80,000 workers?
Julia Lopez
I am afraid that the Competition and Markets Authority is not within my remit, but I am happy to look into any concerns, because contracts and procurement performance are within my remit, and I want to ensure that we receive value for money for the taxpayer in everything we do.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I understand that the Government’s contract with Sitel for test and trace is renewed on an eight-week basis, with a two-week notice period. The next deadline for renewal is this Sunday, 4 October. Will the Minister publish all the renewal dates for Sitel and Serco’s contracts, and will she explain what justification the Government could possibly have for continuing with the failed privatised, centralised model of test and trace, by contrast to the effectiveness of local councils and public health teams, who are denied the full funding that they require?
Julia Lopez
As I have said, without the private sector, we would have struggled to deliver the testing capacity that we now have. Serco and Sitel are approved suppliers on the Crown Commercial Service’s contact centre framework, and they gain their places through fair and open competition via Official Journal of the European Union procurement. Value for money and capability were part of the assessment criteria. But if there are other suppliers that would bid well for the contracts, we are happy to look into that.
Helen Hayes
Government spending on consultants has risen sharply in recent years, up by around £1 billion since 2016, with contracts worth at least £56 million awarded without competitive tender during the covid crisis. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Lord Agnew that the Government are reliant on consultants who are providing poor value for money because of their vastly inflated cost when carrying out services that could be conducted more efficiently in-house? If so, can she tell the House when the review into current controls and spending limits will begin, and when it will report?
Julia Lopez
Consultants play an important role in what the Government try to achieve on particular projects, but the hon. Lady is right: we have concerns about the cost of those consultants and whether we are too reliant on them, and we are actively reviewing that. I am working with my colleague Minister Agnew on these matters.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
We want to see visa-free arrangements for tourists and short-term business visitors as part of our future relationship with the European Union. Temporary entry for business purposes, or mode 4, sets out terms under which a business person can move between trading partners. On short-term business specifically, we are only seeking to lock in on a reciprocal basis arrangements that the UK already offers to third-country nationals.
Sir George Howarth [V]
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for that answer. He will be aware, because I wrote to him about it, that some European Union countries, such as Portugal, require people to be on a professional register before they can be issued with a visa to work in that country on a short-term contract. Can he give me some assurance that that problem will be resolved before the end of the transition period?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important question. He is an assiduous advocate for workers and for his constituents. We are working in these negotiations to ensure that, whether in Portugal or elsewhere, those who have skills have the opportunity to work in the European Union to the benefit of both. I am really grateful to him for being so vigilant on their behalf.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
The Government have an unwavering commitment to our Union, as demonstrated by the £190 billion of measures that the Chancellor has already introduced to protect jobs throughout the UK. We are strengthening our Union even further by taking steps to ensure the free flow of trade and ensuring that powers return from the EU directly to the devolved Administrations. In addition, we are committed to concluding the review of intergovernmental relations, to ensure that our structures are improved and adaptable for our Union, both now and in future.
Sally-Ann Hart
The rich tapestry of our precious Union is woven together by the threads of our individual cultures, languages, traditions and values, creating the most successful political, social and economic Union in the world. So what steps is my hon. Friend taking to reach out to the devolved nations to show how much we value them as part of our great United Kingdom, on a cross-party basis?
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. We have confronted the recent pandemic as one United Kingdom and have achieved more together than we could have done as individual nations. That unity has been reaffirmed through the joint statements of 25 September. As I said, we have taken significant steps to protect the economy, providing billions of pounds to protect lives and livelihoods in all parts of the UK. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, the way in which we are taking our intergovernmental relations forward will show how committed we are to those relationships and to making sure that they are positive today and tomorrow.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
We will be working safely with the Electoral Commission to support its voter registration and public information campaigns ahead of the next elections next May, as we do for every election. Together, we will be able to ensure that people can participate in the polls safely and confidently and in a way of their choice, whether by post or proxy or in person.
Nick Smith
It is a great pity that this spring’s elections were postponed because of covid. To reduce uncertainty about the management of our democracy next May, how seriously are the Government considering all-postal voting, which could be a good way to boost safe participation in the coming elections?
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He and I both know that he is an experienced hand at election matters. I welcome his scrutiny of this question because it is important. We want the elections in May next year to go ahead, because it is extremely important that we are able to continue with our normal way of life as a country, rather than seeing any further postponement of important elections.
I do not take the view that all-postal elections would be a wise move, however, for the following reason. It is principally that we have already seen around the world that elections can be run in person safely during this pandemic. We are confident that that can be the case here as well, and I am doing all the work necessary with the electoral community to make sure that is so. Indeed, I published evidence of that only recently, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has already seen.
Furthermore, it is an important part of our elections that people can actually choose the way in which they vote—as I have already said, by post, by proxy or in person. We think that it is important to maintain that and that there is not a good enough reason to do otherwise.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
This week, we have seen thousands of Czechs who are quarantined at home participating in regional and Senate elections by voting at drive-in polling stations. From the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), it is clear that this Government have run out of ideas about how to make sure that the May 2021 elections are both covid-secure and innovative to ensure that voter participation is high at these elections. Is it the case that this Government have really just run out of steam?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am aware that this question was also put to the Home Office earlier this week. I can confirm that there are no plans to establish an independent inquiry into the policing of the miners’ strike in 1984-85 in England and Wales.
Ian Lavery [V]
More than 11,000 UK miners were arrested during the bitter dispute of 1984-85, and I declare an interest as I was among that number. There were 6,000 put on trial and 7,000 injured, while many were blacklisted—never ever to work again—and others died with an unjust criminal record. There was an independent review in Scotland, where miners convicted in the Scottish coalfield are set to be pardoned. Justice is being served. Can the Minister say if the miners in the UK can expect a pardon from the Government, and does the Minister acknowledge that a full inquiry into the policing of the miners’ strike is the only means of justice for those miners who were the backbone of this nation?
Chloe Smith
I admire the passion and experience with which the hon. Member speaks. I will say straight off that the report produced for the Scottish Government is a matter for them. I understand that it has reported, but that is not for me to comment on.
The core point is this: since the strike of 1984-85, there have been very significant changes in the oversight of policing at every level. I am not sure that it would be worth the efforts of an inquiry to be able to make sensible comments on that, given the quantity of change, and that the focus should instead be on continuing to ensure that the policing system is the best that it can be. I can also add that all the 33 files the Home Office had held relating to that strike have now been transferred to the National Archives and that these are available for the public to review.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Since the Ditchley lecture, I have been working closely with our colleagues in the civil service to ensure that the Government can deliver our ambitious agenda for this country. Like all institutions, the civil service and, indeed, Ministers must constantly seek to improve how they deliver, and our plans for reform for both civil servants and Ministers will be set out in due course.
Richard Fuller
There is a vital democratic connection between the manifesto commitments that we stand on at elections and the formulation of policies to enact those commitments. In what ways is my right hon. Friend looking to make better use of data and to have better interpretation of data in that vital task?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. One of the things that we need to do is to transform the way in which we use data in the public sector in order to best deliver for all voters. It is crucial to democracy that Government fulfil their manifesto commitments. We are currently advertising for a new Government chief digital officer to help to lead that transformation. If my hon. Friend were not in his current role, then he would be an ideal person to fulfil that very important job.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
We and the devolved Administrations recently published a joint statement showing our commitment to work together to protect the health of our citizens, to protect our communities, and to enhance our economic recovery. Ministers from all the devolved Administrations attended Cobra on 22 September following bilateral discussions with the Prime Minister the day before. Of course I have regular meetings with the First Ministers of all the Administrations.
Sir Desmond Swayne
If the effort against covid is a war, then the first principles are the selection and maintenance of the aim. In March, the aim was to flatten the curve and protect the NHS. Has it changed?
Michael Gove
No. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as a distinguished Territorial Army officer as well as a very successful former Defence Minister. Yes, our aim is to flatten the curve, to protect the NHS and to save lives.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
On Monday, the Paymaster General and I were in Brussels for the latest meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which I co-chaired with my EU counterpart, Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. We made progress on a number of areas, and specialised committees will meet in the coming weeks to conclude further work.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
The Government have confirmed that they are adopting a public health approach to tackling youth violence. This involves a cross-departmental, multi-agency approach, and a long-term strategy over a minimum of 10 years. Can the Minister therefore offer any explanation as to why the serious violence taskforce has not met for over a year?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this question. She has been a consistent voice in this House, and beyond it, for new, imaginative and effective ways of dealing with the scourge of youth and gang violence. Her attention and focus on this issue has helped to improve the work of Government and others. Some of the issues that she mentions are subsumed within the work of the broader criminal justice taskforce that the Prime Minister has set up. I will ask the Home Office to make sure that there is an opportunity for her to be briefed on its work, and if there is more that can and should be done, then we will benefit from her involvement.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
We are told that the two sticking points in the Brexit negotiations are state aid and fisheries, but we have now learned from a leaked letter—not from Ministers—that cars made in Britain are likely to face tariffs from 1 January next year, deal or no deal. Detailed negotiations on automotives or on crucial rules of origin requirements are not on the agenda for the crunch talks taking place this week, and there are no further rounds of negotiations planned. So can the Minister tell the House at what point precisely do the British Government give up on the British car industry?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady, not least during the time when she was Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, was a strong champion for manufacturing, and indeed this Government are strongly committed to manufacturing, not least in the automotive sector. Of course we are fighting for the best possible deal on rules of origin and diagonal cumulation, and we are seeking a no-tariff and no-quota deal with the European Union. That has always been our consistent aim.
Rachel Reeves
The complacency is staggering. It is the responsibility of the British Government to stand up for British industry. The letter from the Government’s chief negotiator says that they “obviously cannot insist on” tariff-free trade. But our Government should be insisting on the very best deal for car manufacturing and for British industry. There are 150,000 jobs that depend on car manufacturing. I can tell this House that a Labour Government would do that. Will the Minister get out of first gear and prioritise and protect the jewels in the crown of British manufacturing? Will he agree to urgently meet representatives of the automotive sector and the trade unions Unite and GMB to ensure that we do not do away with this vital industry and the vital jobs that depend on it?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady knows how to wound with her reference to getting out of first gear. I suspect that she knows, as many Members know, that it took me seven attempts to pass my driving test and therefore I am not an expert—
Michael Gove
I took my final successful test in Aldershot, not County Durham, but still.
On the hon. Lady’s serious and substantive point, she is right and I will happily meet representatives of the manufacturing sector, including representatives of the trade unions. It is our aim to secure tariff-free access. Officials from the Cabinet Office talked to Ford Motor Company only earlier this week to make sure that we could support them through the end of the transition period. The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of the sector, not least as we move from internal combustion engine manufacture and towards electric and other zero carbon vehicles.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, there was a Cobra meeting just last week at which the First Minister of Wales was an important and constructive participant, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked to the First Minister prior to that. I enjoy my regular conversations with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I think I have probably spoken to the First Minister of Wales more often in the past couple of months than I have to my own mum and dad, and that is a reflection of the high regard in which I hold the First Minister of Wales, not of any lack of regard for my parents in Aberdeen.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Yes of course. I have found that the Road Haulage Association, valuable organisation though it may be, has not always necessarily been the most constructive partner at every stage in the conversations that we needed to have. Nevertheless, I think it is the case that we are having conversations with it and others to ensure that these and the other IT systems that we need for the end of the transition period are in place.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Michael Gove
The Government’s campaign to ensure that businesses are ready for the opportunities and to meet and master the challenges that come at the end of the transition period has seen an uptick in the preparedness of UK business, but there is much more that needs to be done. We published our reasonable worst case scenario last week to demonstrate the consequences if we do not all work together to ensure that we are ready for 1 January.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Michael Gove
We are undertaking a number of strands of work. One is making sure that we can more effectively disperse key decision makers across the UK—to Teesside and other parts of the UK—and my colleague Lord Agnew is leading work to ensure that new senior civil service posts are located outside central London. Work requires to be undertaken to make us more transparent and effective in how we deliver for all parts of the UK. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), we are doing more to use data and digital tools to make transparent the work of Government.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Michael Gove
Hon. Members for Sedgefield have always been powerful advocates for the north-east, but none more so than my hon. Friend the current Member. He is absolutely right that Teesside, with Sedgefield in particular and County Durham as well, is at the beating heart of the economic future of this country. We need to invest in the next generation of manufacturing excellence; it is the young men and women of his constituency who will be at the cutting edge of that revolution, and they have no better advocate for manufacturing, for growth and for smarter government than him.
Mr Speaker
I come now to the hon. Member for Bedford, whose birthday it is. Happy birthday, Mohammad Yasin.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that over his dead body would he accept United States food standards, so will he take the opportunity to protect our farmers and keep our food clean and safe in a post-Brexit future by enshrining our standards in law when the Agriculture Bill returns to this place?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I wish him a happy birthday. I also take the opportunity, while at the Dispatch Box, to wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) a happy birthday. It is her birthday as well today, and I hope that she has an enjoyable day and a relaxing weekend. On the broader question of food standards, it is already the case that in law we uphold very high animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety standards, and there will be no compromise on those.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Like many small and medium-sized enterprises, Hydro Cleansing in Carshalton and Wallington provides very specialist services that are not available on the open market, yet it still has trouble getting access to public sector contracts. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that SMEs such as Hydro Cleansing can get access to those contracts?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and in Carshalton and Wallington there are a number of SMEs, effectively represented by him, who deserve a squarer go when it comes to getting access to Government contracts. We need to simplify the process of procurement, and outside the European Union we can do precisely that.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Given that today we have heard a number of very positive comments from Ministers about the effectiveness and the quality—sorry, I am trying not to laugh here—of the delivery of test and trace by the private sector, is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware of the recent survey that showed that 74% of the public want those services delivered by local public health teams, which have proven to be far more effective in stopping the spread of the virus?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The important thing to say is that, when it comes to the delivery of all public services, what is right is what works. We need to ensure that we have an effective mix of public sector and private sector delivery. It is the case that we would not have been able to increase testing capacity to the current levels that we have without the involvement of the private sector, and it is central Government, local government and the private sector working effectively together that ensures that we can both test, and track and trace, in the way that is best guaranteed to keep our respective constituents safe. So we look at the evidence, but we also ensure that we do everything we can to have the innovation of the private sector and the compassion of the public sector working hand in hand.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is in the interests of both Unions—the EU and the UK—for the EU to return to the negotiating table, end its games of brinkmanship and sign the deal?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason that David Frost is in Brussels today is to seek to ensure that we can get the best possible deal. Progress has been made in a huge number of areas, but, as the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out earlier, there are still one or two sticking points—on state aid, the level playing field and fisheries. With good will on both sides, we can achieve resolution. I certainly know that the Government are determined to do that, but of course we have clear red lines that we will not cross. It is vital that we maintain our faith with the British electorate, and ensure that on 1 January we leave the European Union, single market and customs union, and take back control.
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.
Covid-19 Update and Hospitality Curfew
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the work to tackle coronavirus.
The virus continues to spread. Yesterday, there were 7,108 new cases. However, there are also early signs that the actions that we have collectively taken over the past month are starting to have a positive impact. Today’s Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission study from Imperial College suggests that although the R number remains above 1, there are early signs that it may be falling. We must not let up, but people everywhere can take some small hope that our efforts together may be beginning to work; I put it no stronger than that. Cases are still rising. However, as the chief medical officer set out yesterday, the second peak is highly localised, and in some parts of the country the virus is spreading fast. Our strategy is to suppress the virus, protecting the economy, education and the NHS, until a vaccine can make us safe.
Earlier this week, we brought in further measures in the north-east. However, cases continue to rise fast in parts of Teesside and the north-west of England. In Liverpool, the number of cases are 268 per 100,000 population, so together we need to act. Working with council leaders and mayors, I am today extending the measures that have been in place in the north-east since the start of this week to the Liverpool city region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. We will provide £7 million of funding to local authorities in these areas to support them with their vital work.
The rules across the Liverpool city region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough will be as follows. We recommend against all social mixing between people in different households. We will bring in regulations, as we have in the north-east, to prevent in law social mixing between people in different households in all settings except outdoor public spaces such as parks and outdoor hospitality. We also recommend that people should not attend professional or amateur sporting events as spectators in the areas that are affected. We recommend that people visit care homes only in exceptional circumstances, and there will be guidance against all but essential travel. Essential travel of course includes going to work or school. I understand how much of an imposition this is, and I want rules like these to stay in place for as short a time as possible. I am sure we all do. The study published today shows us hope that together we can crack this, and the more people follow the rules and reduce their social contact, the quicker we can get Liverpool and the north-east back on their feet.
We are aligning the measures in Bolton with the rest of Greater Manchester, and I would like to pay tribute to David Greenhalgh, the leader of Bolton council, for his constructive support, and to the Bolton MPs for all they have done in support of Bolton. There are no changes to measures in West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Leicester, Lancashire or the rest of Greater Manchester. It is critical that the whole country acts together now to control the spread of this virus, so please, for your loved ones, for your community and for your country, follow the rules and do your bit to keep this virus under control.
By its nature, this virus spreads through social contact, so it has had a terrible impact on the hospitality sector, which in good times exists to encourage the very social contact that we all enjoy. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to suppress the virus. The only alternative to suppressing the virus is to let it rip, and I will not do that. I know that many of the individual rules are challenging, but they are necessary and there are those early signs that they are working. In the measures we have introduced, including the 10 pm restriction, we are seeking to strike a balance, allowing people to continue to socialise safely where that is possible while reducing the social contact that the virus thrives on. Elsewhere in the world, they have introduced an evening restriction and then seen their case numbers fall. We know that later at night, people are less likely to follow social distancing.
Of course we keep all our measures under review, and we will closely monitor the impact of this policy, as with all the others, while continuing our unprecedented support for hospitality businesses by cutting VAT, supporting the pay of staff, offering rates relief for businesses and giving billions of pounds of tax deferrals and loans. Our hospitality industry provides so much colour and life in this country, and we will do whatever we can to support it while acting fast to keep the virus under control. I know that these measures are hard, and that they are yet another sacrifice after a year of so many sacrifices already, but there are some signs that what we are doing together to respond to these awful circumstances is starting to work, so do not let up. Let’s all of us keep doing our bit, and one day over this virus we will prevail.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary State for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Imperial study today is indeed encouraging, but, as the chief medical officer said yesterday, we have a long winter ahead. We know that sustained contact, especially in crowded, poorly ventilated spaces, is a driver of infection, and pubs and bars are an obvious risk. I heard what he said about the 10 pm rule, but my concerns relate to everybody leaving the pub at the same time. What action will he take so that we do not see a repeat this weekend of people piling out into city centres, packing out public transport and sometimes piling into supermarkets to buy more drink?
We completely understand the need for local restrictions, including in Merseyside, as the Secretary of State has just announced. It was probably too late for colleagues from Merseyside to get on the call list this morning, but they would be keen to press him further on the financial support for Merseyside. The region is hugely reliant on hospitality and leisure, and we know that these restrictions exact a heavy social and economic toll. Areas need financial support, otherwise existing inequalities, which themselves have a health impact and allow the virus to thrive, will be exacerbated.
People need clarity as well. Areas such as Leicester, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Bradford have had restrictions imposed on them for months now. Millions of people in local lockdown areas across the north and midlands just need some reassurance that an end is in sight. Many want to know when they will be able to visit their loved ones and whether they will be able to visit their families over the coming school half-term, for example. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether he has now ruled out the so-called circuit break taking place across the October half-term, as was mooted in the newspapers last week?
Some of the heaviest increases in infection appear to be taking place in areas where restrictions are in place, so why are the interventions not working? Why are the moles not getting whacked? Yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that the success of Luton in leaving restrictions was because of people pulling together. I have no doubt that people are pulling together across Bolton, Bury, Rossendale, and so on, but what additional help will they receive to drive the virus down?
I believe that Ministers lost precious ground in fighting the virus by not having an effective test, trace and isolate regime in place by the end of the summer. Testing and tracing is key to controlling the virus. Increasing evidence now shows the importance of backward contact tracing in controlling outbreaks. Is backward contact tracing routinely happening in areas of restriction, and will the Secretary of State publish data on backward contacts reached? We also support the Health Committee’s calls today for routine testing of all NHS staff. Will he finally set a date for introducing it?
Problems remain with testing generally. I have just heard of a case in the Rhondda where people have booked appointments and turned up at a testing centre, but Serco has pulled the testing centre out and is saying that it needs the Secretary of State to intervene in that area if it is to be reopened. Will he do that?
On 8 September, the Secretary of State told the Health Committee that the problems with testing would be resolved “in the coming weeks.” That was more than three weeks ago, yet it still takes 30 to 31 hours to turn around in-person tests, 75 hours for home test kits, and 88 hours—more than three and a half days—for test results in the satellite test centres, which are predominantly used by care homes, so he has not resolved the problems. When will he?
Today we have learned that Deloitte, which is contracted by the Government to help to run test and trace, is now trying to sell contact tracing services to local councils. The Government’s own contractor, one of the very firms responsible for the failing system in the first place, now sees a business opportunity in selling information and services to local authorities. Authorities should be getting that anyway, and this is in the middle of the biggest public health crisis for 100 years. Is this not an utter scandal? How can it be allowed? Does it not once again show that directors of public health should be in charge of contact tracing?
Finally, this week GPs warned of significant problems with flu vaccine supplies. Boots and LloydsPharmacy have stopped offering flu jab appointments due to issues with supplies. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we have enough flu vaccines available for all who will need one this winter?
Matt Hancock
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the measures that we have had to take and for the £7 million of extra financial support for the councils affected—not just Merseyside, and Halton and Warrington, but Hartlepool and Middlesbrough—which is on the same basis as the support for the seven north-east councils announced at the end of last week.
It is true that some parts of the country have come through a local lockdown. In fact, we have lifted many of the measures that were in place in Leicester, for instance. We were not able to lift all the measures, and the case rate there then went back up again, although it has now appeared to have stabilised. Luton is another example where there was a significant local outbreak that was brought under control.
The hon. Gentleman asked about increased testing. Increased testing is, of course, going into Merseyside, and we can do that because we have record capacity, which has increased yet again this week. He also asked about backward contact tracing; absolutely we have backward contact tracing in these areas. And that is one of the reasons we know that, sadly, the highest likelihood of picking up coronavirus outside our own households comes from social settings. Public Health England will be publishing further information today on backward contact tracing to understand how this virus spreads.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the speed of test results. I am glad to say that the turnaround time for test results in care homes is speeding up. He asked about Deloitte and its contact tracing capabilities. Deloitte has done an incredible job in helping us put together the contact tracing and backward contact tracing that we have, and of course it should offer its services to local councils too. He says that local councils should have more impetus and more involvement in contact tracing, but when a company with great experience in contact tracing comes forward to offer its services, he criticises it. He cannot have it both ways. Of course, these services cost money and they have to be delivered, and I pay tribute to Deloitte, which is doing a brilliant job.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about flu jabs. It is absolutely true, as he says, that there is a record roll-out of flu jabs. There are enough for everybody in a priority group who needs them. I stress that this is a roll-out: nobody needs to have a flu jab before the start of December, but people can have it in September or October and it will then cover them for the winter, so we are rolling this out and more appointments will become available in good time. We have 30 million jabs in total, more than we have ever had before and almost double what we typically have had in the past, and those are available. I am really glad to say that record numbers of people are coming forward to get flu jabs, and I welcome that, but, as the Royal College of General Practitioners has said, people will need to have patience. For those in the target group—the over-65s and those with clinical conditions—flu jabs are available, and it will take us the coming weeks in order to ensure that people who need those flu jabs can get them.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Bradford has been in a local lockdown for weeks and weeks, and the number of cases is going up, not down. Is the Secretary of State aware of the damage the arbitrary 10 pm curfew is doing to pubs, restaurants, bowling alleys and casinos? Is he aware of the jobs that are being lost, all just to see people congregating on the streets instead and shop staff getting more abuse? When will the Secretary of State start acting like a Conservative with a belief in individual responsibility and abandon this arbitrary nanny-state socialist approach, which is serving no purpose at all, apart from to further collapse the economy and erode our freedoms?
Matt Hancock
I am going to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and for the following reason. There are some people who rail against some of the measures that we have to put in place, and of course I understand the impact they have, but there are reasons for each one of them—and collectively they are vital for the strategy that we are pursuing of suppressing the virus and protecting the economy, education and the NHS until a vaccine arrives. My hon. Friend does not agree with that strategy, and that is a perfectly honourable position; it is just something I profoundly disagree with him on. Indeed, last night he was one of the handful of colleagues who voted against the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020. It is perfectly reasonable to make the argument that we should just let the virus rip; I just think that the hundreds of thousands of deaths that would follow is not a price that anyone should pay.
I believe in individual responsibility and the promotion of freedom, subject to not harming others. One of the pernicious things about this virus is that people can harm others, sometimes inadvertently, by giving them a disease that leads to their death, because this virus passes from one to another asymptomatically. So while I understand the impact of these things, especially coming from a small business background—I get it—unfortunately we do have to take action to suppress the virus, because the alternative of letting it rip is not a policy that I would ever want to pursue.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is vital that we find a balance between taking action to suppress the virus and protecting people’s jobs and their livelihoods. How confident is the Secretary of State that the existing rules for pubs and restaurants on hygiene, face coverings, table service, maximum numbers in groups and the distances between them are being complied with? What happens next if they are not? Does he agree that avoiding mixed messaging is particularly important, and if so, what message does it send that Parliament’s bars are exempt from the curfew? Will he commit to continued co-operation with the devolved Governments under the four-nation plan?
Matt Hancock
I have not been to the bar recently, but I do not think that Parliament’s bars are exempt from these measures. I think it is wrong to say so, and I would be grateful if you could confirm that, Mr Speaker, because it is a matter for the House, not the Government.
Other than that, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. Of course we keep these measures under review. We want to have the least damaging economic impact, consistent with keeping the virus under control and suppressing it. That is the same strategy of all four Governments—the three devolved Governments and the UK Government. We keep these things under review, but we think that they are necessary to keep people safe.
Mr Speaker
I will confirm the situation. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) had been in the House or spoken to his colleagues, he would have realised that the decision was taken last week. Unfortunately, the newspapers were mischief-making. Those bars were not open after 10 o’clock. Let us get that clear, and I think we ought not to believe sometimes what newspapers say.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Government have already made more than £190 billion of support available to protect lives and livelihoods. Last week I spoke to Tom and Lindsey, the landlords of the Clumber Inn in Ordsall, to discuss the impact that these lockdown measures are having on the hospitality industry, which I know my right hon. Friend understands. Can he confirm that Ministers will continue to work closely with the sector, to look at what further support can be provided?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. I think, if I have spotted it correctly, that my hon. Friend is wearing the parliamentary beer association tie, so he obviously knows that of which he speaks. He is right, and he makes a very important and serious point. Of course we will keep working with the hospitality industry and do everything we can to support it through these times. It is so difficult, but because of the way that the virus spreads, these measures are necessary. We have not gone for a full-blown lockdown as we did in March because we know far more about the virus owing to the test and trace system, the massive amount of testing we are doing and the contact tracing. That means we can be more targeted, and my heart goes out to everybody in the hospitality industry, who are doing so much.
Mr Speaker
I call Daisy Cooper, who has two minutes because her urgent question was converted into a statement.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The original urgent question was about the 10 pm pubs curfew, and after this statement it is clear that the Government are simply not listening. They seem to be covering their eyes and ears and singing “La, la, la, la.” The Secretary of State says that this is under review, but the evidence is clear: the 10 pm pubs curfew has been a hammer blow to hospitality, and turfing crowds of people out of covid-secure venues on to the streets is putting lives and livelihoods at risk.
Since reopening in July, businesses on every single one of our high streets have put blood, sweat and tears into making their venues covid-secure, but they are trading at a reduced capacity. Since the pubs curfew was introduced, some of them have seen a further 50% reduction. The Prime Minister announced the blanket 10 pm closing time last Tuesday. Within hours, the industry warned that it would lead to chaos on the streets, and it did. The shocking truth is that this Government have, by their own admission, made no assessment of the cost of this measure to the industry, and SAGE has confirmed that it was never even consulted on whether a 10 pm curfew would be effective. Now, experts are telling us that it is making the risk of covid transmission worse.
Public Health England’s weekly surveillance reports are clear: outbreaks of the virus in hospitality venues are responsible for less than 3% of all cases, and they have not contributed to any of the increase, yet the Government are making thousands upon thousands of hospitality jobs unviable, undermining public health and killing our high streets. The Government like to talk about balance and the tough choices that they have to make between public health and the economy, but the shocking truth is that the pubs curfew is bad for both, and the longer the Government defend it, the more damage it will do.
People are scared. Care homes are becoming prison-like, students are being locked up and businesses are saying that without a further package of support they will be closed by Christmas. I asked for some evidence behind this measure; the Secretary of State has provided none. That is why the curfew must be scrapped today.
Matt Hancock
I just want to correct the hon. Lady on the point that she made about outbreaks. The updated statistics will be published today by Public Health England. The measures that have led us to understanding that the virus spreads most outside of households, when other households meet together, including in hospitality venues, comes from the very backward contact tracing that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) asked about. The outbreaks data is about where there is an outbreak with significant numbers within one institution—for instance, within a care home or a school, and that is then raised as an issue with Public Health England—not where individuals go. I am afraid the hon. Lady is using a different set of statistics, which do not make the case that she puts forward. We all understand the concern about the impact of this virus on so many parts of our economy. Our task is to try to limit the impact on lives as well as on livelihoods, and that is at the root of our strategy.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
My city has been following the rules. Thanks to the people of Peterborough and excellent council leadership, we came off the watchlist last week. I know that the data can change, and I also know that my right hon. Friend appreciates the issues around the 10 pm curfew, but will he keep the policy under review so that those who are doing the right thing, like the people of Peterborough, can get back to something like normality?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is an incredible voice for Peterborough. We discussed the local lockdown having its effect in Leicester, and the Prime Minister mentioned Luton yesterday; the work of the people of Peterborough is another example that we could cite—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) shouts from a sedentary position, “What about Bradford?” The truth is that we took Shipley out of the measures because the numbers came right down, but unfortunately they then rose again, so in a way he makes my point for me.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State knows that I can get passionate and even angry with some of my questions to him, but not today. He will know that as a West Yorkshire MP I will support anything—any measure—that stops this virus spreading at this perilous time when tens of thousands of students are moving around our county and our country. I will support any measure that is effective. The old social scientist in me suggests that the Secretary of State was right when he said that all these measures should be closely monitored. There is no doubt that experts, whether it is Professor John Edmunds or others, worry that the 10 o’clock curfew has quite serious unintended consequences. Will the Secretary of State give me his word that he will keep it under review, because there seem to be some problems with it?
Matt Hancock
It is constantly under review. We have shown that we are willing to change the measures to follow what works. This is an unprecedented crisis. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the measures across West Yorkshire. It has been a pleasure to work with him and to hear his voice in this Chamber on what is needed. My message to his constituents in Huddersfield and those across West Yorkshire is that these measures are necessary—we would not have them in place unless they were—and the more that people can abide by them, the quicker we will be able to lift them. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on supporting people in Huddersfield and those throughout the country to keep this situation under control.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I recognise, of course, the value of simplicity on issues such as the curfew for the hospitality industry, but will my right hon. Friend accept that we should allow economic activity where it does not cut across public health objectives? Will he therefore apply an imaginative approach to doing that—for example, looking at how we might be able to allow hotel guests to stay in hotel bars where they are resident in the hotel later than 10 o’clock, recognising that some hotels depend substantially on that income?
Matt Hancock
I am always happy to look at, as my right hon. and learned Friend calls them, imaginative ideas like that. He will know that there is a tension between the clarity of the rules and bringing additional nuances into the rules. He will have seen how, as a society, we have struggled with that balance all the way through this, because we are in novel circumstances. I am happy to talk to him about his proposal.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The imposition of a 10 pm curfew on the hospitality industry was entirely avoidable, but became an inevitability because of the Government’s shambolic handling of their privatised test and trace system. Last month, I highlighted to the Health Secretary that locals in Slough were being forced to drive hundreds of miles, including catching a ferry to the Isle of Wight, just to access a test, but he retorted:
“On the contrary, the fact is that we are working hard with the local authority in Slough”.—[Official Report, 17 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 520.]
Well, Mr Speaker, the council has informed me that it has not heard a dickie bird from either the Health Secretary or his team, so perhaps he can advise us this time when the test centre in Slough will go back to being a drive-through and walk-in test centre, so that locals can actually access a test when they desperately need one.
Matt Hancock
We have got this record testing capacity and I am incredibly grateful for all the people who work to deliver it. I will not have this divisive language; I just won’t have it.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Restricting hospitality hours and venue capacity, although not ideal, can present us with a good opportunity to explore and support our local businesses such as Griffiths Brothers, the excellent gin distillery in the village of Penn in my constituency, which operates a shop where people can sample its high-quality gin made from the best of the best, and in fact take it home to enjoy at leisure, without a curfew. What can the Government do to encourage people to visit these local distilleries and breweries, which are a vital part of the hospitality industry and many of which have had a lean time during the pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I will do everything I can, both policy-wise and personally, to support our great distilleries, including in my right hon. Friend’s part of the world. One of the wonderful things of the last few years has been the massive expansion in the number of local distilleries and breweries, and I am glad she supports her local gin distillery, no doubt both in her official capacity and perhaps with a tipple at home.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Through you, Mr Speaker, may I say to the Secretary of State that I voted against him last night not because I want the virus to rip through the country? Quite the reverse, I want him to get decisions right, and I do not think he is getting them right at present. The 10 o’clock curfew is bad for jobs and bad for the economy, and it is not controlling the spread of the virus. There is no scientific justification that he has been able to give for it. I believe he would make better and more correct decisions if he consulted Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular, particularly on local lockdowns. Today, Merseyside is being locked down and the Merseyside MPs cannot talk about that. Will he agree, before taking further measures, to bring every new restriction back to this House?
Matt Hancock
Of course the restrictions will come back to this House in the normal way. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, yesterday we made the further commitment that, wherever possible, all nationally significant measures will be brought forward for a vote before being implemented. I was very pleased that, as a result of that, there was an overwhelming majority of support for renewal of the Coronavirus Act yesterday.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I support the 10 pm restriction as an alternative to hospitality businesses having to close entirely, but it may well hurt certain parts of the sector more than others—for example, wet-led pubs that do not serve food, such as the Wheatsheaf in Faringdon. Will the Secretary of State and his colleagues confirm that they will look closely at whether certain parts of the sector are being hit hard, to see whether they need more support?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course we will, and I take my hon. Friend’s point about wet-led pubs. He is right that the 10 pm curfew is far better than the closure of hospitality—not that we want to do that, but we do need to take measures to suppress the virus. He is wise in his description of why we have had to take these decisions, because we cannot will the ends of suppressing the virus without also willing the means, and some of those means are difficult.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
Over six months into the pandemic, people in my constituency still see no sign of the world-beating test and trace system that they were promised. Does the Secretary of State feel any personal responsibility for the utter chaos that is putting lives and livelihoods at risk in my constituency and across the country?
Matt Hancock
I feel personal responsibility for the record number of tests that are being done in this country. I feel personal responsibility for the fact that the vast majority of people in Hull and across the country can get a test within six miles of where they live, and the majority of them get the results the next day. I feel personal responsibility for the biggest contact tracing programme that this country has ever seen, with the support of the armed forces, the NHS, brilliant civil servants and the private sector working together. It is that sort of coming together that we need to get through this virus.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for another update on covid-19. I am wearing pink today, because October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so will he take this opportunity to remind everybody how important it is to check for symptoms and to see their GP if they have any, and to tell the NHS how important it is that the screening programme gets back underway, because 1,000 women will die of this disease this month alone?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. People must continue to check, and if they think they are at risk of cancer or if they find a lump, they should please come forward, because the NHS is open—help us to help you. The more we can suppress coronavirus and keep it out of our hospitals, the easier it will be to treat more people for cancer and ensure that screening stays open. Efforts to stop the virus spreading directly save lives from cancer, and we need to get that message out as well.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
A national curfew in the New Forest is rather unfair, given our very low infection rate. Restaurateurs and landlords have invested a great deal in covid-secure measures and reduced capacity, and the loss of the extra hour reduces throughput, particularly for those that want a second sitting for dinner to come through, because it makes it very uneconomic. Will the Secretary of State consider the possibility of devolving the power to impose curfew locally, even to particular establishments, which would provide landlords with a powerful incentive to ensure that their patrons behave sensibly and properly?
Matt Hancock
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s constructive suggestion. As we constantly have these policies under review, it is that sort of working together that will help us to improve the response. Of course I understand the impact on the New Forest—some of the finest pubs in the country, outside of West Suffolk, are in the New Forest. We should keep this under review, because the whole point is to suppress the virus while having the minimum negative impact on the economy, and it is that second part that we are mostly discussing today.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Many of the hospitality businesses in my constituency have been deeply upset by the imposition of the 10 pm curfew. OverDraught, a bar in my constituency, told Levenshulme News that it feels that this is a kneejerk reaction by the Government to counteract their own poor handling of the virus and that they are punishing a sector that has reacted seriously, flexibly, and efficiently over the past six months. What does the Minister say to businesses such as OverDraught that feel let down by this Government’s decision making?
Matt Hancock
What I say is that we do what is necessary because it saves lives and we understand the impact that it has. The message that I would send to everybody in Bradford is that, the more that they follow the rules that are in place, the faster we will be able to get through this.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It does seem strange to think that concentrating trade in a smaller number of hours and making everyone leave a pub or restaurant at the same time, rather than spacing them out over the course of the evening, should suppress rather than spread the virus. Will the Secretary summarise the scientific advice that he has had on this point?
Matt Hancock
The scientific advice is that the people who are closer together are more likely to spread the virus and that, later at night, social distancing becomes harder. We have all seen the pictures of people leaving pubs at 10 o’clock, but otherwise they would be inside the establishments, and we all know that outside is safer, or they would be leaving later. Of course we keep this under review and of course we are constantly looking at how we can improve these policies, but I think that we have to look at both sides of the evidence to try to get this right.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
People will only believe that the 10 pm curfew is the least bad option if they understand the basis on which the decision was taken. The figures for the number of infections linked to hospitality range from the 3% that Public Health England has put for outbreaks, up to nearly a quarter that the deputy chief medical officer has suggested. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the evidence as to how many transmissions are linked to pubs and hospitality based on test and trace data is available, so that people can reach their own conclusions?
Matt Hancock
Yes, and the updated evidence that we are publishing today shows that the just under a quarter figure is correct. It is the highest single identified area. The figures on outbreaks, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), are measuring something completely different and are not a measure of how many cases are caught there. The 25% figure is, of course, for those who catch it outside the household. The single biggest place we can catch coronavirus is from somebody else inside your own household, but that is, in a sense, inevitable and very, very difficult to prevent.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The tighter restrictions here in the north-east are already having a severe impact on many businesses that have been left without appropriate financial support. Although it is imperative that we prevent the further spread of coronavirus, it is also important that we protect businesses, workers, livelihoods and jobs. The arbitrary 10 pm curfew has increased the financial pressure on many local hospitality businesses and appears to have had the effect of inadvertently encouraging unregulated gatherings after the blanket 10 pm closing.Would it not be safer for those who are allowed to to sit in safe, regulated premises and adhere to social distancing after 10 pm, rather than to be on the streets or on public transport with significant numbers of other revellers, who may have reduced inhibitions or levels of self-control? Would it also not be better if businesses that are responsibly operating at much-reduced capacity and adhering to the regulations were provided with urgent financial support, as requested by local authority leaders in my area, to ensure that it is at least as viable for them to remain open for business as to close completely—possibly for good?
Matt Hancock
We have put extra financial support into the north-east, and I thank people across the north-east for what they are doing to stick by the renewed and increased restrictions that we had to put in place earlier this week. The point the hon. Gentleman makes about people’s reduced inhibitions later at night is the critical one, and as I just mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, it is almost certainly true—I think this is one of the few things we know about this virus with great certainty—that transmission is much lower outside than inside, and that also helps with protecting people against this virus.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My constituency thrives on hospitality, and many jobs are dependent on it. It is also low-incidence when it comes to the virus and high-compliance when it comes to the safety measures around being covid secure. My right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that the second peak is highly localised. In that light, how quickly can we look to move to a more localised, regional approach to the 10 pm curfew?
Matt Hancock
We are taking a more localised approach to tackling this second peak than we did to the first, for two reasons. The first is that the evidence is that it is much more localised in terms of where the virus is concentrated. The second is that we know far more about where the virus is concentrated, but that extra information also tells us that the number of transmissions is much higher in hospitality than in many other settings—for instance, workplaces. That is why we have made the decision that we have, but the core of my hon. Friend’s point, which is that it is safer in places such as Eastbourne because there are fewer transmissions, is reasonable, and we keep all of this under review.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Last week, I spoke to a lady whose husband has dementia. He was in a care home, and she was unable to visit him. He deteriorated rapidly, until he was deemed a risk to himself and others, and he was eventually sectioned, at which point she was allowed to visit him. Of course I completely understand the difficult balance the Minister must make between protecting our health and the health of others, but could he please look specifically at what guidance can be given on rights to visit loved ones who have dementia?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly heart-rending and important point. The balance in terms of the rules around visiting those in care homes is one of the most difficult to strike. On this, I rely heavily on the clinical evidence of Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, who works with the four nations to try to make sure we get this balance right. It is very difficult, and the guidance we have put out includes the permissive ability to allow directors of public health to take decisions that are appropriate in local circumstances. However, this issue is a very difficult consequence of the virus.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I have spoken to landlords and landladies around my constituency, and they have all been incredibly grateful for the unprecedented support that the Government have provided to them, but they have been equally clear that that has just about kept their heads above water, especially at a time when there was warmer weather. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to keep this issue under review, but what reassurances can he give landlords and landladies that, as we head towards Christmas and the nights get colder, there is a timescale on this and they can have hope that they will still be trading at Christmas and not, sadly, closing down for Christmas?
Matt Hancock
The truth is that the more we all avoid close social contact, the harder the virus will find it to spread and the easier it will be to lift measures. It is as straightforward as that. From that logic, obviously, come many difficult consequences, including the ones my hon. Friend spoke to. However, I am happy to keep talking to him to make sure that we get this balance right in his area and across the country.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his updates, which are always very useful. May I ask him to think for a minute about places with low infection rates, including the Derbyshire Dales? We have some fantastic wedding venues such as Shottle Hall and Eyam Hall, and some great historic pubs that have been around for hundreds of years, such as the Rutland Arms, the Peacock at Rowsley, the Devonshire Arms at Baslow and the Old Dog at Thorpe. Will my right hon. Friend consider opening locally early where people can prove good compliance and where there are very low infection rates, because we have to allow the economy to get up and running again?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to support her local pubs and in what she said about keeping the economy going while we deal with this problem. She is also right that there are large swathes of the country with very low infection rates, including Derbyshire. Our approach is to take the minimum national action necessary to ensure that the rates stay low in Derbyshire and other areas with low rates, while also taking more action in places where the virus is rife. That is an approach that we will be strengthening over the weeks to come.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
Although I am sure there is some logic behind the recent 10 pm curfew, other changes put in place, including table service, have led to small hospitality businesses such as the Treaty of Commerce pub on Lincoln High Street in my constituency having to increase staffing overheads, which they can currently ill afford. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the latest changes to the guidance are not entirely suitable for all businesses? I have heard what he has said this morning, but will he commit to reviewing the regulations regularly and at the earliest opportunity to ensure that we protect jobs, the wider economy and the important freedoms of businesses and individuals while also remaining covid-secure?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have been known to enjoy pubs and hospitality myself, but the reality is that if this sector—in particular, nightclubs and the entertainment industry—is to survive, it is going to need much greater Government support. Does the Health Secretary accept that, and is he having those discussions with the Chancellor? Does he also accept that if Scotland wants to go its own way with a different level of curfew, the Scottish Parliament needs to have, at the very minimum, borrowing powers so that it can make changes for public health benefits and provide the necessary support for these businesses?
Matt Hancock
As the hon. Member knows, although public health measures are devolved, it is only because we are one United Kingdom that we are able to have the strength of support that is in place right across Scotland. He and his party would do well to recognise that and to welcome the support that the UK has been able to provide in Scotland during these very difficult times.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend visited Bishop Auckland during the election campaign, we spent our lunch break in a pub called the Merry Monk. Since then I have been in regular contact with the landlord, Christian Burns, who, alongside a lot of other pub landlords, has written to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about some of the lockdown measures that have been introduced. I recognise and welcome the unprecedented support that the Government have put in place—more than £190 billion is not small fry—but will my right hon. Friend please confirm to Christian and other landlords that Ministers will continue to work with the hospitality industry, particularly pubs? We need to save our pubs, because they are a lifeline for our local communities.
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. I really enjoyed my trip to the Merry Monk with my hon. Friend. We left before 10 pm, even though at that time we could have stayed longer. Of course we will keep working with the hospitality industry. I wish all the pubs in Bishop Auckland all the very best. We will support them as much as we can.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
We are in a never-ending cycle of repeated lockdowns that are deferring the problem because they are not matched by robust testing and clear messaging. It is clear from the Health Secretary’s responses this morning that the 10 pm curfew is yet another example of the Prime Minister plucking ideas out of the air to be seen to be doing something. It has already caused significant damage to the hospitality industry, and, as predicted, is doing nothing to stop the spread of the virus. When will this Government start to understand that a balance needs to be struck to protect those most at risk without complete societal shutdown?
Matt Hancock
I would urge the hon. Lady to support her constituents and the public health measures that are necessary to get this virus under control in order to protect this country, to protect her constituents and to save lives.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Pubs, such as the New Cross in Ashfield, run by Jay and Mathew, are losing revenue due to the 10 pm curfew. They fully understand the rules that need to be in place to keep us safe, so can my right hon. Friend please explain to the staff and regulars at the New Cross how science has guided the decision to close pubs at 10 pm?
Matt Hancock
I want to say to all the staff and all the regulars at the New Cross that we would not have this in place unless we thought it was needed. The science is about how, late at night, people end up closer together and therefore spread the virus more, and this will not stay in place one minute longer than it needs to.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
If the Government decide to restrict trade or close down trade for pubs or particular businesses for good public health reasons, surely it is for all of us, through the Government, to pay that cost—through borrowing, at historically low interest rates, paid back over time through our progressive tax system—not for individual pubs and businesses to pay it, possibly with bankruptcy, as at places such as Brains brewery in south Wales. Will the Secretary of State therefore have a word with the Chancellor to ask that he provides adequate financial support for both sustainable businesses and good public health?
Matt Hancock
Of course, this measure is for England, and it is up to the devolved Welsh Administration to decide public health measures in Wales, but the principle that we as taxpayers, as a whole country, should shoulder as much of the economic burden as possible is what underpins the absolutely unprecedented £190 billion of extra support that this Government have put into the economy to get us through these very difficult times.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
This week, Burnley recorded the highest covid-19 rate in England, and that has understandably caused concern to residents who are worried not just about the virus, but about the impact on the local economy. Could the Secretary of State reassure them and me that, when we look at further interventions that might be needed, we will keep them as targeted as possible so we can fight the virus where it is really spreading?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. There is a lot of virus spreading in Burnley, and we need to all come together to tackle that spread. I know that my hon. Friend has been fighting as hard as possible for the people of Burnley. He has been making this argument to me in private, as well as in public, that we need to make sure that the measures are as targeted as possible and have as low a negative impact as possible, but we do need to get the virus under control in Burnley and across the country. I pay tribute to him for the work that he is doing in supporting and representing his constituents.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Minister will know that the hospitality sector emerged on its knees from the general lockdown, and I am sure he understands that those in the sector were barely getting to their feet when the 10 o’clock curfew came in. He has given hon. and right hon. Members a lot of assurance today that he will keep this under review. As part of that review, can he assure the licensed trade, particularly those relying on wet sales, that he will take a view on staggered exit times and a more intelligence-led curfew, appreciating that the curfew has value to add? Can he also take a look at the role of off-sales in promoting community transmission not in the hospitality sector?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we look at all these things. This is of course a measure in England, and it is because the UK Government have put in £190 billion across the whole UK that we have been able to give the support that we have, but we keep that under review, too.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
No constituency in the country has such a high concentration of first-rate pubs as Ipswich, and currently in Ipswich we have very low levels of covid 19. Last weekend, I spoke to the landlord of the Belstead Arms in Chantry, who had to watch as many of his loyal customers, who would have been spending hundreds of pounds in his pub supporting the pub to recover from the previous lockdown, went to the off-licence across the street to buy beer from there. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that at the closest possible time he will review measures and ensure that pubs in Ipswich can stay open later?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I know the Belstead Arms in Chantry well from campaigning pitstops, and it is true that Suffolk has the finest pubs in the country. My hon. Friend is making his case for Ipswich very strongly. Of course we keep these things under review, and will lift these measures as soon as we can.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken to many business owners and residents across Newport West in the past few days, and there is increasing concern that the UK Government’s left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The border between Wales and England is extremely porous and any differences in local lockdown rules and restrictions are confusing for those living along it. So can the Secretary of State outline exactly how, and how often, he is meeting Members of the devolved Administrations to ensure that all parts of the UK are involved and engaged as we chart our way through this crisis?
Matt Hancock
Constantly, is the answer. I was brought up on the Welsh border, in Cheshire. I know exactly how porous the border is. Of course, public health is devolved and I would be surprised if the hon. Lady was arguing against the devolution of health powers. In fact, I have received a text from my Welsh opposite number during this session, so we have a constant conversation and dialogue to try to minimise exactly the sorts of issues that she talks about.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Public health must be our first priority, but restrictions on pubs, bars and restaurants need to be accompanied by new economic support for workers and businesses; otherwise, people will be pushed into unemployment and destitution, and businesses will be forced into bankruptcy. So, on behalf of hospitality workers and businesses in Coventry South, I urge the Secretary of State to speak with his Cabinet colleagues and bring forward new measures that will support livelihoods and businesses and actually save jobs.
Matt Hancock
Yes, the £190 billion of extra funding has been there to support jobs, and of course we keep that, as with all these things, under review.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I understand and support the measures taken to reduce deaths from this terrible disease, and thank Ministers for all they have done to stem the tide of the virus. Please could my right hon. Friend consider allowing pubs, cafés, restaurants and casinos to extend their closing time when customers are still in the process of eating a hot meal? That would allow time for a second sitting of those venues without disturbing the safety elements of table service and social distancing. It would also mean a staggered time of exit from those venues, allowing better social distancing in the local community.
Matt Hancock
Of course, as we keep this under review, we will consider all the options. The clarity of the rule that was brought in was one of the reasons that it commends itself, but I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the future.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
We all agree that suppressing the virus is essential in saving lives, and as a scientific socialist, I think we should apply basic public health principles. It seems absolutely clear to me that it is problematic that we have a 10 o’clock curfew, when large numbers of people are all coming out into the street at the same time. Night-time entertainment businesses such as comedy and live music venues, which are based in covid-secure premises such as pubs and clubs, are seriously impacted, and like—
Matt Hancock
I love comedy, I love live music and I wish that we did not have to do this, but I have answered the point about outside being safer than inside. It is one of the many regrets of the very serious problem that we have.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I represent a central London constituency where many businesses are hurting hard, especially with the 10 pm lockdown. I also have many residents who are only going out for the first time at 8.30 or 9, so do not fit into the idea of going to the pub at 6 o’clock. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will review these measures at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]
I accept what the Secretary of State has said about the science, but he must realise that there were many publicans who were really struggling to get by before this, and the new things that have been put in have just made their businesses untenable. Does he accept that getting support for the measures that he has put in place has to come with a financial package that supports our publicans to remain open after covid?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I have addressed that point. We have put £190 billion in, and we keep all that under review.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Love it or hate it, the gambling industry delivers thousands of jobs, and taxes, to this country. Casinos in particular create 60% of their business after 10 o’clock, and it is illegal for someone to gamble if they are drunk. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether casinos can continue to do business after 10 o’clock in England, as they can in Scotland?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle’s night-time economy is globally renowned but, yesterday, in a typically cowardly attack, the Prime Minister basically said that we should not complain about the impact of these measures on that sector because local leaders had asked for them. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in their letter of 29 September local leaders specifically said that the measures must be accompanied by targeted support, and will he say what targeted support pubs and restaurants, and the 10,000 jobs in my constituency that depend on them, can expect?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the leaders of the seven Newcastle councils—Newcastle, Gateshead and the wider north-east councils—did ask for the measures that were put in place. We put in £10 million of funding. The most important message that we can get across to people across the north-east, where the case rate continues to rise, is that the more people follow the restrictions, the quicker we can ease them.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Recognising the need to control the virus with the 10 pm curfew, can my right hon. Friend outline what additional guidance and support has been offered to our hard-working police officers, such as those in Durham constabulary who serve my constituency, to help them to protect the public after 10 pm?
Matt Hancock
This is, of course, a matter for the Home Secretary, but there has been additional guidance to the police. I pay tribute to the police, who have done so much work to enforce those rules and who continue to step that up.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
May I ask the Secretary of State to what extent he thinks Dominic Cummings’s clear disregard of the rules during lockdown has undermined people’s compliance with the current guidance, placing excess pressure on police as well as on staff in the hospitality sector? Does he agree that many of those on the frontline in the fight against covid are now paying a heavy price for Cummings’s actions?
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Restrictions curbing when we can go to the pub are against the DNA of our country, but we are in exceptional times, and I recognise that that includes taking measures that people do not like and that Ministers do not like having to introduce. Will my right hon. Friend commit to keeping the restrictions under the closest possible review and in place for the shortest time necessary to protect lives?
Matt Hancock
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks from the heart.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard from across the House great concerns about the 10 pm curfew. Given the statements yesterday from yourself, Mr Speaker, and from my right hon. Friend about more parliamentary scrutiny, does he agree that, if the 10 pm curfew had not yet been brought in, it is exactly the sort of measure that should be brought to Parliament first, scrutinised, debated, amended if necessary, and voted upon? Does he agree that that is the sort of thing we can expect in future?
Matt Hancock
I do agree, and I am glad to agree with my hon. Friend. As I announced yesterday, we have brought in a new process, an innovation on parliamentary procedure, to ensure that there are votes on nationally significant measures in the future.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Business of the House
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Leader of the House to answer business questions, I want to say a few words about Mark Hutton, who retired from the House of Commons Service yesterday. Mark joined the House on this day 35 years ago and, since then, many hon. Members across the House will have benefited from his wise advice and his authoritative approach to many issues—procedural, practical and political.
As Principal Clerk of the Committee Office, Mark pioneered a digital-first approach to publication that led to the process of business change which underpinned that. In recent years, as Clerk of the Journals, he has provided me and my predecessor with authoritative advice on matters of privilege. His most lasting monument will be the 24th and 25th editions of “Erskine May”, for which he successfully was deputy editor and co-editor. The House is grateful to Mark for all his service and for enabling “Erskine May” to be available to all Members and to the public online.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The business for next week will include:
Monday 5 October—Second Reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.
Tuesday 6 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Bill, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No.2) (England) (Amendment) (No.4) Regulations 2020.
Wednesday 7 October—Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve regulations related to public health following the Secretary of State’s earlier announcement.
Thursday 8 October—Debate on a motion on planning reform and house building targets, followed by general debate on the spending of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on support measures for the DCMS sectors during and after the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 9 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 12 October will include:
Monday 12 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill.
Tuesday 13 October—Remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords], followed by general debate on covid-19.
Wednesday 14 October—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 15 October—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.
Friday 16 October—Private Members’ Bills.
Right hon. and hon. Members will also wish to be aware that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Friday 23 October and return on Monday 2 November.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business and for announcing the Opposition day and the recess. I also thank him and his office for forwarding all my requests to Ministers. We just need to find a way round the use of “in due course” and “shortly”. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has received a “soon” on her 10-minute rule Bill on access to benefits for terminally ill people.
We did not get a very helpful response from the Foreign Office Minister, and I would say, in relation to Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons, that we well remember how Jill Morrell kept the names of John McCarthy, Brian Keenan and Terry Waite front and centre so that people would not forget them, and that is what we must do now. These are innocent people who have done no wrong.
Mr Speaker, I know that the whole House—maybe apart from the Government—agrees with your statement and supports it.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that he was announcing a new convention, but I am not quite sure what that means. He said that
“for significant national measures…we will consult Parliament”,
but I thought the Government had to consult Parliament anyway on anything that is supposed to come into effect. He also said that
“wherever possible, we will hold votes”.—[Official Report, 30 September 2020; Vol. 681, c. 388.]
But there is no guarantee of a vote. The Leader of the House will know that the regulations on self-isolation, including the £10,000 fine, came into effect seven hours after publication, but the media were briefed eight days before, so there was plenty of time for a debate.
This so-called new convention only deals with national measures, not local measures, which is what right hon. and hon. Members want to know about, because they want to know what is going on in their constituencies. Last week, the Leader of the House said that there is regular scrutiny and debate, but that is not true, is it? Without the hybrid proceedings, many of our colleagues are excluded from taking part in debates on legislation, so the Government cannot have it both ways.
Let us look at the statutory instruments. Some of them are made through the negative resolution procedure, which means they are signed into law and are debated only if they are prayed against. Mostly, they are administrative and technical, but extending pre-trial custody from 56 days to 238 days deserved a debate, and in any event, the Government decide whether there is time for a debate. What about affirmative SIs? They are laid before the House only after they are signed into law.
Can the Leader of the House say why the majority of the regulations have been made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which is meant for emergencies, and not the coronavirus legislation, with its safeguards? Will he guarantee that we will have a debate or even a short statement on any new regulations that are proposed? We want it in the House, not in No. 10 from behind a lectern.
May we have a statement on 16 October, a sitting Friday? The European Council will meet on 15 October. The Prime Minister needs to give a statement to the House on the next phase of the negotiations.
That lack of transparency is everywhere. In the Government’s White Paper on planning, they are removing the requirement to place planning application advertisements in local newspapers. That is already happening in my constituency, where Walsall Council has decided, without any consultation, that it will not do an environmental impact assessment for one of the most important projects there, the route for a sprint bus. It is totally discredited; there will be more traffic; and no one wants it apart from the current Mayor.
Mr Speaker, you mentioned someone who is really good at transparency, and that is Mark Hutton. I, too, agree with your statement and want to pay tribute to Mark Hutton. He has been in this House for 35 years. As you say, one of his greatest legacies is “Erskine May” online, and he was the co-editor, with Sir David Natzler, the 25th edition. In fact, his nickname was “Erskine” Hutton. He always saw the potential of digital, and his advice was quite strategic across the House, both on procedure and how it related to the legal side and on how the House works. When he was at university, apparently he liked directing plays, so obviously he came to work here, because he likes the drama. He has left a great legacy.
The Leader of the House and I were on the Governance of the House Committee, which was very controversial at the time, but Mark managed to get us through that. Also, we agreed the report digitally, and it went through in record time. Mark has not only left online “Erskine May”; he has patiently taught the next generation of Clerks. Mark, we will miss you. Thank you for your work. The House is very grateful, and we hope to see you when you get back—and when we all get back, maybe at a do in Speaker’s House. [Interruption.] We hope you do, Mr Speaker; we are looking forward to your dos.
It is Black History Month. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the birth of Gandhi, and it was lovely to see a photo of Dr Martin Luther King in his dining room with picture of Gandhi. Both of them worked for justice in a non-violent way. Today is also the mid-autumn festival for the Chinese community.
Finally, on behalf of the whole House, I want to send our very best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is jumping out of a plane on Sunday, weather permitting, for six year-old Florence, who has a life-limiting disease and a rare genetic condition. He is not on the call list today, but we hope will see him next week at business questions, hopefully without a plaster cast.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We all wish the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and, of course, Florence well. It is a brave thing to do.
I used to live in Hong Kong, and the mid-autumn festival was a public holiday, so I am sorry that I cannot tell the House that we will have a public holiday similarly.
The right hon. Lady began by mentioning the dual nationals and the need to keep their names at the forefront of the national debate, which she has been doing fantastically every week, so that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anousheh Ashouri and Luke Symons are remembered. The Government are made aware of this every week: the right hon. Lady mentions it to me, and I mention it to the Foreign Office. It is known. We are trying our best, but, as was found with hostages before, it is very difficult to get obdurate states and obdurate organisations to move.
On parliamentary scrutiny of the coronavirus—the issue that the right hon. Lady focused on—I note that Labour Members did not actually take part in large numbers. I think a very small number of them voted yesterday. It is a bit worrying if, when we actually have a vote, the official Opposition sit on their hands, so they call for something and then they are absent without leave. They do not formally need leave, of course, under the procedures of the House; it a long time since attendance was demanded. The right hon. Lady asks but the Whips Office does not necessarily want.
On the debates that we are bringing forward and have brought forward, we have had 40 oral statements in relation to covid in this House, in addition to the urgent questions that Mr Speaker has facilitated. This week, we had a full day’s debate. The whole of Monday after questions was devoted to a covid-19 debate, and of course we had the renewal of the orders yesterday. Next week, we will have a vote. We had a vote yesterday, but Labour Members did not take part. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is heckling—it is unlike her to heckle—saying, “Vote, vote.” Well, they did not vote. It is not my fault they did not vote. I cannot make Labour Members vote. I have no influence over the Labour Whips Office to get them to turn up and do their job. If they want to sit at home idling away the happy hours not voting—not going through the Division Lobbies—what can I do? I can appeal to your good offices, Mr Speaker. I can ask the Doorkeepers to encourage them. We have set things out in a covid-safe way. But Labour Members decide not to turn up when we give them a vote, which they keep on asking for.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Not to vote, they didn’t. There will be opportunities to vote on Tuesday and Wednesday next week, and there will be a debate on Tuesday 13 October—which happens to be the anniversary of the birth of Lady Thatcher, so a day of legend and song. On that happy day, we will have a debate on covid-19.
I want to pay tribute, as the right hon. Lady did, to Mark Hutton. Thirty-five years’ service in this House is a pretty good innings. He has been an absolutely authoritative source of advice on procedure and parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is one of the most interesting topics of discussion: it is such an important part of how we do our work. He has obviously been a distinguished Clerk of the Journals. He has been very ready to give advice to Members on knotty procedural problems. He has been involved with three editions, two as deputy editor and then as co-editor, of “Erskine May”. I must confess that his career is practically what I might like to have had, so in paying this tribute to him, I am a little bit envious of his distinction, his learning and his capability. I served—I think the right hon. Lady may have done as well—on the Committee chaired by Jack Straw looking into the governance of the House. That Committee was handled by the two of them with such effectiveness and subtlety that it came up with a very good answer. I would like to record my gratitude to him, not just personally but also on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.
The right hon Lady mentioned that this is Black History Month. I am a great encourager of all history. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, for countless generations, 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. The more we learn from our history, the better.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know how important it is to patients to be able to receive their treatment as close to home as possible, so will he join me in welcoming the new haematology and oncology unit at the Hospital of St Cross in Rugby, which will provide chemotherapy locally for Rugby residents? The soft furnishings and equipment there have been provided by the Friends of St Cross. May we have a debate about the great support that is provided by local health charities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work done by the St Cross hospital is fantastic. It is so important that people with very serious illnesses should receive the best possible treatment and should receive it locally. The work he is doing in supporting local charities is first class, and the St Cross hospital has the particular respect of this House.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
First, may I, on behalf of the third party, associate myself with the remarks made by you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House regarding Mark Hutton? He has been a friend of this party over the years, so much so in fact that our Chief Whip takes rather more pride than might be expected in a Scottish nationalist in having his signed copy of “Erskine May” in his office.
I want to begin by talking about our procedures and paraphrasing Kipling by saying “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs, you probably don’t understand the seriousness of the situation.” I think that is what is happening in this Chamber, where we are maintaining this façade of normalcy whilst we know that there is a crisis gripping the country. I do wonder if we are devoting enough urgency to looking at how we can revise and improve participation by remote means in our discussions, given that large parts of the country are now again in lockdown and that these measures may intensify in the weeks and months to come. In that regard, I am particularly disappointed to see that next week Westminster Hall will resume its sittings in a business-as-normal- type way. Surely if there was ever an opportunity to try to test creatively the opportunities presented to us by technology and to have virtual conferencing, it would have been in the setting of Westminster Hall. As it is, these debates will take place with the vast majority of Members of Parliament unable to participate in them, and it is a great wasted opportunity.
I also want to talk about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is trundling its way through Parliament. It is now clear—it is no longer a matter of speculation—that the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom will not give consent to this ridiculous piece of legislation, and I want to know if we can find the time to debate in this Chamber the consequences for the devolution settlement of that being the case and of the United Kingdom Government choosing to ignore the wishes of the devolved Administrations and steamroller the legislation through anyway.
For my final point, on the job support scheme, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was welcome that the Chancellor came to the House to discuss this last week, but there are still enormous gaps. When can we find the time to debate what we can do to assist those companies in this country that are viable, safe and good businesses but that are closed, by order, to meet the public health imperative? Are we simply to say that all those businesses and all those jobs are unviable and they are to be discarded, or are we going to step in after 31 October and offer them some assistance?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman has continued to ask for us to change our procedures and to do things more remotely; it is worth noting that yesterday the remote voting system in the other place fell down and therefore it will have to redo the votes on the business it was supposed to be doing. I think we have to press on with our important business in serving the country, ensuring that we have the debates that are asked for. From the point of view of Government business managers, we have the demand, on the one hand, for debates and votes, quite rightly, and on the other, that we should not be here. People cannot have it both ways. The technology did not provide satisfactory scrutiny and has fallen over in voting in the other place. When we had a problem in our Division Lobbies, we had a fall-back solution and we could carry on with the business. Losing a day’s votes on Report stage of a Bill makes proceeding with Government business exceptionally difficult.
As regards Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman says that most Members will not be able to attend, but most Members do not attend Westminster Hall anyway; very few debates are full in Westminster Hall, and although there will be formal limits, considering the numbers who are at most Westminster Hall debates, those formal limits will not be unduly stretched. The resources of our broadcasting teams are being used in other ways, and there are limited resources. Again, people wanted Westminster Hall back, and we have got Westminster Hall back, and that presents an opportunity to hold the Government to account; I think this is a good thing and the right thing to be doing.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is a fantastic Bill. It is one of the best pieces of legislation passed by the House in recent times. It also devolves 70 powers to the devolved Administrations. SNP Members are modelling themselves on Oliver Twist—they are always asking for more. They cannot have more on this occasion. They have a great deal of devolution coming through that Bill, and the Bill will ensure that we have a functioning internal market. The hon. Gentleman effectively asked for further debates on the Bill. It is worth noting that two of the days in Committee were not completely used, so Members are on stronger ground complaining when the time provided by Government has been used up.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the job support scheme. I remind the House that £190 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to support the economy so far. That is a very substantial amount. As the Chancellor has said, not everything can be protected, but an enormous amount has been protected.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
In Cornwall, our town and parish councils are struggling financially in the wake of covid-19 due to their revenues being highly dependent on car parking, and leisure centres are on their knees due to the lack of financial support from Cornwall Council. After months of us asking for it, Cornwall Council has only this week given leisure centres financial support. That is despite Cornwall Council being allocated £39 million of un-ringfenced money to spend on local issues such as these. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a general debate on how local authorities have used this un-ringfenced money during the covid pandemic, and does he agree that public finances should always be open, transparent and accountable?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right that the spending of taxpayers’ money should always be open and accountable, and I am glad that he is making it accountable by asking his question. The Government rightly have given taxpayers’ money un-ringfenced to local councils, but local councils have a responsibility to their communities to spend it wisely, and MPs have a right to hold them to account for how it is spent and bring it to the House when they feel it is not spent well; I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to do that.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank Mr Speaker, his team, House authorities and staff for their combined efforts to support the reopening of Westminster Hall. We have some debates already lined up for Westminster Hall: on Thursday 8 October, a debate on obesity and the effect of covid-19 on those living with obesity, and a second debate on mental health support for frontline staff; on Tuesday 13 October, a debate on the introduction of a universal basic income; and on Thursday 15 October, a debate on a disability-inclusive response to the covid-19, and a second debate on massacres in Sudan and the United Kingdom’s support for Sudan’s democratic transition.
We do not have Backbench Business time in the Chamber on 15 October; the Government have taken that day. If we get time in the Chamber on 22 October, we have a long-overdue application for a debate on errors and underpayments in the Equitable Life scandal and an important application for a debate to celebrate Black History Month, which would be very timely and welcome across the House. We do not yet have a slot for a debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week, so should Government business look like it will run short at any time, that debate could perhaps be held then.
We might need to put the record straight on something. In answer to a question from myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care earlier mentioned additional financial support of £10 million for LA7 north-east councils. The leader of my local authority in Gateshead is totally unaware of any additional financial support for businesses given to local authorities in north-east England. That is what we were asking for—additional financial support for businesses.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the last point needs to be followed up privately with the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman’s local council, but I am sure that if the Secretary of State said that funds are available, they are. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee is using the time available in Westminster Hall so effectively. I note the hon. Gentleman’s requests for further time. We are catching up, but the availability of Westminster Hall means that the Committee will be able to start getting through its backlog of requests.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that spending by clinical commissioning groups on speech and language therapies ranges from £17.61 per child in the NHS north region all the way down to £10.20 per child in the NHS midlands and east region. When may we have a debate on those regional disparities and on support for children with speech and language difficulties, particularly during the coronavirus pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this crucial matter. The Government recognise that speech, language and communication skills are important for child wellbeing, and as a father of six I know how important this issue is for children as they grow and develop. The Government will continue to prioritise the improving of early speech and language outcomes across education, health and social care, to narrow inequalities. The NHS long-term plan recognises the importance of speech and language therapists. It proposes that
“local areas will design and implement models of care that are age appropriate, closer to home and bring together physical and mental health services.”
Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), has disappeared, but I hope he is watching the Parliament channel and therefore will have noted my hon. Friend’s request for a Backbench Business debate.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
This week, I received urgent concerns from a major meat-processing company in my constituency about its ability to export to EU countries post the Brexit transition phase. It is particularly concerned about the ability to process animal health export certificates, agreement from the EU on animal origin identification, and the export of frozen and fresh groupage products. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make an urgent statement addressing these areas of concern?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is obviously important that we are able to export our food around the world. It is good news that UK beef has at last gone back into the United States, with a shipment going from Northern Ireland to the United States. Markets are reopening, but the negotiations with the European Union are continuing and we will see what the results are. In terms of a debate, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know how to get an Adjournment debate, which is a suitable way to raise a constituency matter on the Floor of the House.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may know that I am a keen supporter of electric vehicles and believe that this emerging industry could help to level up areas such as Don Valley. May we have a statement on what the Government are doing to help to incentivise electrical-vehicle production in this country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Electric vehicles are going to be tremendously important and are a central tenet of the Government’s economic agenda in supporting innovative industries in our manufacturing heartlands. The Secretaries of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and for Transport are aware of that, and the Government want to see the UK become a world leader in the manufacture and use of electric vehicles. Some £1.5 billion has been committed jointly by taxpayers and industry, through the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge, to research, develop and commercialise local carbon or automated innovations. Funding is, therefore, available, and I hope that levelling up in my hon. Friend’s constituency will benefit from it.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday I received an email from the TSB informing me that three branches in my constituency—at Anniesland, Drumchapel and Partick—are to close. One of those branches is in an area where digital exclusion is extremely high. This issue will affect many Members from all parties and the scandal must be addressed, so may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of maintaining these vital lifelines?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, which many Members from all parties have raised in the past. People’s access to vital services is of great importance and has been debated in the House previously. The hon. Lady is also right to raise her specific constituency issues and put pressure on the service providers to continue to provide the services that their customers and local residents need.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
May we have a debate on the use of sky lanterns? Is the Leader of the House aware that they pose a fire risk to farmers’ crops and are a danger to animals if ingested? As they are, in effect, hazardous airborne litter that invariably lands on someone else’s property, why do we not ban them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very well aware of the concern my right hon. Friend raises, because it has been raised with me by my own constituents, and I am aware of farmers’ concerns about sky lanterns. However, I am always reluctant to jump to the immediate conclusion that things should be banned. There may be a way of enjoying sky lanterns without endangering crops and livestock. The knee-jerk reaction to ban is something politicians should always be a little bit careful of.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 884, in my name and the names of others?
[That this House recognises the constructive approach taken by GMB Union and Unison in negotiations around their members’ pay and conditions with British Gas and its parent company Centrica; condemns the tactics employed by that company in commencing those negotiations with threats to dismiss and re-engage its UK workforce on lesser terms; commends British Gas workers who while furloughed during the covid-19 outbreak voluntarily delivered thousands of food parcels with the Trussell Trust; and calls on the company to do the right thing, withdraw the Section 188 notice of potential redundancies and negotiate in good faith with workers’ unions.]
It is about Centrica’s outrageous threat to sack its entire workforce unless they agree to new and far worse terms and conditions and pay. We have not seen this practice universally, but across one or two sectors of the economy, and it seems to be growing and proliferating. If ever there was a strategically important industry, it is Centrica. If, through the short-sightedness of the management, Centrica finds itself without a workforce, we will be in serious trouble. Can we have a statement from the Business Secretary?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Again, the hon. Gentleman is so right to raise this matter. We are all, individually, champions for our constituents, and it is our job to seek redress of grievance when they are treated badly, whether that is by the state or by private companies, and to ensure that companies behave in a way that understands their societal obligations, as well as their shareholder obligations. I congratulate him on bringing the issue to the Floor of the House. It is a problem that the Government are aware of and I would encourage him to keep on asking for debates so that the issue can be examined more carefully.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Carshalton and Wallington is home to some of the best schools in the country. However, there is a worrying lack of secondary school places due to the incompetent Lib Dem council’s handling of school place provision, trying at once to block a new school at Rosehill on what has been described as an ideal site while trying to force a school on a tiny and inappropriate site at Sheen Way. Can we have a debate in this place on school place provision to ensure that every child has a good or outstanding local school place to go to?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have a nasty feeling that when my hon. Friend says “incompetent Lib Dem-run council”, he is guilty of a tautology. I have not yet come across a competently run Lib Dem council. Supporting local authorities to create sufficient school places is one of the Government’s absolute priorities. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I hope I have not upset the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). We share a local authority and I do not want to be too mean about it.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am sure many Conservative MPs share his pain in dealing with Lib Dem-run local authorities and their flawed approach to planning in education. We provide funding for all the places that are needed based on local authorities’ own data on pupil forecasts. This is why we have announced nearly £750 million to provide places needed for 2022. The Government’s pupil places planning advisers will work alongside councils to provide support for any local authority that fails to provide sufficient school places. We announced that Sutton local authority will receive £16.2 million to provide new school places for 2022, taking its total funding between 2011 and 2022 to £141.8 million.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
By video link, my former university lecturer, Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It might surprise the Leader of the House to learn that I miss him dreadfully. As an active parliamentarian, I miss so much the ability to ask him questions on a Thursday, but, as I have the chance this morning, can I ask him for an early debate on the future of new buildings in Parliament and the holocaust memorial and learning centre? Can we have an environmental impact assessment of all the contracts? Can we start using the River Thames so that it goes back to being the conduit that it was—the heart of our transportation system? Can we have a debate on that?
Secondly, I am a pretty new boy on the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union. These are hazardous and tumultuous times for my constituents and those of the Leader of the House, and it seems strange that this all-party Committee, which does such good work, will be wound up at the very time we will need the scrutiny of this House as we move into uncharted territory. Is there anything we can do to prolong the life of the Committee?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We miss the hon. Gentleman too and look forward to seeing him back here in due course. I was pleased to note that he asked a question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care earlier, so he remains an enormously active Member of Parliament, although I recognise his general point that it is harder to get in during Question Time than it was before.
With regard to building works in the Palace, I am delighted to be able to say that that is a matter for the House of Commons Commission. The spokesman for the Commission answers questions periodically, and I am sure the matter will come up next time. We all look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) back here in due course.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a review of the parliamentary art collection should be an opportunity to celebrate Parliament’s rich and central role in our nation’s history and heritage, rather than a political exercise to edit, rewrite and impose woke contemporary interpretations of history on a place of such national importance?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We should take such pride in the history that is displayed through the art in this House. It might be a slightly Whiggish view of history, but if we go to Committee Room 10, we see Alfred the Great defeating the Danes, starting our great island story. If we walk from here to the House of Lords, we see on the walls the whole process of the civil war, with King Charles I raising his standard at Nottingham, and we see the birds that flew—we see the history of our nation. It is something that we should be proud of, for we are a great nation; a successful nation; one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen; and we have done so much good, not just at home but abroad, and we should be proud of that. We should recognise that how our forefathers have recorded our history is not something we should dispose of. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has said:
“Statues and other historical objects were created by generations with different perspectives and understandings of right and wrong… they play an important role in teaching us about our past… Rather than erasing these objects, we should seek to contextualise…them in a way that enables the public to learn about them in their entirety… Our aim should be to use them to educate people about all aspects of Britain’s complex past, both good”—
in my view, primarily good—and occasionally bad. The word “occasionally” is an edit of my own.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House to help ensure that the Prime Minister read the Youth Violence Commission’s report, and whether we could have a debate on it. He said that he would not be so bold as to tell the Prime Minister what to read, but I think he is a bold fella, and I just wonder whether he has had any success.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can assure the hon. Lady that my office has brought her important report to the attention of the Prime Minister’s office, but it is not really for me to dictate the Prime Minister’s reading material.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I want to begin by paying tribute to PC Ratana, who was killed last week while serving his community. More than 1,600 police officers have paid this terrible price while serving their country. I come from a policing family and I know what it is like to hear about the death of a police officer on the news and wonder for a moment whether it is a family member. We cannot bring PC Ratana back, or others such as PC Andrew Harper, but we can ensure that in future families such as theirs get justice. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate so that we can support the campaign, led by PC Harper’s widow, Lissie, and others, to introduce whole-life sentences for people who kill police officers and other emergency service workers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that that issue is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, as he is a volunteer special constable. I take this opportunity to thank and commend him for his public service in that regard, and for the courage that is required to be a serving police officer. It was with great sadness that we heard of the death of Sergeant Matt Ratana, and the Prime Minister recognised that, and Mr Speaker organised a minute’s silence for him. May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace. The Government are committed to improving and strengthening sentencing for violent criminals. The justice system exists to keep the public safe. The Government recently published the sentencing White Paper, which outlines our approach to sentencing, including the introduction of tougher sentences for murderers and a review of the use of whole-life orders. But those who serve us, who are brave in carrying out their duty, deserve protection.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Yesterday, in my capacity as co-chair of the beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing APPG, I virtually met some truly inspirational women who were being supported by an incredible charity, Changing Faces. These women, like one in five people in the UK, have a scar, birthmark or skin condition that makes them visibly different. As a result of this, they experience discrimination and exclusion in their everyday lives. Changing Faces and Avon Cosmetics have launched the Pledge to be Seen campaign. Will the Leader of the House join me in championing that campaign, and encourage businesses and Government services to recognise that being different should be embraced and reflected in all advertising and campaign material?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady always brings the most cross-party campaigns to the Floor of the House, and I am genuinely grateful to her for that. It shows how politicians can work together. I also notice that most of the campaigns that she brings to the Floor of the House are successful, and that is a tribute to her doggedness and determination. In light of that, many Members across the House will be sympathetic to the Changing Faces campaign to support children and adults with facial differences who may have suffered from isolation, stigma and discrimination in their lives. It is important as a fundamental principle that we value everyone as an individual and what is inside, not what is necessarily outside.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Since 1988 Armenia has illegally occupied Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. That led to a war that took place between 1988 and 1994, when a ceasefire was agreed, backed up with a United Nations Resolution in 1993. On 27 September, Armenia mobilised forces and attacked Azerbaijan, and I understand that they are regularly launching rockets from Armenia into Azerbaijan to provoke Azerbaijan to react. All this has the potential for dragging both Turkey and Russia into a much more extended war. May we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary early next week on what actions the UK Government will take at the United Nations Security Council to broker a ceasefire and prevent Armenia from creating a potentially very serious war?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Her Majesty’s Government are deeply concerned about the situation on the ground, including the continuing violence and reports of high numbers of civilian casualties. We call on Armenia and Azerbaijan to return to dialogue, as the only lasting settlement to this conflict is a peacefully negotiated one without preconditions.
My hon. Friend asks what the Government have been doing, and I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has issued a joint statement with the Canadian Foreign Minister calling for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk group. On Monday my hon. Friend the Minister for European neighbourhood and the Americas spoke to Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov and urged a return to dialogue on the OSCE Minsk group to ensure a peaceful and sustainable settlement.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
A recent report by the Electoral Reform Society “Democracy in the Dark” demonstrated the unregulated wild west of online political campaigning; millions were spent on secretive dark ads before the 2019 general election. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a pressing need for meaningful regulation of online campaigning, and may we have a debate in Government time to consider these much-needed reforms?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a very valid point: anything that we send out on paper is heavily regulated, and things that are done online are almost unregulated—not entirely, but broadly. There is a discrepancy between those two, and I know that the Government are considering this matter. A debate via the Backbench Business Committee would be a good starting place to get the ball rolling on this discussion.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
One of the many awful aspects of the coronavirus crisis has been the doubling of assaults on shop workers. These people are heroes who went into work every day while we were all locked down at home, and ensured that we had food and provisions; yet, the thanks that many get is to be abused and assaulted by customers. As somebody who worked for Asda for 12 years before entering the House, I feel very strongly that the despicable people who assault shop workers should face much tougher sentences from the courts. Can we have a debate to see whether the majority of the House agrees with that sentiment and so that we can show our deep gratitude for all shop workers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend, as he so often does, puts his finger on the right issue. Shop workers have been fantastic, phenomenal and brave, because they all stayed at work at a point when we knew much less about the disease than we do now and thought that it might have been much more risky even than it has turned out to be; they were a real frontline emergency service. Without them, the crisis would have been infinitely worse, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute he has paid to them. I can reassure him that there are already offences that cover assaults against any worker, including those in the retail sector, such as common assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. In July, the Government published the findings of a call for evidence on violence and abuse towards shop workers, and we will continue to work with the British Retail Consortium and other partners to stop these crimes. I pay tribute to the British Retail Consortium for the work that it has been doing to highlight this important issue, and encourage my hon. Friend and the BRC to continue raising it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Over 15,000 people have died in our care homes—many because of the Government’s shameful policy of discharging patients with coronavirus from hospital into care homes. Both the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary confirmed to me from the Dispatch Box that they took full responsibility for those deaths, and the policy then changed. But my local trust recently issued new guidance stating that covid-positive patients are again to be discharged back into our care homes. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to come to the House and explain this dangerous policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government take this issue with the utmost seriousness and have been doing a great deal to help care homes, including issuing more than 100,000 tests a day to care homes across the country, overhauling the delivery of personal protective equipment to care homes and setting up a £1.1 billion infection control fund. The issue that the hon. Lady raises is one of great seriousness. I assure her that it will be taken up on her behalf with the Secretary of State for Health immediately after this statement.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I know that my right hon. Friend, because he is a sensible fellow, did not visit Minehead funfair a few days ago. The idea that Minehead Town Council could actually have a funfair at this time is daft, stupid and dangerous. As my right hon. Friend is aware, infection rates in Somerset are going up, but Somerset County Council’s public health department has not acted to stop it; in fact, it has not done anything. I am afraid to say that the county council is far too busy fighting to form a half-baked unitary authority without the backing of the people of Somerset. I am afraid that promoting this ridiculous idea and using £1 million of public money to do so may cost us lives, and, as has already been mentioned, King Alfred would not tolerate it. Could we have a debate on some of the more stupid things that councils are doing during this appalling situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend refers to half-baked proposals and then King Alfred, so I cannot help but remember that King Alfred, as a baker, was not invariably successful.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do indeed. I was not there at the time, but I was paying close attention to events.
I have always thought that our great county is thought of by the people living within it as one, not as various little dissected bits, and I do have concerns with public bodies spending large amounts of taxpayers’ money campaigning for their own preferred interests. It is indeed an issue that we should take seriously and be concerned about. As regards closing funfairs, I will consult my children and see what they think.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
This year, because of covid, the only “DIY SOS” Big Build, which was completed for Children in Need, was in Gower. Last week, I visited this unique, one-of-a-kind facility, which has been provided for Surfability UK. It gives people of all ages with disabilities the opportunity to take to the waves of Caswell bay. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the two men behind it—both called Ben—who took up this concept and continue to bring joy to the lives of so many? Will he also acknowledge the generosity of trades and businesses across Swansea and south Wales? Moreover, will he urge the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to highlight to the new director-general of the BBC the immeasurable impact “DIY SOS” has on our communities across the UK?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is so right to bring this issue to the attention of the House. Yes, I would like to thank Ben and Ben for what they are doing, which sounds wonderful and inspirational, and I would like to know more about it. I also thank the people and businesses of Swansea and south Wales for funding it, and “DIY SOS” for what it does, which sounds truly inspirational in helping people, and I would love to know more about it if the hon. Lady is willing to send me further information.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that I am forever banging on about rural issues, and today is no exception. Residents in Builth Wells in Llandrindod Wells find it almost impossible to access NHS dentistry. This has been going on for a long time, since well before covid. I have raised the issue with the Welsh Government, but they simply acknowledge the difficulty of services in rural areas, and nothing seems to change. However, this is a fundamental, basic service, and I should not have to campaign on this issue. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate about what we can do for constituents who are denied access to basic health care by the Welsh Labour Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend says she bangs on, but this is clearly not true. She stands up for her constituents and seeks redress of grievance in the right and historic way that Members of Parliament do, and she is a noble champion for her constituency. She is right to campaign for better dentistry provision in her constituency. It is a devolved matter, and the Welsh authorities are responsible—they are, of course, socialist-run Welsh authorities—but I am afraid there is a problem with the provision of health services by the devolved Welsh authorities, which do not manage to run their affairs as well as they should. The good news is that there is going to be an election in May. Next May, people can vote Conservative, and then they will have better, cleaner, fresher teeth—and if they use Aquafresh, their teeth will be cleaner still.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Given my right hon. Friend’s great affinity with history and the natural environment, does he agree that a quarry on Briggens Estate in rural Hertford and Stortford would be a huge blight on the area and local people? I am keen to ensure that Hertfordshire County Council engages with me and local residents on the putative minerals plan, so will the Leader of the House assist me in securing a debate on this important local issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I understand that it has been rumbling on for quite a few years in Hertfordshire. It is for local authorities to develop their mineral and waste plans and then to consider subsequent applications. At all stages, the local authority is required to give consideration to the environmental effects of activities on residents. Any minerals and waste plan will be supported by a strategic environmental assessment, which will have regard to site allocations and activities, and any planning application should be supported by an environmental impact assessment. However, I suggest to my hon. Friend that she apply for an Adjournment debate, because this is exactly the sort of issue that is well highlighted in Adjournment debates.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I add our gratitude and thanks to Mark Hutton?
Last night, a group of activists carried out a night-time video projection on this building, detailing the human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist party against Hong Kongers, Uyghurs and Tibetans. Pema Yoko from Tibetan Community UK said:
“Under Xi’s rule, Beijing has tightened its grip on restrictions on communication in Tibet in an effort to cut Tibet off from the rest of the world”.
This coalition of people fighting the severe human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist party is calling on our Government to take much more co-ordinated action. Will the Government make time to debate the systematic human rights abuses by the CCP against minorities in China, and consider the Private Member’s Bill laid by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on reciprocal access to Tibet?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises something that it is absolutely right to raise in this House. The activity in Xinjiang against the Uyghurs is an egregious breach of human rights and the sort of thing that a civilised country would not be involved in. Communists do not always observe human rights. The spiritual leadership offered to the people of Tibet by the Dalai Lama is recognised across the world, and we will continue to play a leading role internationally, working with partners, to hold China to account for gross human rights violations. With regard to Hong Kong, we have offered a route to citizenship for British nationals overseas because of China’s failure to honour the joint declaration.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The pandemic has highlighted how essential access to high-speed broadband is. I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate in Government time to discuss the importance of rural broadband roll-out, so that constituencies such as mine can become better connected.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are offering huge support for rural broadband, including £5 billion of taxpayers’ money committed to fund gigabyte-capable broadband in the UK’s hardest-to-reach areas, on top of £1.9 billion spent on the Building Digital UK superfast programme to ensure that more than 96% of premises have access to superfast broadband. She is absolutely right that reliable broadband is a necessity for households and businesses; representing a rural constituency myself, I know what a difference it makes to the opportunities for businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are now going to the place where I was educated by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—Swansea West.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be familiar with hospitality venues across Swansea, including Wind Street. Across the UK, such venues are having their trade restricted for public health reasons. When will we have a debate on how, given that that is in the public interest, the public purse should pay the costs, rather than individual business owners? Will the Leader of the House ensure that such a debate includes all right hon. and hon. Members, in accordance with my Remote Participation in House of Commons Proceedings Bill, by allowing them to participate and speak remotely? That Bill, of course, was presented on my behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because the Leader of the House would not allow me to speak. When will he lift restrictions and allow us to debate the important issue of ensuring that businesses do not have to pay the cost of public health restrictions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House has made the decision, quite rightly, that debates require personal participation. Debates do not run properly when people are remote and interventions are not possible. The support given to Wales by taxpayers is a total of £4 billion, protecting 400,000 jobs under the furlough scheme and 110,000 jobs under the self-employed scheme. What has been done for Wales is very significant, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to come to the House to sing the praises of the Government for what they have managed to do, we will lay out the red carpet for him.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Leader of the House agree that, were the Prime Minister minded to answer the letter sent to him on 21 September by Professor Gupta and other eminent scientists, questioning the selection and maintenance of the aim regarding the Government’s policy in respect of covid-19, he should do so by making a written statement to the House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend refers to the intimate details of the Prime Minister’s correspondence, but what I can assure him of is that, before the latest series of lockdowns, which is to say after 21 September and therefore subsequent to the letter, the Prime Minister had meetings with Professor Gupta, Professor Heneghan and others. He listened closely to their views and policy has been developed on the information that he received from a range of scientists and experts.
As the Prime Minister has said, the most important thing is that everyone now follows the guidance that we have set out, so that we can stop the spread of the virus. All measures are kept under constant review, and changes will be announced in the usual way. This has often been by oral statement rather than by written statement, which, by and large, I think the House prefers on matters of this importance. I hope my right hon Friend will welcome the Government’s recent commitment to offering the House greater opportunity to scrutinise coronavirus measures before they are implemented and, as always, we remain very grateful for his full support.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the importance of keeping highly skilled engineering jobs in the UK? Konecranes in my constituency has this week decided to cease manufacturing with the loss of many jobs despite the fact that it appears to be in line for contracts linked with the UK defence industry, which will, as I understand it, be instead considering manufacturing in Czechoslovakia. What more can be done to ensure that companies, particularly those bidding for local contracts, encourage, support and protect local jobs rather than outsourcing them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a matter that is of great importance to the Government and to the country, which is that, if we are to earn our living over the coming decades, we need high-skilled jobs. That is why it has been right for the Government to give huge support to businesses through the coronavirus crisis, essentially to maintain the structures of the economy, so that when demand returns the businesses are still there and the demand can be met. Although, as the Chancellor has said, not every job can be protected, £190 billion of taxpayers’ money has been very significant.
I think the hon. Lady is right to ask for further discussion on this. In this instance, referring to her specific constituency issue, an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate will be suitable now that Westminster Hall is back up and running, and will provide direct answers from Ministers in this crucial area.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) earlier. Yesterday, a review and audit of art across Parliament by the Works of Art Committee was announced. At the height of the global coronavirus pandemic, Durham County Council launched a similar review, spending days of officers’ time on a pointless exercise looking at works of art across County Durham. We all want to see the very best of Britain showcased in this Parliament and see the context of historical pieces. However, does the Leader of the House agree that, at this time of the global coronavirus pandemic, Parliament can do better than following a panicked Labour-led Durham County Council in bending the knee to woke political agenda?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We should take, as I have said before, pride in:
“This royal throne of Kings, this sceptred island,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”
Had William Shakespeare lived in a later day, he would have said, “this United Kingdom”, because that is what we should take pride in, and, no, we should most certainly not be overwhelmed by wokeism. Members may wonder why I read that quotation today. Well, it is National Poetry Day, so I thought it only appropriate that we have a proper quotation and that we stand up for our great nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I hope this is going out on Sky Arts. Wonderful, isn’t it?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
The furlough scheme was obviously welcome, but, as the GMB has pointed out, those on lower pay who return to work after being furloughed and then fall ill may find that they are not entitled to statutory sick pay as it is based on actual earnings. Can the Leader of the House ask Ministers to address this?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government have taken steps to help people on low incomes who have to self-isolate because of the coronavirus with a special payment of £500. Therefore, steps are being taken to try to help people on lower incomes when affected by illnesses relating to the coronavirus.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I welcome the news that the overwhelming majority of customs declarations for freight leaving the UK will be completed online post 1 January 2021. Plans for a new inland customs clearance centre have been outlined for my constituency, which will be based at a former coach interchange near the motorway. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that money from the £450 million port infrastructure fund will be made available to provide the necessary road improvements and to introduce weight limits and restrictions to protect the surrounding villages in Warrington South from visiting HGVs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up for his constituency in the way that he has. There is a £470 million fund for infrastructure, as part of the wider package of £705 million for the GB-EU border. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has committed to spending £15 million of taxpayers’ money on road and rail infrastructure to ensure that goods and freight flow to and from our ports as quickly as possible. I cannot promise that that money is going to Warrington, but my hon. Friend’s point has been noted and I will pass it on to the Secretary of State.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I seek assurances from the Leader of the House, as the representative of Parliament in Cabinet, that he will raise my significant concerns about our lack of opportunity as constituency MPs to raise our serious concerns about the job loss tsunami that we are about to face. The Chancellor’s announcement last week will not save my constituency from mass job losses. We have solutions, but we need the Government to engage to save those jobs. Will the Leader of the House raise this matter in Cabinet to ensure that Ministers meet us to discuss the pending crisis? In addition, may we have a specific debate about the job losses that are about to hit our nation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will always try to facilitate meetings for hon. Members, if they need them, with particular Ministers. As for a debate, there is an Opposition day debate coming up, and this may well be a subject that the Opposition think it worth debating, because it is clearly very important. I would add that the Kickstart scheme will help to get people back into work, and particularly to get young people into work. The Department for Work and Pensions is also taking on many, many more work coaches to help people, but it is widely accepted that this is a difficult period, and the hon. Lady is right to focus our minds on it.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Our town centres have been particularly impacted by coronavirus. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have not been a beneficiary of the town deals funding, so will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time about what more can be done to help our high streets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a key point. The Government are committed to supporting and reviving Britain’s high streets, many of which are in real need of regeneration. As I understand it, officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are meeting Stoke-on-Trent council leaders to discuss the town’s progress in applying for towns fund investment. The Government welcome proposals from local authorities for towns fund investment, which will be assessed on the quality of their business case. There is another round of money forthcoming, and I am sure my hon. Friend will encourage the local authority to apply. This is a fund of £3.6 billion in England. Many Members across the House will see their constituencies benefit from this use of taxpayers’ money, as I am in North East Somerset, in Keynsham and Midsomer Norton.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Last night Gateshead Council supported the WeMakeEvents initiative to pave the way for the return of live events by lighting Gateshead International Stadium in red. Events companies in my constituency such as MandyLights, Sound Inc studios and Atlas Band Touring are facing huge difficulties while their respective industries are on hold. May we have a debate in Government time on how we can ensure the safe return of the events industry as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously the events industry is particularly badly hit because of the difficulties in managing large gatherings. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport set out a significant package of support for live events and cultural events, which is the basis of what is available to the companies affected. As for a debate, this might also be the subject of an Adjournment debate relating to the specific concerns in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As well as being National Poetry Day, today is Lincolnshire Day, and the county was of course the birthplace of the former poet laureate, Alfred, Lord Tennyson. At long last, the top-tier authorities in Lincolnshire are agreed on a devolution deal—we now need the Government’s go-ahead—which will finally expunge the past links with county Humberside. Lincolnshire could be united again. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the appropriate Minister to give us the go-ahead and let us get on with devolution to Lincolnshire?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My only worry about creating this great Lincolnshire state is that my hon. Friend may then declare UDI for Lincolnshire and become its king—a role he would carry out with enormous distinction. It is the policy of the Government to devolve, to centralise and to give more power to local communities. Building on the programme of mayoral combined authority models, conversations on further devolution are continuing. Lincolnshire is unquestionably a great county, and I think that bringing counties back together is always welcomed by the people who live within them.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have a constituent whose life has been ruined following a mesh implant. She is constant pain and it has cost her her marriage. She can only work part-time and it is in a more junior role, so that causes her financial hardship. Despite using a walking stick she still suffers falls. She cannot venture out for leisure activities on her own as her life revolves around toilet stops. Yet she was refused the mobility element of the personal independence payment. Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House outlining how the DWP can award my constituent the mobility element she deserves without her having to suffer another assessment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is, dare I say it, a model of an active Member of Parliament as a champion for his constituents. We have all had occasional cases when things have gone wrong with assessments. One of the ways to put them right is by direct application to Ministers, which I have found has ensured, in all the cases that I have raised where there have been mistakes, that they have been put right. If he sends me more details of the specific case, I will undertake to take it up with the Secretary of State and try to get him a full answer. I thank him for going into bat for his constituent in such a proper way.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Last month, it came to light that a neighbouring council, Brighton and Hove, had, without any consultation with Eastbourne Borough Council, quietly moved over 130 homeless people into Eastbourne hotels. Those who it had moved along the coast in this way could not possibly be cared for at arm’s length by Brighton and Hove, nor could they be properly cared for in Eastbourne, unprepared and unaware as we were. Could we debate the framework that sits behind the way in which local councils operate together to consider whether aspects that are currently considered good practice might need to be raised to the level of a duty to make sure that a sorry situation such as this does not repeat itself?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is an example, is it not, of what goes wrong when the hard left are in charge? [Interruption.] I would not accuse the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) of being from the hard left—not today, at any rate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The homelessness legislation guidance sets out that in the first instance local authorities should try to place homeless households within their own area, and when this is not possible they should place them as near as possible to the original local authority area. We are clear that local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid placing households outside their borough. We are aware that, on occasion, in some areas where there is a limited supply of suitable accommodation, it is necessary to place households in temporary accommodation outside the local area, but this should be a last resort. If a local authority places a household in accommodation in another local authority area, it is required to notify that local authority of any placement. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and to put pressure on the relevant local council to do better.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and all those who have participated today. In order that we can have a safe exit and the safe arrival of Members for the next statement, I am suspending the sitting for three minutes.
Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the lifetime skills guarantee and post-16 education. Ever since I was appointed Education Secretary, I have been determined to raise the status of further, technical and vocational education. In a speech in July, I set out that, for decades, this sector has been overlooked and underserved, playing second fiddle to higher education. All too often, it has not given the young people and adults of this country the skills that businesses are crying out for, or enabled them to pursue the careers they dreamed of.
What we are determined to do, and what we must do, is give people the opportunity to retrain and upskill, so that if one door closes, they will have the key to open others. This Government stand for empowering everyone in this country, wherever they live. We stand for the forgotten 50% who do not go to university. We stand for those who find that their jobs no longer exist because technology has redefined industries overnight. We stand for young and old alike. Talent exists everywhere in this country. We have to ensure that we give it every opportunity to flourish, wherever people come from.
Two days ago, the Prime Minister outlined plans to bring closer alignment between further and higher education, to end the outdated distinction that one is better than the other and to offer world-class education after the age of 16 that is fit for the 21st century. We want every student who has the ability and the desire to go to university to do so, but we also want all young people to be given a real choice in what route they take.
We will introduce a lifetime skills guarantee that will help people to retrain and upskill. This will be the backbone of our covid recovery and will enable us to come back stronger and build back better. The measures will embed greater flexibility in the technical and vocational system to support not just young people but adults who need to retrain and upskill at any point in their working lives.
This is not merely a response to the pandemic. It is a continuation of our whole-hearted commitment to level up every inch of the country. Our reformed apprenticeships programme already provides a vital route for employers to meet their skills needs and for apprentices to learn and earn through high-quality training programmes and on-the-job experience. We are going to expand apprenticeships, making it easier for people to get a high-quality apprenticeship, and connect them to local employers who know what jobs their industry or community will need in the future.
We know that some employers will be nervous of taking on apprentices in the current climate. We are therefore making sure that we address some of the barriers that employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses, face in taking on apprentices—for example, by making it easier for larger employers to transfer their unused levy funds to smaller employers. Where apprentices have been made redundant as a result of the pandemic, we will ensure that more of them have the opportunity to continue their training. We have just begun the roll-out of T-levels, our new high-quality technical and vocational qualifications, and we have just welcomed the first intake of students, who are taking them in digital, education and childcare, and construction. One T-level is the equivalent of three A-levels, and these qualifications will open up further routes of study or employment for those who take them.
For those who have not achieved the equivalent of A-levels by the age of 18, the chances of proceeding to higher levels of qualifications are, as Philip Augar’s report put it, “virtually non-existent”. The lifetime skills guarantee will therefore fund technical courses equivalent to A-levels for adults, all of which teach skills that are in high demand in our economy. These will give anyone who left school without an A-level or its equivalent the qualifications they need to upskill or to change jobs, and give them a much better chance of finding work, achieving their dreams and doing what they want in life. We have already announced plans to sharpen the job focus and the quality of higher technical education. The process of getting employers to review and approve the best digital higher technical qualifications began last month. We want to invest in, and increase take-up of, these courses as they are developed to meet the skills needs of the economy.
Another key element of the lifetime skills guarantee is to open up funding and alternatives to degrees for students. We are going to transform the funding system so that people can get a loan just as easily for a higher technical course as they can for a university degree, and we will ensure that further education colleges have access to funding on the same terms as universities do. Everyone will be able to call on a flexible lifelong loan entitlement for four years of post-18 education, so any adult who wants or needs to retrain with high-level technical courses can do so, instead of being trapped in unemployment.
Our flexible lifelong learning allowance is going to enable people to study high-quality courses across further and higher education at a level and time that best suits their life. This will make it easier for people of all ages to do courses locally and to study and train part time to acquire the skills that can transform their lives. This new arrangement will provide finance for shorter-term studies, rather than people having to study in one, three or four-year blocks. People will be able to break up their study into segments, transfer credits between colleges and universities, and take on more part-time study. We will consult on this matter next year and bring forward legislation as necessary later in this Parliament.
We also want to transform our left-behind towns and regions, but we are not doing this just by investing more money in universities. We are going to do it by investing in local colleges. In the spring Budget, we announced an additional £1.5 billion to upgrade the further education college estate. The largest capital investment in the sector in a generation, it will enable colleges everywhere in England to have buildings and facilities that can deliver world-class tuition.
We are setting up 20 employer-led institutes of technology with capital funding for state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. They will be specialist institutions that are a unique collaboration between employers, colleges and universities. They will give businesses the skilled workforce that they need to drive growth and productivity and get more people into rewarding jobs. We have already committed £170 million to establishing the first 12 institutes and are making a further £120 million available for another eight in areas of the country currently without access to one. The competition for the next wave will open shortly.
We are going to inject £111 million in the largest ever expansion of traineeships, as well as an extra £32 million for recruiting extra careers advisers and £17 million for work academies in England. We are also providing £101 million to support school and college leavers to take high-value level 2 and level 3 courses.
Even before covid, the country faced a challenge in terms of providing the skills that the country needed. We are desperate for more skills in digital, and more electricians and technicians, right across the board, from healthcare to construction. Our productivity continues to lag behind that of our neighbours and competitors—Germany, France and the United States all produce more than 25% more per hour than we do. If we were to match German productivity, it would enable us to recoup billions of pounds that we need to recover from the economic effects of covid. Put another way, our productivity levels are only 4% higher than they were in 2008.
To bounce back from the pandemic, we will need a lot more people with the vital skills to drive productivity in our economy. Technology is one area with an ever-growing need for skills. This week, the Prime Minister announced that £8 million would support boot camps for digital skills in the west midlands, Liverpool, Lancashire, Leeds, the south-west, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Manchester. The boot camps will be led by local employers, and from next year we hope to extend the delivery model to other areas and other sectors.
Greater productivity will drive our economy as we seek to build back better after covid. Businesses will be able to hire more, people will earn more and the quality of life will be much greater for more of our citizens. We will publish a White Paper later this year to take a holistic look at post-16 education and training. It will set out how we will continue to rebalance higher and further education, making sure that people understand the benefits of a greater technical education that offers them flexible ways to get the skills needed to progress and for our economy to prosper.
This is not a subject that just Conservative Members feel passionately about; it is something all Members feel incredibly passionately about. It is something that I think we all recognise is an area that has maybe been neglected a little bit too much in the past, and I hope that there is a sense of will across both sides to work together to make changes and to make improvements for the life chances of all.
I believe this dynamic programme of measures is not just about weathering the covid storm; these reforms will lay down a marker for the age. They will bring an end to the post-16 career lottery and decades of indifference to further education, and they will set up each and every member of society with the means to get a satisfying and well-paid job. I commend this statement to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and particularly for ensuring that I had early advance sight of it.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, on the Labour side of the House, we, too, passionately believe in the value of further and adult education for individuals, for their communities and for our shared prosperity. I do think that many of the announcements the Secretary of State has made are a step in the right direction. Indeed, I have no doubt that he does believe we need more investment in further education, so I can only imagine that he was appalled to discover which party has been in office for the past 10 years and which party has spent those years slashing funding for further education, cutting maintenance support for learners and building barriers to further study. Will the Secretary of State now admit to the House that it was a mistake to cut billions of pounds from further and adult education and that the advanced learner loan system, which has deterred so many adult learners from studying, has had a devastating impact on their life chances?
I turn to the specific proposals outlined by the Secretary of State and, first, the lifetime skills guarantee. I am glad that he has acknowledged, as Labour has long argued, that more people need access to further education and retraining, particularly given the challenges our economy now faces, but many learners who could benefit from these new funded courses will not be eligible. For those training beyond level 3, he appears to be offering only a flexible loan system, but his own Department’s research shows that the introduction of loans caused participation in adult education to plummet. Why is he repeating this failed approach? What about those who do not hold level 2 qualifications? What funding will be available for them to study for level 2, so they can then progress to level 3 and further? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that he cannot credibly say that he wants equality between further and higher education if only one route brings maintenance support, so will the learners who study for these new funded courses be eligible for that support?
Next, I turn to funding. Additional investment in further and adult education is obviously welcome, which is why we on the Labour Benches have spent years advocating it, while year after year the Conservative party cut it. The funding that the Secretary of State has announced today will not even reverse the damage, let alone mean increased investment. Funding is supposed to be available for every adult who is not qualified to A-level or equivalent. There are 9 million of those people in the country. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that every single adult not qualified to level 3 who wants to access this support will be able to do so? His £2.5 billion amounts to less than £280 for each of these learners. Does he really think that is sufficient for an adult learner to get the necessary skills and qualifications? He has stated that a full level 3 qualification would be made available for adults aged over 23 for courses that are shown to be valued by employers. How are the Government determining that? Will he commit to a date to publish these details? I think that he said that T-levels will be included. Will he confirm that?
What conversations has the right hon. Gentleman had with the devolved authorities and Metro mayors about these proposals? Will metropolitan combined authorities that have their adult education budget devolved be able to set the eligibility criteria for this spending, and is the £8 million for the boot camps genuinely new money? He talks about increasing apprenticeship opportunities, but since the Government introduced the apprenticeship levy, numbers have been consistently down, especially at lower levels. Can he provide more detail on the support available for small and medium-sized enterprises and non-levy payers?
Finally, I want to emphasise the scale and urgency of what is needed. The Government rightly found billions of pounds for the job retention scheme, but when it comes to retraining, their ambitions do not stretch further than last year’s manifesto, as though the global pandemic has had no impact on the need for workers to get new skills and new jobs. Labour called for the Government to integrate training into the job support scheme to allow workers on reduced hours to improve their skills. Why have the Government failed to do that?
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s central projection is for unemployment to reach 12% before the end of the year. That is when the need for skills and retraining will be most acute, so why is this package available only from April next year? Will courses starting under the new guarantee begin in April or follow the usual academic calendar? Why has the procurement of the contract for the 30,000 traineeships announced in July not yet even begun?
Labour has spent years calling for investment in the skills of working people and those seeking work. They are, and always have been, the greatest asset in our economy. It is only by making the most of all their potential that we can truly recover from the effects of this terrible pandemic and achieve a lasting and shared prosperity. We now face a crisis of unemployment that could be the worst in my lifetime. It is vital that the Government support those at risk of losing their jobs and that they support them in finding new careers and opportunities. The Government must get this right, and they have one chance to do so. I implore Ministers to listen to our concerns. The task is urgent, and it is essential.
Gavin Williamson
We have a proud record on the Government side of the House: what we saw in the last year for those who are studying, the 16 to 19 budget, and the rate that was made available to 16 to 19 education was one of the largest increases in this year. We made available £1.5 billion-worth of capital funding to transform the estate of our further education colleges. We launched the national skills fund, announced in our manifesto. We recognise the value of that.
When Labour was in power, what did it do? It talked about one thing—“Universities, universities, universities”. That was the answer to the problems of a nation. Government Members recognise the need to make sure that young people have true opportunities. It is about not just the 50% of youngsters who go to university, but the other 50% of youngsters and making sure that they have the opportunities and qualifications that they deserve. They should have an entitlement and the opportunity to take those up.
We have launched the skills toolkit, which has had a transformational impact on so many people who have taken furlough. The hon. Lady talks about numbers over time in terms of apprenticeships. On the Government side of the House, we talk about quality. We recognise that it is important to drive up the quality of apprenticeships, as against simply numbers. When we talk to employers, they say that they want to see quality driven up in terms of apprenticeships and that is what we are doing.
We will have the roll-out of T-levels. Labour is always ambiguous on whether or not it supports T-levels. It supported them at the launch, but then it seemed to change its policy. With a new shadow Education Secretary, it has probably changed its mind again. As we roll these out, we would very much like to see them as part of this.
In terms of the eligibility, this is a national guarantee. It will be determined nationally—that is where the decision will be taken. It will not be devolved to the mayoral authorities, but we will continue to work with employers, organisations and the mayoral authorities to make sure that we get the right skills mix so that the qualifications that are on offer ensure that young people and people of all ages have the opportunity to progress into work.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the lifetime skills guarantee, which, if done properly, could be a game changer in the life chances for a huge number of people across the country. May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that his policies announced today are targeted in a way that makes sure that we have the skills needed in vital areas such as construction, engineering, quarrying, telecommunications and broadband roll-out, so that we can get on and deliver the infrastructure investment that is so badly needed in places such as High Peak?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is right: this investment must be properly targeted to ensure that the money that we are spending and the time that is invested by people as they take this training and opportunity leads them into employment and to work. That is why we have to take a targeted approach. That is why we have to take a different approach in terms of further education, an approach we have not always taken, looking at the skills needs in a local area and making sure that we are matching that and delivering those skills for employers and for the young people who are doing the training, to ensure that leads them into work.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. On the face of it, this move towards skills education is positive, and I certainly welcome the recognition that further education in England finally seems to be receiving, and I am delighted that, once again, he is following Scotland’s lead when he talks of closer alignment between further and higher education, because I have said many times in this place that Scotland does not draw a distinction between FE and HE and that we concentrate on positive destinations, and with good reason. We have the highest percentage of positive destinations for young people in the UK.
Many times, however, I have been lectured by Government Members about university numbers. They cannot have it both ways. If further education in England has been playing second fiddle to higher education, it is because the Secretary of State’s Government have treated it as such. As Scotland has invested in the entire tertiary education landscape, FE in England has suffered a decade of neglect. So can the Secretary of State confirm whether this lifetime loan entitlement means that FE students in England will now be saddled with the same massive debts as their HE counterparts, and since his Government seem to be open to new ideas, when will he be readdressing the issue of their outrageous tuition fees?
I welcome the long-overdue investment in FE infrastructure in England, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge that if he were to match Scotland’s facilities funding, the figure he would be announcing today would be not £1.5 billion, but £8 billion?
Finally, the Scottish Government have committed to a lifelong learning strategy and are investing £25 million to support adults retraining. However, similar courses will not be available in England until April 2021. Those whose jobs have been affected by covid cannot wait seven months, so will the Secretary of State work with colleagues to ensure this funding is brought forward and people can start training immediately?
Gavin Williamson
Of course we always look right across the United Kingdom, as one United Kingdom, to see how we can learn best and work well together, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is as much an advocate of that as I am—or maybe not quite as much—and she will no doubt be delighted to hear that over £1.5 billion has been spent in terms of capital in the FE estate, and that has approximately £300 million of Barnett consequentials for the devolved nations. So that is even more good news that we are delivering for Scotland as a result of having a Conservative Government for the United Kingdom—extra investment into FE in Scotland, and I hope the hon. Lady ensures that that is delivered into Scottish further education colleges.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I particularly welcome the reform progress my right hon. Friend outlined on higher-level technicals, as well as on T-levels and apprenticeship reform. I welcome, too, the lifetime schools guarantee, and will he say a word about how that fits with the national retraining scheme? Can he confirm that work coaches and the National Careers Service will be fully engaged in making sure that they do not just signpost but actively encourage people who could benefit from this great upskilling opportunity to do so?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance not just of encouraging but really taking people through that journey. There has sometimes been a slight prejudice in our education system to steer people away from those really great-quality higher technical qualifications, which are a great way for young people—and people of all ages—to transform their careers. May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for so much of the work that has already been done on higher technical qualifications? I would love to lay claim to having started it all myself, but I was very much driven by his work as Secretary of State for Education, which recognised the need to broaden out the range of opportunities for young people; this revolution that we are driving through in the sector is built on the work that he did at the Department for Education.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
I am very worried because unemployment in east Hull is already at 10%—and it is rising. We cannot possibly wait for vital opportunities to retrain and reskill. Having left school with few qualifications myself before returning to education, I know the value of the last Labour Government’s lifelong learning agenda. If the Secretary of State really understands the urgency of the situation, why is he waiting seven months, until April next year, for any of that new money to come through? It is too little, too late.
Gavin Williamson
It is always nice to see the generosity of the hon. Gentleman regarding the important programme that we have announced. If he had been paying attention to the Chancellor before the summer, he would have heard the announcement of a whole set of programmes, including a kickstart initiative, giving people the opportunity to be in the workplace and get jobs, and ensuring that they are not left behind as result of the pandemic. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, as so many Conservative Members have, the opportunities that we are driving forward. We always want to do more, which is why we have made this announcement today.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The lifetime skills guarantee is extremely welcome, as it should help to boost the covid recovery. In order that those adults who will take up the guarantee can realise their full potential, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new gold standard of T-levels will be available to them?
Gavin Williamson
I can absolutely guarantee that. I had the great opportunity to see many youngsters in colleges taking on T-levels. These qualifications have been incredibly warmly welcomed. The real difference compared with so many past attempts at reform of qualifications in this sector is that this has very much been based on the needs of employers. T-levels have been developed to ensure that they actually take young people into work, further education or apprenticeships.[Official Report, 22 October 2020, Vol. 682, c. 2MC.]
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
Lewisham and Southwark Colleges, which serve my constituency, do fantastic work, but have faced severe cuts over the last 10 years. Staff have had a significant real-terms pay cut and funding per pupil has reduced by over a third. They are already stretched to the bone. If further education is to help lead our recovery from the pandemic, it needs not just restoration of funds but substantial new investment. Will the Secretary of State give the sector the real-terms funding to match the ambition?
Gavin Williamson
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady noticed, but we have been announcing substantial extra funding into the FE sector. Part of this announcement is ensuring that we are not just talking about it, but doing it and delivering on it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Further education colleges can play a vital role in transforming lives and communities. Will my right hon. Friend set out what the Government will do to ensure that world-class education and training is available to all students, no matter where they come from or which college they go to?
Gavin Williamson
Absolutely so. That is what the Prime Minister was doing when he was down at Exeter College the other Tuesday—making sure that people understand that there is a whole range of different options at different stages of their lives. It is brilliant that so many youngsters in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Stockton South benefit from going to great universities, not just locally but nationally, but many youngsters will not make that choice, and this is about recognising that and ensuring that they have really exciting options ahead of them in terms of high-quality technical qualifications. That is what we are delivering on; that is what we are working towards. It is a problem that this nation has had for many, many generations. This Government—this party—will address that and put it right.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has said today. We do not have a proud record, in any party, on the more practical side of education in our country—in schools or colleges. It is a neglected area, by comparison with Germany, France and many other countries, so we must do better. I welcome the fact that we are to have a really serious look at post-16 education. I remind him, though, that a lot of training in our country is delivered by independent training providers, such as in engineering and textiles—in my constituency we have the Textile Centre of Excellence. We have some really good trainers in this country and we will need the industry trainers to be with us, but we need well paid, highly motivated staff in our FE colleges, such as Kirklees College in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that pay and conditions for staff in the training sector must be improved?
Gavin Williamson
I know that the hon. Gentleman has long been an advocate of high-quality technical training. We see in his constituency the important role that those who provide such training play in the vibrancy and success of business, enabling it to continue to provide employment. He is right to highlight the importance, not just of colleges, but of independent learning providers and the many businesses that work hand-in-glove with industry. We want to work with them to ensure the highest-quality delivery. A key element of high-quality delivery is to have high-quality individuals with experience and expertise, and pay is of course an important part of that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This morning I spoke with Anna Morrison, founder of Amazing Apprenticeships, based in Hitchin, which does fantastic work in schools and colleges, and especially with employers, to support and strengthen social mobility. What more will the Government do to ensure that we can provide more opportunities to disadvantaged and vulnerable people who are taking advantage of the lifetime skills guarantee?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work that is done in his constituency by Amazing Apprenticeships and many other organisations and colleges that are going out there, working with employers and providing opportunities not just for young people but for people of all ages. That is why, in Philip Augar’s report, he made the powerful point that if people do not get a level 3 qualification—an A-level equivalent qualification—they are hampered throughout the rest of their life; it really holds them back. That is why this announcement is so important: it gives those people who maybe missed out on that opportunity in those early stages of their life, the opportunity to create the chance to succeed, to progress, whether that is through apprenticeships, or through university, or through extra college qualifications—but, most importantly, to get jobs and employment. This will be transformative, not just for them, but for their families and their community. That is why the announcement is so important—it will change the lives of so many.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome many of the measures that the Secretary of State announced, but they cannot be implemented in isolation from the wider skills and employment support system in places such as Greater Manchester. We need to deliver flexible, responsive support to drive recovery in the months and years ahead. Does he recognise the real risk of the new measures duplicating and competing with existing adult skills policy and failing to act as a springboard into the devolved employment support offer? Will he continue to work closely with the combined authority to ensure that we get the joined-up approach we want to see in Greater Manchester?
Gavin Williamson
Of course, we will always work with all devolved authorities. The hint is in the title—this is a national guarantee, which means that we must have parity in every part of the country. We must ensure that, whether it is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, my constituency or any other part of England, there is a set national standard, because it is a national guarantee.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has announced. What measures is he putting in place to support final year GCSE and A-level students who are still having their studies disrupted by the pandemic? When will he make an announcement about his plans for the exams next year?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will give the Secretary of State some latitude, but that question really was not on the statement.
Gavin Williamson
It was a tad opportunistic, it has to be said, but my hon. Friend is always an opportunist. Many of our further education colleges up and down the land are doing brilliant work, with the covid catch-up funding and support we are offering, in supporting students as they approach their qualifications next year and ensuring that they do incredibly well. We will make further announcements about qualifications in due course.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure that this one will be a question about the statement—I call Richard Graham.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome this smorgasbord of new skills pathways. I look forward to more detail on how flexible loans, segments, transfer credits and so on will work in practice and to confirmation that work coaches will be trained on how to guide universal credit claimants on making the best decisions. The Secretary of State will know that one of the key asks of our Gloucestershire jobs, skills and apprenticeships lift-off—which the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), kindly came to launch—was to enable large employers to use an uncapped percentage of their apprenticeship levy for their contractors and suppliers. Does he agree that that would mean a real lift-off in terms of SME apprenticeship recruitment? When might we expect to hear more about this vital reform?
Gavin Williamson
We are looking at how to increase flexibility. I would be happy to organise a meeting between my hon. Friend and the Minister for skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, to discuss his thoughts about how to unlock more employment in Gloucester.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I welcome the ambition of the Government’s plan for skills, but we need to see a bit more detail. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Lifelong Learning, convened by former Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable. That commission called for the apprenticeship levy to be expanded into a skills and training levy, for a quarter of those funds to be channelled into a social mobility fund, for new national colleges to become centres of expertise, and for a skills wallet that would give everybody £10,000 to spend on education and training throughout their lives. There is a plan that exists and is ready to go. Will he meet me and members of the independent commission to discuss those very precise ideas?
Gavin Williamson
It is good to see that the former Member for Twickenham is keeping busy in his retirement. I am sure that my hon. Friend the skills Minister would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and other colleagues to discuss that. As I said, I think there is a strong will on both sides of the House to make real change in this area, and with that collective will and determination, we can make a positive impact on the lives of so many people.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am one of the people the Secretary of State has been targeting with the measures announced today. I left school without qualifications, applied later in life to go to university and was rejected three times. I even went back to secondary school for a year when I was 25 to get the qualifications to get in to university, and then was rejected again. I had to beat down the door to get the education that I needed, but once I got into the University of Sussex, I found an educational institution that for the first time ever saw potential in me that I did not see in myself.
I understand the impact that these measures will have for some people, but I must say that they do not show the kind of ambition that we need, the kind of ambition that will match the scale of the opportunity that we face. We should be awash as a country; every community should be burgeoning with educational opportunities right now, and we are not going to do that on the back of these announcements.
Will the Secretary of State say what contact he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that every aspect of Government is extending educational opportunity to every part of our communities? What conversations is he having with other Departments, such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that we are proactively putting educational opportunities into every community up and down our country? Right now, these measures are fine, but it does not match the scale of opportunity that our country needs and faces.
Gavin Williamson
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman on how closely we have been working, not just with the Department for Work and Pensions, but with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to ensure that the actions we take match up with the needs of the whole economy and the whole country. We will continue to take that approach.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that by offering free, fully-funded courses to adults without A-level or equivalent qualifications, this Conservative Government are promoting social mobility while helping to provide the skilled workforce we need in our businesses and throughout the country? Educational establishments such as Loughborough College and Loughborough University are integral to our local community. That is why it is fantastic that last week MHCLG awarded £750,000 to the Loughborough towns fund to set up a careers and enterprise hub in the town centre, to attract those who are not traditional participants in learning and development. This week, Loughborough College, with Charnwood Borough Council, Loughborough business improvement district and Loughborough jobcentre, launched the Kickstart scheme in the town. Now, that is partnership working and joined-up Government.
Gavin Williamson
That is a brilliant example of higher education, further education and local government all working together with a laser-like focus on creating opportunities not only for young people, but for people of all ages. I pay tribute to all those involved, including my hon. Friend, who I know is such a passionate advocate of that and of ensuring that we drive opportunity in every part of the country.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
While I broadly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, I want to draw his attention to problems with existing post-16 students. My constituent Linus has just completed his first year of a diploma in arboriculture, tree management and forestry at a local college, and he was able to do that because his fees were waived as a result of his receiving less than the limit of £330 per calendar month on universal credit. However, a top-up to his universal credit this year has increased Linus’s monthly benefit to £342, taking him above the fee waiver limit. Now he must either pay the full fee or leave his course, because the Government’s fee waiver rules have not been updated. Will the Secretary of State help students such as Linus by fixing this anomaly?
Gavin Williamson
If the hon. Gentleman would write with the details on that case, I would be happy to look into it.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I really welcome the lifetime skills guarantee from the Government and firmly believe it will increase access to and flexibility of learning in both further and higher education for learners young and old. As my right hon. Friend knows, Newton Rigg College in my constituency is currently the subject of a strategic review by the Further Education Commissioner. As we look to secure a new organisation to take over the college, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if this review is successful in securing the future of the college, fantastic colleges such as Newton Rigg will play a key role in delivering the Government’s lifetime skills agenda, offering training, upskilling and levelling up across Cumbria and the wider United Kingdom?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for the time he took to talk to me and make representations on some of his concerns about what Newton Rigg College was facing at the time, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on the future of that college. He is right to highlight that not only Newton Rigg college, but colleges up and down the land, in all our constituencies, play a vital role in the delivery of these qualifications and opportunities. The college system is something that we must put at the forefront of this nation’s recovery from the pandemic.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I very much welcome any improvement in access and flexibility and lower costs for learning. Will the Secretary of State consider the condition of first-year students, who are just leaving childhood and often have never left home before, but are now going into self-isolation in individual rooms, sometimes with collective provision for bathrooms and kitchens, which makes them both isolated and vulnerable? Therefore, their physical and mental health are at risk. Then they have online learning that they could actually do at home. I wonder what consideration he has given, with the Chancellor, to ensuring that they do not end up running into debt for a diminished education. Perhaps they should be going home and the universities should be supported through these difficult periods, so our universities and students can be—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Geraint, I am sorry to interrupt you. Is there any chance you can ask a question about the statement that has just been given, please?
Geraint Davies
I wanted to ask about how those considerations fitted in with the statement. On the one hand, I welcome what has been announced. On the other, I want investment for young people who are in those conditions. Maybe there is a transfer between the two.
Gavin Williamson
That is not an obvious link, but the hon. Gentleman has made some sort of effort, I think, to try to make it. If he had bothered to turn up at the statement on Tuesday, his question might have been quite valid for that, but he would probably also have heard that £256 million had been made available for universities to support pupils in circumstances such as he has outlined.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Can I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statement? This year, from 9 to 13 November, the Bucks Skills Show goes online by live-streaming employers into classrooms across the county. They will bring lessons to life by showing how curriculum subjects can be applied in the workplace. Will my right hon. Friend welcome this initiative and the work of Buckinghamshire Business First, as well as the Bucks careers hub, which was named the top performer in the country? Does he agree that their support for young people facing increasing challenges to kickstart their career post-virus shows what can be achieved by a successful partnership between business, the Bucks local enterprise partnership, the council and the Careers and Enterprise Company?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend lists a lot of people who I want to thank and congratulate, whether at the Bucks LEP or the skills hub that has been created. This shows that we should not see education in isolation from the rest of the economy or the rest of the community, because all those elements, by working together, provide so much more opportunity. That is a brilliant example of how people can inspire children to make them understand that what they are learning in the classroom has a real relevance to the world of work, giving them the enthusiasm to look at different careers and different opportunities that they might not have considered before.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Colleges such as Langley College in my constituency play a vital role in helping young people to realise their full potential, but they have been underfunded for too long. The Labour party has repeatedly called for the Government to integrate training into the job support scheme to help those on reduced hours to use the rest of the week to improve their skills. If the Secretary of State feels so passionately about retraining, why did the Government fail to do that?
Gavin Williamson
We always look at every idea, but just because the Labour party has come up with an idea has rarely meant that it is a good one. As for the idea that the hon. Gentleman highlights, we look across the board to try to ensure that we put in place the best possible opportunities for young people. That is what a series of policy announcements that we have made is about doing. It is why we will bring forward a further education White Paper later this year and why we will continue to look at every option to ensure that we deliver the best for every individual in this country.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
My dad left school with a whole two O-levels and went to Bolton technical college’s night school to get his engineering qualifications while he was earning. That route to social mobility has been closed down gradually over the past 50 years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm for me and the people of South Ribble that the lifetime skills guarantee opens it back up for people—lads and lasses—to do engineering qualifications?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about opening up opportunities and different routes. We have got too stuck in this ethos that going to university is the only real, proper, feasible route for young people. What we are doing as part of this measure is opening up so many more opportunities for so many young people, and we will be absolutely doing what she wants.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State says he is keen to help employees by providing the quality of workforce that they need. I am quite happy to celebrate what is good, but all too many employers are not engaged in training their existing or future workforce in any way. How will he get more employers to engage in that process? Also, how will adults who are looking for an avenue to pursue training or retraining in further or higher education access good-quality, independent and impartial career information, advice and guidance about their options and potential choices? There is a lot of advice available out there, but much of it is mired in vested interests, promoting courses and providers of questionable quality.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the quality of advice for young people and about ensuring that they have a good understanding of the range of choices open to them. That is why we are investing an extra £32 million in careers advice, making sure that we get the very best. I am sure he very much welcomes that and has been singing the Government’s praises in his constituency—as I am sure he does on a regular basis—for doing it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and hon. Members for the fact that many of the questions actually related to the statement.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)
Point of Order
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to stay on in the Chamber for this matter. I have notified him, but I apologise: I suspect he has not had a chance to read my message.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I had switched my phone off.
Kate Green
Very wise.
In his statement on the return of students to university on Tuesday, the Secretary of State made two claims that I believed were not fully accurate, and later that day I sought a correction to the record. The Secretary of State said on Tuesday that there was £100 million in funding for universities to provide digital access for learners. There is no such fund. That funding is for schools and some further education providers. He also said that the Student Loans Company can provide additional support to students who need it. Again, that does not appear to be accurate. I was grateful that the Secretary of State’s office indicated that there would be a correction to the record, but today when I looked in Hansard, all that was changed was the date on which he said guidance was published. It seems that he has corrected one mistake, which I must admit I did not know about, but failed to correct two more that he was asked to correct. May I ask for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we can have all the Secretary of State’s mistakes corrected on the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise this matter, and I know that she sent notice to the Secretary of State’s office, even though he may not have yet seen that. Although the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of ministerial answers or the completeness of ministerial corrections, she has used this opportunity to raise the matter. The Secretary of State in his place and may wish to respond.
Gavin Williamson
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for showing the courtesy of making sure that my electronic devices are switched off in the Chamber, which is something I thought the Chair had always wished Members to follow assiduously.
As the House will know, the Government have made available more than £100 million for electronic devices. Those youngsters who are in care and going on to university can access that funding to enable them to have the right type of devices, whether that is a laptop or a router. If a student’s family circumstances change while they are at university, they can go to the Student Loans Company to have their maintenance grant re-assessed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for staying for that point of order.
We will now suspend for three minutes. Please be careful as you leave or enter the Chamber.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 1 October 2020 (PDF) - (1 Oct 2020)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill. It makes technical changes for one year only that will ensure that state pensions can still potentially be uprated, despite the likely fall in earnings. This will allow the Government to maintain a manifesto commitment to the pensions triple lock policy, providing peace of mind to pensioners about their financial health. It will also allow for potential increases for the poorest pensioners who are in receipt of pension credit, as well as uprating widows’ and widowers’ benefit in industrial death benefit.
As I set out with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), in our letter to all right hon. and hon. Members last week, each year the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my good self, is required by law to conduct a review of certain benefit and pension rates to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings. If there is a rise, then there is a requirement to uprate the state pension and benefits at least in line with that increase.
In accordance with the usual process, I will undertake that review of social security rates shortly and will report to Parliament on the outcome of the review in November. However, if there has been no increase in the general level of earnings, there are currently no legal powers for the Government to bring forward an uprating order. Since 2011, the Government have used average weekly earnings growth from May to July as the basis for the review. The provisional figure for that period, published by the Office for National Statistics on 15 September 2020, shows a decline in earnings of 1% due to the economic impacts of covid-19. Confirmed figures will be published later this month. Owing to the challenging economic circumstances, average weekly earnings are expected, unfortunately, to show no growth this year. Therefore, this Bill will temporarily amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 for one year only to grant discretionary powers to increase these rates irrespective of the growth or indeed fall in earnings.
The Bill covers the basic state pension, the new state pension, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, and widows’ and widowers’ benefits in industrial death benefit. Those benefits are linked in primary legislation to earnings. The Bill does not extend to benefits that are linked to prices. I will review those under the existing powers in the 1992 Act.
The Bill largely covers reserved matters for Great Britain. On the one element that is devolved to Scotland, Scottish Ministers laid a legislative consent motion, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament yesterday. Under the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, the Department for Communities has the power to mirror the uprating order made under the Act that applies in Great Britain. The Northern Ireland Executive can make a corresponding order under their existing power, which mirrors the outcome of the Secretary of State’s review without the need for new primary legislation in Northern Ireland.
The Bill must receive Royal Assent by mid-November to allow the review to be completed. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent ahead of this deadline, the current legislation will apply, and state pensions will almost certainly remain frozen.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; I know that she has other business this afternoon. As well as uprating, many of us in the House have a concern about the lack of uptake of pension credit. Will she tell us what measures her Department will take to ensure that there is a better uptake of that particular benefit?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We always want to encourage people to take up benefits to which they are entitled. There was an extensive amount of advertising earlier in the year, which was linked into GP surgeries and other public places, in order to encourage that uptake. The changes that the BBC has made in regard to the TV licence has also encouraged some people to take that up. We will continue to try to encourage people to access the benefits to which they are entitled.
If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent ahead of the deadline, the current legislation will apply and it is almost certain that state pensions will remain frozen. The prompt passage of the Bill is essential, which is why I am grateful to the usual channels and the House for expediting this important legislation. In our discussions with the shadow Front-Bench team, we were able to highlight that there has been similar legislation, with a clause in the Welfare Reform Act 2009, to give similar flexibility to the then Secretary of State in consideration of uplifting benefits.
I have set out that this is a technical but important Bill. The Government have worked hard to protect people of all ages during the pandemic by strengthening the welfare safety net, introducing furlough and income protection schemes, as well as supporting those who have lost their jobs to try to help them get back into work. It is right that we also provide protection to our pensioners. Provided the Bill has passed into law by the time I conduct my annual review next month, those pensions and benefits need not remain frozen next year and we will provide our pensioners with important peace of mind.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on Second Reading of the Bill today. I would like to express my thanks to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for the discussions the three Front Benchers have had in relation to this legislation.
As with so many things during the coronavirus pandemic, we find ourselves in an unusual situation that calls for an unusual course of action. It is an extremely sad and regrettable consequence of the pandemic that we expect that national earnings will be negative this year. That statistic tells its own story about the hardship many families are facing at the moment. However, the added complication this brings, as the Secretary of State explained, is that when earnings are negative, there is no legal power to increase state pensions at all, and this also affects the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit and some survivors’ benefits in industrial death benefit.
This is due to the drafting of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, and we need to correct that with the legislation before us today. As the Secretary of State said, there is a precedent for this. The previous Labour Government encountered a similar problem following the global financial crisis and brought forward similar legislation. I therefore believe that the correct and constructive course of action today is to ensure the passage of these powers through the House of Commons. It is clearly in the national interest and in the interests of Britain’s pensioners to address this problem.
The Bill is extremely limited in length and in scope, applying only to this financial year. However, I believe this is an appropriate opportunity to seek some information regarding the Department’s intentions in this area. I was pleased to see in the explanatory notes to the Bill that the Government stated they wanted the Bill passed
“to meet its commitment to the Triple Lock.”
In the comments the Secretary of State has made, she has reiterated that commitment, which I very much welcome. Labour believes that everyone deserves financial security in retirement, and we believe the cornerstone of that is a decent state pension, properly indexed to ensure it keeps its value for future generations of pensioners. That is why we will hold the Government to account to ensure that they keep their manifesto promises.
One of the things I find so frustrating in the national conversation about pensions is the way that rising longevity is sometimes presented as a public policy problem, rather than something to be celebrated. For many of us in the Chamber today, our grandparents worked very hard lives, yet had very little by way of retirement. My grandfather, for instance, worked 51 years down the same coalmine, yet never owned his own home or was able to travel abroad. So we should celebrate, as a country, that in a relatively short space of time our expectations of retirement have been transformed, and we should thank those who came before us who founded the national health service, raised the school leaving age and improved health and safety in the workplace, because that increased longevity. It is their legacy, and it is an achievement, rather than a problem.
We know and appreciate that the pandemic poses additional problems for the way in which we calculate how we should uprate pensions. The volatility of earnings in the crisis means that we are likely to be faced by the opposite problem when we are discussing this in future years—when it comes to the calculation, for instance, for 2022. Distortion in the earnings statistics as wages bounce back from their 2020 fall due to furlough and unemployment could create a significant one-off jump in earnings in 2021. I would like to know from the Secretary of State how her Department is planning for this eventuality when calculating the triple lock.
One suggestion, as outlined in a recent report by Lane Clark & Peacock, is that the disruption in earnings statistics could be smoothed by applying the principles of the triple lock over two years instead of one. Its conclusion is that, if this is applied, the most likely outcome would be that the triple lock could be delivered over two years by subsequent increases of 2.5% in both April 2021 and April 2022. I know many people are anxious to know what the Government are planning to do in this scenario. I wonder if the Government could elaborate on what options are being considered, and if there is an intention to continue the triple lock across future years of this Parliament in line with the manifesto commitment from the Government in December last year.
Finally, I would appreciate it if the Minister, when summing up, confirmed the Government’s intentions on the timeline for bringing forward proposals for the annual uprating of all social security benefits. At a time of such significant national economic insecurity, there is understandable anxiety about this. That is the point at which we will be able to have a full and involved debate on the Floor of the House on what is being proposed.
I would say, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, that when the Government themselves admit that a further 4 million jobs could be lost, any suggestion that benefits for unemployed people could be cut in April would be met with the strongest opposition from these Benches. Today, however, I welcome this Bill to ensure that the Government can fulfil their promise to pensioners. We want to make Britain the best country in the world for people to grow up and a place where retirement is a time of leisure, dignity and fulfilment, however that may come. There is no doubt that this legislation is a requirement of a pension system that can deliver that.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
As I recover from my nosebleed from being so high up the call list today, I should say that I do enjoy these sparsely attended debates, which give us all an opportunity to expound a little.
Covid has obviously had a huge impact on all our lives and arguably led to the elderly in our communities having to make some of the biggest sacrifices. During the worst of the pandemic, they rightly shielded to protect themselves and their families. As restrictions have eased, many have provided vital childcare to their children and grandchildren, allowing younger generations to get back to work. As the Government have already provided extensive financial support to many young people in our communities through schemes such as kickstart, it is right that the elderly are not forgotten during this pandemic and that their support mechanisms are reinforced.
I am glad to support the Bill and pleased to hear the Opposition’s keenness to pass it swiftly, as it will provide pensioners with much-needed financial security and stability. It is right that those who have spent much of their life working hard and contributing to the UK economy continue to receive the support they deserve. As other welfare benefits have been strengthened and increased over the past few months, it is only fair that the same principle is applied to state pensions. With nearly a quarter of my constituents in Delyn aged over 65, I know that they will be thankful for the Government’s efforts to ensure with this Bill that pensioners are properly supported, especially after the potentially devastating financial impact of covid.
The Bill rightly allows the Secretary of State to uprate the basic state pension, new state pensions and other benefits for the next tax year. Pensioners should not have to make further sacrifices because of the impacts of covid by seeing their state pension remain at a stagnant level. Instead, we should protect our pensioners and their incomes by ensuring that state pension increases are safeguarded, even if earnings do not increase.
As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, without this Bill the existing legislation could prevent any state pension increases next year, just when financial support will be needed most, partly to tackle the economic consequences of covid. I commend the foresight of the Department for Work and Pensions in bringing forward the Bill, as many would have simply assumed, as I did, that the triple lock would persist, without realising that the wording in the 1992 Act may preclude that, leaving many pensioners surprised at not receiving their normal annual increase.
The Bill is another good example of the Government following through on their promises to the people of the United Kingdom. The triple lock on pensions, introduced in 2010, is structurally more generous than its predecessor process. It is important to bear in mind that the generosity in the benefit is locked in once supplied, as its effects compound over time. For example, the full basic state pension for an individual this year is almost 9% higher than it would have been had it been CPI indexed in the past decade, and almost 8% higher than if it had been earnings linked. It is therefore a policy that has been of real benefit to pensioners over the past 10 years.
Sadly, however, pensioner poverty is a real and pressing problem facing many of our communities across the whole United Kingdom. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report last year on UK poverty revealed that more than 2 million pensioners are living in poverty or on a low income. That is often due to low benefit take-up. One of the key benefits, mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West in his intervention, is pension credit, which currently has one of the lowest take-up rates of any income-related benefit, with more than 1 million people missing out. I mentioned that to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during last week’s business questions. Statistics provided by Independent Age’s campaign to increase pension credit take-up estimate that more than 1,500 pensioner households in my constituency of Delyn are missing out on a total of £3.2 million.
I pay tribute to the outstanding work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, her whole ministerial team, but I urge Ministers to work with charities such as Independent Age to increase the awareness and take-up of much-needed benefits such as pension credit. Although the Bill will help to address the issue of poverty and ensure that pensioners have greater levels of income, more needs to be done to ensure that no pensioner is left behind and that the needs of our senior citizens are fully considered in the Government’s levelling-up agenda. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, along with Treasury Ministers, will in future ensure that there is a serious discussion to be had with regard to intergenerational fairness in the longer term.
I am glad to be a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, which is a party for all and is supporting individuals throughout the United Kingdom regardless of age, whether that be helping young people into new jobs via the kickstart scheme, providing free access to college courses to increase the skills of the workforce, or, through this Bill, bringing peace of mind to pensioners about their financial security.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). I will be picking up on similar themes to those he mentioned.
We welcome this Bill, as it enables the uprating of the state pension and pension credit despite a fall in earnings. We would expect the Government to uprate them accordingly and ensure that everyone can benefit. As the Secretary of State said, the purpose is to ensure that we meet the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit and other benefits. According to the Office for National Statistics, earnings fell by 0.1% in the three months to July 2020 as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government have said that they are committed to ensuring that the Bill will allow them to meet the requirements of the triple lock. We would certainly expect that. The triple lock was a manifesto commitment from the Government, but it was very much supported across the House.
Without this Bill, the existing legislation would mean that the Secretary of State would probably not be able to increase the relevant benefit and pension rates. They would remain frozen, as happened in 2016-17 when the consumer prices index in the 12 months to September 2015 showed a negative growth rate of 0.1%. We therefore certainly welcome the Bill. As the Secretary of State indicated, it also applies to industrial death benefit, which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, where there has been an agreement with a legislative consent motion. The Scottish Government are committed to expediting the timetable to match that of the Government here.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that unemployment shocks to older workers, many of whom have lost their jobs or will do so when the furlough scheme ends, could have severe implications for individuals’ retirement savings, and therefore long-term effects on their living standards in retirement. We should be very wary of that going forward, not just in discussing this Bill.
On pension credit, we encourage the Government to look at ways of ensuring that there is uptake of that benefit. There are really alarming statistics from the charity Independent Age about the numbers of pensioners who could be in poverty. We really want to ensure that pensioners are kept out of poverty by increasing uptake. I press the Government, once again, to look at as many imaginative and creative ways as they can to ensure that pension credit is taken up, because the statistics, not just in my constituency but in every constituency across the UK, are pretty alarming. I have tried holding constituency events myself to make sure that the benefit is taken up. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), knows that I have raised the issue of uptake of pension credit with him many times.
We start from the principle that just as the national health service was created to protect all in time of need, the social security system should do the same. I encourage the Government to ensure that the £20 uplift to universal credit remains permanent and is extended to all legacy benefits. There are some really dire predictions. The Trussell Trust forecasts that food bank use could surge by a staggering 61% in the coming months, which would be equivalent to 846,000 parcels being given out. Behind these statistics are families hit by the pandemic and in desperate need of support.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity—I am sure that the Minister would think it remiss of me not to do so—to suggest that the social security system should be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where we would make sure that the job was done. The Scottish Parliament has now initiated the Scottish child payment, which will be open for applications in November, with the first payments to start in February 2021, providing low-income families with an additional £10 a week initially for each child under the age of six. We will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading, but I look forward to proposing some amendments in Committee.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the case that the Secretary of State has made: that the Bill is needed because in all likelihood there will be no growth in earnings this year. In those circumstances, it is right for the Government to take the action needed, as we are doing this afternoon, to increase the state pension and linked benefits, including the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit.
Like other Members, I want to say a few words about pension credit, because it has proved a very effective tool for reducing pensioner poverty since it was introduced in October 2003. The hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Delyn (Rob Roberts) were quite right to ask about the take-up of pension credit. I heard the answer that the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, and I would be interested to know what the outcome of those efforts has been. She made an interesting point about what the BBC has done. Does the Minister have any information on whether those changes have led to increased take-up of pension credit? The most recent figures, for 2017-18, show that only six in 10 of those eligible were claiming it, and only 70% of the total amount of pension credit that could have been claimed was in fact being claimed.
Beyond the measures in the Bill, it would be helpful to hear a little more about what further plans the Government have to tackle pensioner poverty. The Social Metrics Commission, chaired by the noble Baroness Stroud in the other place, estimated in its 2020 report that 1.3 million pension-age adults are living in poverty, and the Government’s own figures for pensioners living in relative poverty after housing costs is higher still, at 1.9 million.
The number of pensioners living in poverty had fallen substantially, thanks largely to the introduction of pension credit. However, as others have rightly reminded us, over the past five years or so those numbers have started to go in the wrong direction. That is reflected in the Social Metrics Commission’s measurements. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—the hon. Member for Delyn drew attention to its “UK Poverty 2019-20” report—makes the point that:
“For years, pensioner poverty decreased across the UK, but now those that are single, have non-white ethnicity or have a landlord, are seeing increases.”
The hon. Member for Delyn quoted the troubling rate of pensioner poverty that we are seeing at the moment, with about 2 million UK pensioners living in poverty, with the highest rate of pensioner poverty in London, at 23%. The Bill will ensure that pensioners’ incomes rise during a period of no increase in earnings, or possibly even a fall in the value of earnings.
I welcome the fact that the Government are taking these steps, but it is not only pensioners we need to be concerned about, as other Members have mentioned already. What will the Government be doing for people of working age who are facing rising unemployment and loss of income? Is there a risk that, on its own, the Bill will exacerbate existing intergenerational unfairness? We are debating the Second Reading of the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, but there are some benefits up-rating matters that the Bill does not address. The Social Metrics Commission’s 2020 report estimated that 8.5 million people of working age are living in families in poverty, and concluded:
“The older you are, the less likely you are to be in poverty. 33% of children aged four and under are in poverty, compared to 23% of those aged between 40 and 44 and 10% of those aged 75 and over.”
The Select Committee, in its first report in this Parliament—on the DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak—welcomed the £20 a week increase in the rate of universal credit at the start of the pandemic. The Secretary of State has already referred to that increase, which was introduced to last for a year. The Committee recommended:
“now that the initial surge of Universal Credit claims has mostly been handled, the Department should immediately seek to increase the rates of relevant legacy benefits by the equivalent amount. This increase should be backdated to April 2020, as recommended by the independent Social Security Advisory Committee.”
Sadly, that recommendation on a unanimous basis by the Select Committee, and the recommendation by the Social Security Advisory Committee, have not been adopted by the Government. It is quite unusual for the Government to ignore a recommendation, which is largely technical in character, brought forward by the Social Security Advisory Committee. In their response to the Select Committee, the Government simply made the point that those other benefits
“were increased by 1.7% in April 2020 as part of the annual up-rating exercise”.
They went on to say that the Department has
“no plans to increase these benefits further at this stage.”
The Secretary of State does have the power to uprate those benefits at her discretion and I very much hope that she will.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill, but pensioners must not be the only people we are concerned about. We need to consider the interests of working age people as well. After such a long freeze in working-age benefits, there is a very strong case for making the £20 a week increase permanent, as was pointed out by over 50 organisations brought together by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation yesterday. The Select Committee has been reflecting on that in its current inquiry on the five-week wait for universal credit, on which we will be publishing a report in the coming weeks.
Whatever the Government’s conclusions on that, I put it to the Secretary of State at the Select Committee yesterday that it would surely be inconceivable for Ministers to cut everybody’s benefit by £20 a week in April before the pandemic was even over. The Secretary of State told me that she is still in “active discussions” with the Treasury over this subject. I suspect that everyone in the Chamber wishes her well in those discussions. We will certainly all be eager to learn the outcome.
Let me reiterate the call made unanimously by the Select Committee that the £20 a week increase should also apply to legacy benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, and employment and support allowance. In our view, it is wrong to have a big discrepancy between the incomes of two people in otherwise identical circumstances based merely on the historical accident of which benefit they happen to be claiming. The rates were the same at the start of the pandemic; they should be the same now.
The main argument at the time for not increasing the legacy benefits was that it would take some time to implement on the rather creaking computer systems through which those benefits are administered. I understand the difficulty, but if work to do that had started in April, the increase could have been implemented around about now. There should certainly be no delay in getting on with implementing it now.
I welcome the measures in the Bill to address the uprating of benefits, but there are some other benefit uprating matters not in the Bill that also require urgent attention.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State and other Members have outlined that state pensions rise each year under the triple lock mechanism, which was introduced by the coalition Government and ensures an increase of whichever is the highest of earnings growth, price inflation or 2.5%. As there is expected to be no average growth in earnings between May and July 2019 and May and July 2020, due to the pandemic, the Government have brought forward this welcome Bill to allow a rise to take place. It also allows for an increase in pension credits. However, the Bill does not state a specific rise in the pension; it simply allows the Government to raise it.
The Liberal Democrats welcome provisions in the Bill that mean all retirees— especially the very poorest, who are claiming pension credits—will see a rise in their benefits. The Government have said that they intend to ensure that the triple lock on the state pension is maintained, but as I said, there is no mention of a specific level of increase in the Bill. It is slightly worrying that the Bill gives the Government the power to raise the state pension but fails to say by how much. If the Government were to raise the state pension by less than 2.5%, they would not be maintaining the triple lock as they have pledged to do. I hope the Minister can explain why there is no such provision in the Bill and commit the Government to at least a 2.5% increase, in line with the triple lock.
It is fair to say that concerns may be expressed about the Bill in relation to intergenerational fairness. Things have been very difficult for young people, whether as a result of issues with exams, what they are now experiencing at university or for those looking to enter the job market. Pensions expert Ian Browne has stated:
“There is a danger that guaranteeing a 2.5 per cent boost to the state pension is perceived to be intergenerationally unfair, given it will provide a considerable boost to pensioners’ income when many others are taking a cut in their pay, working less hours or have lost their jobs altogether.”
The Liberal Democrats support the triple lock on pensions, and I hope the Government do not intend to abandon it. I acknowledge the concerns but would argue that guaranteeing a strong state pension is becoming increasingly critical. It is clear that many working-age people—especially younger people—are not, and are simply unable to be, saving enough for their retirement, and final salary pension schemes are largely a thing of the past. That means that the state pension will become an increasingly important source of retirement income. We tend to think of pensions as supporting older people, but if we were to abandon the triple lock and give smaller and smaller increases over the next few decades, that would erode the retirement income of those who are only just beginning to enter the workplace. I hope the Minister agrees that maintaining the triple lock is imperative for ensuring that the next generation of retirees enjoy a comfortable income.
Another reason why the triple lock is welcome is the position of many older women. Many women rely more on the state pension than men do for their retirement income, as women have traditionally found it harder to build up a private pension due to taking a career break to raise children or to care for relatives. Raising the state pension is therefore critical for many women who rely on it and pension credit for the bulk of their income.
As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said, although it is not addressed in the Bill, there is a risk that the Government will have to scrap the triple lock next year due to an artificial rise in wages. In normal times, the state pension could be expected to increase by about 3% to 4%, and by a minimum of 2.5%, as per the triple lock rules. Given the disruption caused by the pandemic this year, it is highly unlikely that this increase will be far higher, for reasons outlined by other Members. People have lost their jobs in lockdown and been furloughed. As the lockdown lifts, furlough ends, and as the economy recovers, average wage growth will jump significantly. That will show up in the statistics as a massive wage rise, which would mean that the state pension shoots up too. I hope the Minister will give some indication of the Department’s plan for this largely predictable situation.
In short, this Bill is largely uncontroversial and to be welcomed, but there are clearly issues ahead. Although it is clearly an expedited Bill that the Government are looking to pass quickly for the next year only, it remains the case that many will not benefit from the uprating being agreed today—for example, overseas pensioners whose pensions have previously been frozen. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) intends to raise those issues in Committee. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on the elderly and most vulnerable in our society. Providing a degree of financial security is vital, but our approach to pensions must also be considered in respect of future generations and addressing historical inequalities.
Jonathan Reynolds
With the leave of the House, I will briefly respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is not often that we have more speakers than clauses in the legislation before us, but I very much appreciate Members’ contributions. The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) was right to highlight the impact of the pandemic on older people. I do not like the intergenerational aspect that is sometimes put on this crisis. It has affected all groups in society in different ways, and in particular, we all feel strongly about the burden in relation to care homes. Indeed, many of us would quite like to see parents and grandparents when the opportunity hopefully arises again.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made many good points. I agree with him on the take-up of pension credit and the issues around that. Longer term, my preference would be that the new state pension apparatus that was set up in the last Parliament becomes such a satisfactory minimum that pension credit becomes a residual benefit and we do not have the issues that we do around pensioner poverty.
I also very much recognise and agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments on legacy benefits. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee, said, the issue was always given as the time it would take to do the uprating. We are now well into the pandemic and beyond the point where that could have come online had the Government chosen to act.
The wider comments from my right hon. Friend were very welcome. He spoke about pension credit, and it is important to say that it was a conscious choice of the Government post-1997 to address the huge issue of pensioner poverty that had built up; that is what the majority of resources at that point went into. There should not be an automatic linkage between retirement and poverty, as was the case at the end of the 1990s. As ever, I very much welcome all the work the Select Committee has done into the impact of the current crisis on the social security system, and the wider points that have been made.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) strongly supported the triple lock, which I agree with. She made a crucial point on intergenerational fairness, and it was one I was going to make at Committee stage, but I will make it now. Often, in the media commentary around this issue, the intergenerational point is made without reference to the fact that we are not just talking about the level of increase for pensioners today, although someone who has just entered retirement will hopefully, in a very good way, now experience that uprating for several years. We are really talking about what the level of the state pension will be by the time today’s workers retire. That was very much the modelling behind the changes that were made to the single-tier basic state pension. The increase in the retirement age made the overall package of spending on the state pension a reduction overall in order to make it, in the words of the coalition Government at the time, more sustainable. That is an important point to remember when we are talking about cost and the impact on different generations of the changes we are talking about today.
Overall, however, there is rightly a clear consensus in the Chamber for Second Reading to proceed, and I very much welcome the contributions that have been made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I would like to begin by thanking everyone who has spoken in the debate, which has been wide ranging and consensual and has covered a number of topics.
Because this is my first appearance back at the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to raise a personal matter. This is my first appearance since the demise of my twin boys in late June, and I was genuinely struck by the amazing words of commiseration and support that I received across the House from all colleagues. I am deeply grateful, and I know I speak for my wife on that particular point as well.
Moving on, I was struck by the opening point from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on the shadow Front Bench, and it is one I think we should all celebrate in this House: rising longevity is a fantastically good thing, and it is a wonderful problem to have. Clearly, there are policy and fiscal issues that follow it, but it is a genuinely good thing that we are addressing.
Even though the House is not well populated today, I am conscious that before me I have a former Pensions Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who now chairs the Select Committee. I also think that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde was a special adviser—
Guy Opperman
He was an adviser—let’s put it that way—to the previous Labour Government, and he is acutely conscious of the issues that we are dealing with today.
Clearly, there is a delightful sense of a cross-party consensus, but I want to address some of the key points that were raised. People clearly wish to make the case on pensioner poverty, and I will address that. One can trade statistics, but material deprivation for pensioners fell from 10% in 2009-10 to 6% in 2018-19. There are 100,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty before and after housing costs than in 2009-10. Average pensioner incomes have grown significantly in real terms over the past two decades. Average weekly income in 1994-95 was £165 a week after housing costs; that compared with £320 a week in 2018-19. For 2020-21, we are forecast to spend £126 billion a year on pensioners, including £102 billion on state pension. Colleagues will know that that is a record sum spent by any Government in this House in respect of pensioners.
I will attempt to answer some of the particular points that were fairly made on pension credit. It is again the case, and I should put this on record, that pension credit increased significantly under the coalition and then under this Government, from £132.60 to £173.75 for a single person and from £202.40 to £265.20 for a couple. The take-up of pension credit is something that all would like to see increased. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) on that; this is the first chance I have had to respond to him in this House, and it is delightful that he is here. He makes the fair point that it is in all our interests that pension credit be increased.
One of my colleagues asked what had been the impact of the BBC decision. There is no totally granular data on that, but I can assist to a degree: the claims for pension credit, which is what we want to see, were dramatically increased as of July 2020 compared with January 2020. There is definitely a massive increase in claims and clearly a filtering through of the acceptance of said claims. I refer hon. Members to the parliamentary question asked by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), PQ 82024. I will ensure that I put a note of the issue on the record in the Library to answer that particular point and expand upon it.
In respect of pension credit, the Secretary of State was right to identify that we had a significant nationwide campaign in the spring of this year, and that the combination of that and the impact of the BBC decision clearly had an impact on greater take-up. The specific causes of the increase in take-up are hard to assess, but there is no doubt that the take-up has been larger.
In respect of the point raised by various hon. Members about working-age benefits, it is right to say that the Government are proud of the fact that they have provided support during the pandemic for those below state pension age, whether through the plan for jobs, with Kickstart now open for bids across Great Britain and doing very well, increasing the standard allowance in universal credit and working tax credit by £1,040 this year, benefiting 4 million families, investing approximately £9 billion of extra support to protect people’s incomes through the pandemic, removing the seven-day waiting requirement for employment and support allowance claims linked to covid-19, or relaxing the universal credit minimum income floor for self-employed people.
As the Secretary of State said to the right hon. Member for East Ham and the Work and Pensions Committee yesterday, that is a matter that is clearly in her mind and that is to be considered by the Secretary of State. I cannot really add or expand upon the answer that she gave, and it would not be appropriate to comment further, because clearly she has to conduct a review and then return to this House to respond to that review.
Having dealt with the specifics, all colleagues have identified that this is an important piece of legislation, without which the state pension would be frozen for a year from April 2021. It makes technical changes to ensure that state pensions can be uprated, providing peace of mind to pensioners regarding their financial health. It is a one-year Bill, so it is not the case that we are considering the matter beyond the first year. Clearly, this arises out of the covid emergency and its impact on earnings, and it would not be appropriate to address the future at this stage. I believe this Bill is a further demonstration of this Government’s action in support of pensioners, and provides them with financial peace of mind in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
SOCIAL SECURITY (UP-RATING OF BENEFITS) BILL (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 1 October 2020 (PDF) - (1 Oct 2020)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair, in these exceptional circumstances, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee, rather than Deputy Speakers. Excellent.
Clause 1
UP-RATING OF STATE PENSION AND CERTAIN OTHER BENEFITS FOLLOWING REVIEW IN TAX YEAR 2020-21
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from “State” to the end of line 15 and insert—
“shall lay before Parliament the draft of an order which increases each of the amounts referred to in subsection (1) above by a percentage no less than—
(a) the difference between the general level of earnings at the beginning of the period under review and the general level of earnings at the end of that period, or
(b) the difference between the general level of prices at the beginning of the period under review and the general level of prices at the end of that period, or
(c) 2.5%,
(none) whichever is the greater.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to up-rate the benefits to which this Act applies in accordance with the “triple lock” of the higher of increases in prices, increases in earnings or 2.5%.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of its effect on levels of poverty.
(2D) The assessment required by paragraph 2C shall, in particular, consider the impact on levels of poverty in—
(a) Scotland, and
(b) Wales.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the up-rating on levels of poverty, including in Scotland and Wales.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of its impact on persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, including the impact of exempting any such persons from entitlement to up-rating increases granted by the order.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact on those overseas pensioners whose pensions are frozen in accordance with Government policy.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“(2C) No power may be exercised under this or any other Act so as to exempt persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain from entitlement to up-rating increases granted by an order made by virtue of section (2A) of this Act.”
This amendment would ensure that this up-rating applied to all overseas pensioners, including those whose pensions have previously been frozen in accordance with Government policy.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 23, at end insert—
“(2C) No draft order laid before Parliament under section (2A) above may be made in the form of the draft until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an assessment of its impact on those affected by the changes in the state pension age made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011; and that assessment shall, in particular, consider the impact on women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the up-rating on those whose state pension age was changed by the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011, including in particular the group known as the “WASPI women”.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Chris Stephens
It is good to see that social distancing is being applied at all times. It was remiss of me not to welcome the Pensions Minister back to his place. I did send him a private message, and thoughts of him and his wife and family are very much with us all in this House. I do welcome him back.
These are five non-controversial amendments, which I hope— [Interruption.] We seem to have a laugh already from the Minister. I do not know why. He has obviously not read these non-controversial amendments. We have tabled some probing amendments and look forward to his response.
The first amendment is a theme that was picked up on Second Reading by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), which is to ensure that the triple lock is applied in legislation. The Government would have to give an explicit commitment to maintain the triple lock for the year ahead. The amendment seems to speak very much for itself.
Amendment 2 asks for an assessment on poverty, which again was picked up on Second Reading. It is certainly our view that the Government are overseeing some brutal benefit cuts, which have exacerbated poverty, and we require a proper impact assessment of the proposed uprating and the impact that has on poverty levels in each of the devolved nations.
Previous UK Budgets have introduced some fairly punitive cuts to social security—certainly the most punitive in recent memory—and we are starting to see an active reversal of reducing and fighting poverty. The Social Metrics Commission report, which was referred to at an earlier stage, notes that prior to the outbreak 14.4 million people in the UK were already living in poverty, including 33% of children, 22% of all working-age adults and 11% of pension-age adults. The largest employment impacts of covid have been felt by those in the deepest poverty, with many at risk of falling deeper into poverty as a result of job losses, reduced hours or reduced pay. We have tabled amendment 2 to provide for that impact assessment.
Amendments 3 and 4 deal with the issue of frozen pensions. UK pensioners deserve a full uprated state pension, wherever they choose to live. Due to the historical arbitrary bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries around the world, some UK pensioners who live overseas do not have their state pension payments uprated every year. That means that their pension is frozen at the level at which they first received it for the rest of their lives abroad. As of August 2019, that affected over 5,110 UK pensioners, who we believe are being adversely affected by the UK Government’s frozen pension policy. Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance contributions during their working lives in expectation of a decent basic pension and retirement find themselves on incomes that fall in real terms year on year. Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they choose to live in the wrong country, in most cases without any knowledge of the implications of their choice for their pension.
In our view the state pension is a right, not a privilege. UK pensioners who have paid their fair share of national insurance contributions should not have to suffer simply because successive Governments have failed to establish bilateral agreements with certain countries. Therefore, we are asking that amendments 3 and 4 be agreed. I also refer hon. Members to the frozen pensions campaign, of which many hon. Members are members.
Amendment 5 relates to 1950s-born women, an issue that I am sure the Pensions Minister would be disappointed if I did not mention. As a previous Speaker of this House advised in 2015, persistence is not a vice. The amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of uprating on those whose state pension age was changed by the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011, including in particular 1950s-born women, or WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, as they are known.
The numbers of ’50s-born women and men claiming working-age benefits has rocketed, and they should have been receiving their state pension. This is a double whammy, with those with occupational defined-contribution pensions to fill the gap being squeezed even further. Those claiming benefits find themselves having lost Government support in many cases, excluded either due to gaps in national insurance contributions, because of low-paid, precarious work, or because of other parts of household income. We are very aware of the history of 1950s-born women and the inequality they have faced throughout many parts of their lives. They now find themselves discriminated against on the basis of so-called equality, while those losing their jobs or seeking work are being further disadvantaged by an unequal playing field and a shrinking job market.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to our amendments.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for tabling these amendments, which I would describe as probing amendments to have a wider conversation—perhaps “uncontroversial” is too dramatic a description of what we are discussing today.
On amendment 1, to be fair, the Government have given a clear indication in the opening remarks to this debate of their direction of travel and their commitment to the triple lock this year. It is perhaps worth putting on record the figures from the Library, because I see so much commentary on social media and in the press about affordability. As the Minister said earlier, rounded to the nearest billion, this year this country will spend £102 billion on the state pension—not benefits for pensioners, but the state pension. If we had not operated triple lock from 2011, but had just a double lock of prices or earnings, that figure would be around £100 billion. No one would describe a couple of billion pounds as an insignificant amount of money, but in the context of the UK pensions bill it is 1.2% less. If we had no lock and had simply increased the state pension by earnings since 2011, the bill would be £96 billion, which is £5.5 billion less. However, the crucial point is that that is in the context of the worst earnings growth over the last decade that this country has really ever seen—certainly the worst in modern times. Crucially, that would have meant pensioners becoming worse off, because pensions would not have kept up with prices—something that I think no one here would have been happy to see.
I think we all have to acknowledge that the UK state pension is relatively low by international standards. I am not taking a cheap political pop, and it is appropriate to say that the system is obviously much better when we consider it alongside the NHS, because in some pension systems people have to cover their healthcare costs, and we also have top-ups such as pension credit. The overall system is also clearly much better when we factor in private pensions. However, our basic state pension is relatively low compared with other countries. For instance, a typical woman retiring today will still look to the state pension for over half her retirement income. That is a significant point to bear in mind.
As we have heard, when the coalition Government introduced the pensions reforms that came into effect in 2016, the triple lock was a fundamental part of the calculations for the system. The deal was that people would have to retire later and that some people would not be able to create a state pension that was as high as they could previously have done, but that everyone would get a proper index-linked pension at 67, 68 or 69.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I thank colleagues for their contributions and will respond briefly because I accept that these are probing amendments. I will most definitely not take up the opportunity to refight the 2019 election with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), because, frankly, that is probably somewhere he does not wish to go.
On the probing amendment on the triple lock, this is a matter, as was rightly highlighted by the hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State herself was pretty unequivocal about. I also welcome his analysis and appreciation that the state pension should not be viewed in isolation, because, quite clearly, it is one element of the various supported benefits that are available—whether a national health service, free at the point of delivery, or the support that is now going through with automatic enrolment, a cross-party policy developed by the Labour party and the Turner commission. Various Ministers in the Labour Government had brought that policy forward as part of the coalition, and it was then implemented by the Conservative Government. That has clearly had an impact, as has, obviously, the expansion of pension credit, and it should be seen in the round rather than on its own in that particular context.
Clearly, the key policy has been the increase in the basic state pension and the fact that we are now £1,900 larger than we were in 2010. Clearly, this is a matter that all parties in this House are supporting on an ongoing basis. I submit with respect that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should be allowed to bring forward this legislation, as the House seems to deem fit, and should conduct the uprating review and then come back to this House, as she is required to do, and debate the matter in this House.
The issue of pensioner poverty leads me into amendment 5 in respect of the women against state pension inequality. It is unquestionably difficult to predict future poverty rates when one is assessing an impact. The Bill is an enabling piece of legislation. It is not a piece of legislation that then implements a particular policy. There is also a danger with trying to accurately predict future poverty rates, when one is looking at an individual policy and an individual part of a Bill. For example, the published predictions of the Resolution Foundation, which were cited by colleagues earlier on, suggested that relative child poverty after housing costs would increase in 2017-18 when they actually fell. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has not published projections of poverty since 2017.
Let me turn now to the other amendments submitted by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). In respect of the assessment in amendment 3, I submit that there is a “be careful what you wish for” approach. The assessment is unnecessary and, in reality, unfeasible. The reality is that the UK state pension is payable worldwide and given that the socioeconomic conditions of each country vary enormously, it is simply unfeasible to produce a meaningful assessment of the uprating policy’s impact on overseas recipients, and—this is the crucial point—notwithstanding issues regarding feasibility, the timetable for laying a draft order for uprating does not allow for an assessment to be made. If there were to be an assessment, and the amendment was successful, the reality is that that assessment would not be made in time—by November 2020—with the consequence that the state pension would be frozen. I most definitely suggest, with great respect, that that assessment would be a negative idea for all the pensioners who are seeking an increase, potentially by reason of this legislation.
On amendment 4, this is a long-standing policy pursued by successive post-war Governments, who have taken the view that priority should be given to those living in the United Kingdom in drawing up expenditure plans for pensioner benefits. There are no plans to change that policy. The up-rating of the state pension is intended to provide support for pensioners who live in the UK.
I turn to the perennial issue that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise—I do not diminish the fact that he wishes to raise it, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde from the Opposition Front Bench—in respect of the changes to the state pension increase, which were, of course, supported for 13 years by the Labour Government when they were in power and, in fact, were enhanced by the 2007 Act. It is not the Government’s intention to amend the 1995 Act, the 2007 Act or the 2011 Act. Clearly, if the Scottish Government wish to act, sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 give powers to the Scottish Government to intervene in Holyrood if they choose to do so. We would certainly resist any changes in this Parliament.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde about the 2019 election and the debate on that matter, but since then, there has been the Court of Appeal’s decision in respect of the court case, which unequivocally found for this Government, the coalition Government, the Labour Government and the Conservative Government, dating back to 1995 on all issues on these grounds, including notice. With respect, I believe that the matter should rest there.
The long and the short of it is that I would resist the amendments, and I invite the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, with due respect, not to press them.
Chris Stephens
I would love to say that I am shocked and stunned that the Government have not accepted any of the amendments, but that would perhaps be an oversell. As the Minister said, they are probing amendments. He will be well aware that we will return to these topics, and I invite Members of the other place perhaps to pick them up when they discuss the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Fly-tipping: Penalties
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to respond.
Fly-tipping is an issue that blights too many of our communities. It happens in cities, in towns and in the countryside. Those dumping range from selfish individuals to criminal operators, but the effect is the same: the law abiding suffer, and on private land the law abiding are made to pay. Peterborough is a proud city. My constituency also takes in the fens around Eye, Thorney and Newborough, so I see fly-tipping in all its forms, and, quite frankly, I have had enough of it. The people of Paston, Bretton, Werrington, Ravensthorpe and Millfield have also had enough.
At the 2019 election, I put tackling fly-tipping at the very top of my list of priorities. Some argued that this was a local council issue, but I make no apology for demanding action. I know that Peterborough City Council is working hard to tackle the problem, but we all need to do more to help, including the Government. I regularly report fly-tips as I walk around the streets of Peterborough, and on several occasions I have even rolled up my sleeves and cleared up the fly-tips myself.
The village of Newborough regularly has to put up with fly-tips and mess on roads and around the community. The junction of Norwood Lane and Newborough Road is a particularly bad hotspot that many election candidates visited in the run-up to the 2019 Peterborough by-election. Rubbish piles up high and many have stories of travelling for miles to dump rubbish in this spot. It costs Peterborough City Council tens of thousands of pounds to clear up, and even the Daily Mail called it the most fly-tipped road in Britain.
This problem does not stop with rural locations. In the city of Peterborough itself, we are sick and tired of people making our neighbourhoods dumping grounds. People have even said to me that seeing fly-tips, especially during the isolation of lockdown, affected their mental health. The council does a good job and often clears up after 24 hours, but people are beginning to think that this is almost a service. We need more CCTV and stricter fines.
I could talk for hours about specific problems in Peterborough, but I want to return to the overall picture and what the Government should be doing about it at a national level. There are three acknowledged drivers of fly-tipping, large and small: cost, because dumping waste means not having to pay for it; facilities, which can sometimes be difficult to access; and attitude, of the lazy and selfish who want to make their waste somebody else’s problem. I would add a fourth driver, which is acceptability. When some people regularly see fly-tips, they think it is acceptable. Almost half of recorded fly-tips occur on pavements and roads, and these are often carried out by copycat offenders.
Certain locations become hotspots where fly-tipping becomes the norm. I will refer to private land, which the figures do not properly capture, but I am talking now about the cases recorded by councils. A third of cases are classified as equivalent to a small van load, which are often little white vans of illegal operators. Another third of cases would apparently fit in the boot of a car or less. That is the description in the official statistics. I do not know whether our statisticians regard a mattress as fitting a car boot, but mattresses are definitely among the most common items dumped in my city.
When mattresses are dumped and are not removed, other people take the opportunity to add their own rubbish. The mattress is joined by a broken buggy, a dilapidated table, an old fridge, boxes and bags. As the council’s contractors will be coming anyway, why not? It beats the hassle and cost of the tip or arranging a proper collection. That is why we should alter our approach and treat fly-tipping like we do antisocial behaviour; I call it zero tolerance. Obviously innovations help, including advertising dates for bulky waste collection, and improving access to other facilities and services. But above all, we need a quick removal blitz from hotspots and proper punishments.
I want to acknowledge that the Government recognise there is a problem. I welcome previous actions, particularly the introduction of fixed penalty notices for small offences, along with the power to seize vehicles. The ability for a householder to be fined if waste can be traced back to them was an important change, and the Environment Agency has also been given more funding.
However, an emphasis on localism and local approaches must not become an excuse. It may be tempting to think that fly-tipping is now down to local authorities to combat, but what they need is the right guidance, the right support and the right tools—and those are still limited. The work to secure tougher penalties is not in place, nor is a zero-tolerance approach being promoted or resourced, so we cannot say it is just down to councils. It is not clear to me that any council has had notable success on this. The reality is that fly-tipping is with us just as much as ever, and it appears to be getting worse.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, and I congratulate him on bringing forward this very important debate. I am sure he agrees with me and those around the Chamber that one of the pressures on local authorities has been a significant increase during lockdown of people fly-tipping because of their inability to access recycling and other centres. Does he agree, however, that the cost to local authorities such as Warwickshire—£650,000—when budgets are already under huge pressure, is just too much?
Paul Bristow
The hon. Member makes a very important point about the national lockdown and the impact this has had, as well as about the cost associated with clearing up these fly-tips, and I will come on to those specifics. The national lockdown has had very different effects and, unfortunately, life is far from back to normal. My own anecdotal evidence in Peterborough does not lead me to expect any drop in numbers of fly-tips over time; if anything, the reverse is true.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the attitudinal change during lockdown, as was picked up by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) as well. The people of Muggleswick, Weardale and Knitsley in my constituency have seen huge increases during lockdown. Does my hon. Friend fear, as I do, that unless we see a change to the attitudinal change driven by lockdown, we are going to see this problem persist well into the future?
Paul Bristow
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If anything, I think the problem has got worse. A survey that sampled councils in August suggested that over half are experiencing high volumes of fly-tipped waste. The possibility was foreseen in the Government’s own pandemic guidance to councils in April, which noted the potential for increased fly-tipping, especially where collections have failed.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend while he is making progress, but in my own constituency, around Totnes and Dartmouth, we have seen a significant increase in fly-tipping. There has also been a problem with access to recycling centres, and in finding a balance in being able to allow such access to prevent people from littering the countryside and ruining our historic areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Paul Bristow
Again, my hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. In Peterborough, my experience is that fly-tipping dropped almost by a quarter when a new super-recycling centre was opened. Huge progress was made, but I fear that a lot of that progress has been lost. There is a clear distinction between clearing fly-tips and enforcement, and I hope the Local Government Association is wrong when it concludes that the unfortunate reality is that enforcement will not be prioritised at this time, and this is likely to have a long-term impact on waste management services.
Sometimes evidence is easy to find. One fly-tip on the site of a local Peterborough business was actually traced back to a Peterborough City Labour councillor not because of rooting through the fly-tip, but because of the enormous “Vote Labour” poster that featured front and centre of it. However, to their credit, the family of the councillor in question cleared up the mess personally when it was pointed out to them that that might be a decent thing to do. It was revealed that they had paid an unlicensed trader to dispose of it. Unfortunately, this is becoming too much of a business for people who would profit from this disreputable way of clearing rubbish.
One positive this year was the Budget, in which the Chancellor announced £2 million to improve the evidence about where fly-tipping happens and the best ways to deter it. I would welcome an update from the Minister on how that work is progressing.
The law makes fly-tipping a criminal offence. The sentencing guidelines were updated several years ago. They allow courts to hand out a maximum fine of £50,000 or a maximum sentence of 12 months. The problem is that this rarely happens. To date, there have only ever been a handful of maximum fines issued to fly-tipping criminals.
Matt Western
I fully agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. I have taken photographs of fly-tipping at the roadside where there has been a broken number plate from a car tipped with other rubbish and asked the authorities to follow it up. The trouble is that all the other demands on the police and local authorities mean that they really struggle with that. Even before the pandemic, there was a significant increase in the number of cases of fly-tipping in 2018-19 versus 2017-18, with up to 12,200 cases in Warwickshire alone.
Paul Bristow
I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In fact, a lot of this problem comes down to guidance. Councils should be given much clearer, much stricter guidance from Government in order to tackle these issues. I will mention that at the end of my speech, which I promise Members is coming soon.
Some 95% of sentences issued are fines of less than £1,000, and the most common penalty is £400. We badly need tougher sentences, not just in terms of the maximum punishments but, more importantly, in terms of those typically handed out. Sentences are not currently acting as a deterrent. I know the Government are committed to reviewing the sentencing guidelines. I appreciate that this is not directly in DEFRA’s hands, but I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that it is coming, and soon.
Although the council’s ability to hand out fixed penalty notices is limited to the less serious offences, it still managed to achieve 76,000. However, only 12,000 were for small-scale fly-tipping. That compares with 37,000 for littering and 26,000 for other offences. It comes back to the ability to catch people and the willingness to enforce. This is where the guidance needs improving. If an aggrieved constituent examines the Government’s guidance, “Fly-tipping: council responsibilities”, they will find nothing resembling the zero-tolerance approach that we need. I want to see a much tougher approach. I am sure that that view is shared by many hon. Members.
Much of this needs guidance from the centre. The guidance issued for local authorities, “Household waste duty of care: fixed penalty notice guidance”, was updated in December 2018. It encourages what it calls a “proportionate” response and says:
“Individuals should not be penalised for minor breaches”.
I understand why that is, especially when dealing with vulnerable people, but the tone and language is unhelpful. I would want guidance to reflect the language of zero tolerance, which I believe the people of Peterborough and the rest of the country are crying out for. Fixed penalty notices, as they stand, are inadequate. When the minimum penalty is just £150, many unlicensed traders, individuals and landlords will consider that a penalty worth taking a risk for. The level of fines should be considerably higher. Upping the penalties may require legislation, but I urge Ministers to consider it. In doing so, they would have the overwhelming support of the people of Peterborough and, indeed, Members of this House.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for securing this debate and giving us all a chance to raise this issue on behalf of our constituents.
Nationally, locating, managing and removing waste left by fly-tipping costs the UK economy about £600 million a year. Besides the financial costs, there is the impact it has on neighbourhoods and streets in places like Crewe. Across the Cheshire East area in 2019, there were 3,791 incidents of fly-tipping. That led to the taxpayer bearing the costs of clearing up almost 3,000 incidents. In the first half of 2020, there had already been almost 2,000 further incidents of fly-tipping.
Sadly, more than half of all the incidents across Cheshire East have taken place in Crewe in my constituency. The overwhelming majority of Crewe’s residents are proud of their town. They want to play their part in keeping their street clean and decent, and one they can be proud of. Sadly, all it takes is a small number of people to decide that they are going to put themselves and what makes their life easier first, and everyone suffers as a result. The people of Crewe have not taken this problem lying down. The local campaign group Crewe Residents Against Fly-Tipping has more than 1,700 members, and they diligently raise awareness of this problem and repeatedly report fly-tipping to the council.
That brings me to the issue of prosecution, which is just as important as the level of fine and making the most of the maximum fines available. Thanks to the local democracy reporting of the Crewe Chronicle and Chester Live, we now know that, despite those thousands of instances of fly-tipping, there were only two prosecutions for fly-tipping in Cheshire East last year. That is simply unacceptable. There is little value in having fines or raising the minimum level if prosecutions are not taking place.
I have spoken to residents who feel that they have provided enough evidence to the council when reporting fly-tipping, and again and again nothing gets done. In the long run, that leads to their not bothering to report it anymore, because they do not see the point. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how we can ensure that local councils take the zero-tolerance approach to this issue that our residents want to see and that is fair to those who are investing their time in ensuring that their local area is one to be proud of.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
May I first place on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for holding this debate? He has homed in on an issue that wreaks havoc in my constituency and, as evidenced by the debate, in constituencies across the nation.
Oh, I must speak frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker: fly-tipping doesn’t half get on my wick! I have absolutely no desire to talk around it. If someone fly-tips in their community, they are a criminal, and they must be treated as such. It is the epitome of selfishness, mindlessness and idleness. There is no excuse for dumping waste on other people’s doorsteps or in some of our treasured green spaces. In some cases, it is harmful to our natural environment and wildlife. In all cases, it is left to somebody else to clean it up. I know that my local authority does all it can to catch those who dump or drop and run. In the last week, my council has collected 21 mattresses from one estate.
Solving the issue is about making individuals who do not think at all to think twice. We have tough penalties at our disposal, but all too often, they are not applied. The guidance is not clear, and we need to give our councils the guidance and the structure they need to know that they can go and whack these people in the pocket. I must confess that, in the white heat of frustration about this issue, I have occasionally thought that those who fly-tip should have their dumpings unceremoniously returned to their doorsteps. However, I concede that when they go low, we should go high—and that should be high fines. Let us hit them in the pocket, making use of the £50,000 maximum fine.
Paul Bristow
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe)—who wishes that she could be here for the debate—and our local campaigns that it should not be the job of the council simply to clear up the fly-tipped waste? Councils should give greater priority to going through the waste, investigating whose it is and then taking enforcement action.
Matt Vickers
Definitely. We need to make it clear to councils that that is where the responsibility lies and that, if they go to the trouble of applying big fines, we are on their side and right behind them.
I feel particularly strongly about this issue at present, given the recent efforts of communities to come together, do the right thing, be selfless, do things for their neighbours and make their communities a better spot. People have been out in the countryside enjoying green spaces more, because they have not been going to work, and it is wrong that one or two people should spoil it for the rest of us. I think about the work put in by the Thornaby community litter-picking team, who go out every Sunday morning—quite early, I might add—to do their bit to keep their community a place to be proud of. They are let down by one or two people, and it cannot go on. Twenty-one mattresses on an estate in Thornaby is just not good enough, and we need to do something about it.
A small minority are placing a huge burden on already overstretched local authorities. They cannot get off scot-free. It is not acceptable, and we have to do something about it. I really hope that today’s debate pushes the issue up the agenda. We must strive to ensure that all the agencies—local authorities, police, landowners and the Environment Agency—work together, in the knowledge that they are backed by everybody in this place, to bash out those tough penalties, hit fly-tippers in the pocket and find the solution that so many people are calling for today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) on securing this debate and raising this issue. That there is such a good turnout for a Thursday Adjournment debate demonstrates how fired up people are about this issue. My inbox demonstrates that, too; it is one of the top issues I get letters about as a constituency MP and now as the litter Minister.
I agree with all Members who have contributed to the debate that fly-tipping is unacceptable, and it is worth pointing out at the outset that it is illegal. I want to give assurances that I am committed to tackling what is basically a blight on society in every way, as has been outlined by so many so vociferously in this debate.
Of course, I sympathise with the victims of fly-tipping, plenty of whom contacted me during the lockdown, among them my own father. I grew up on a farm and he has to go out weekly to tackle incidents of fly-tipping. He recounted one again this very week, when he had to get the low-loader out and drive to a very remote track—I do not know how anybody ever found it—to retrieve another load of stuff that had been dumped there, so I certainly understand the frustrations. We all want to live in a lovely environment, and lockdown has highlighted how much we value our green space and our nature.
The Government remain absolutely committed to preventing fly-tipping, and I hope that what I am going to say will give some reassurance that measures are in place. Lots of measures have been strengthened, but there are lots more measures coming on track that I believe will help. Indeed, many of them have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I will touch on those shortly. Equally, however, I have discovered that, as with most things we touch in government, nothing is as straightforward as it initially appears, and it is not just a simple question of raising fines. It is more complicated than that, as I have discovered, and a lot of levers need to be in place if we really are to get to grips with this—and I really hope we do get to grips with it.
The role of central Government is very much to support local action, providing the legal framework of rights, responsibilities and powers, setting the national standards, and, where possible, making sure that the costs of dealing with fly-tipping are passed on to those responsible. I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging that the Government have already acted. Over the past five years, the Government have given new powers to local authorities to tackle fly-tipping and strengthened those already available to them, and those include enhancing powers to search and seize vehicles of suspected fly-tippers and granting the power to issue fixed penalty notices of up to £400 to those guilty of fly-tipping and, as of January 2019 to those householders whose waste is found fly-tipped.
The levels of fixed penalty notices were set following a call for evidence, and the value of fixed penalty notices for those whose waste is found fly-tipped was confirmed during a consultation in 2018. So a lot of work went into fixing those penalties when they were raised. Fixed penalty notices provide local authorities with an efficient mechanism to hold fly-tippers to account without having to go to court, which can be time-consuming, resource-intensive and expensive.
Should a local authority take someone accused of fly-tipping to court, the sentences available to the court are severe. Upon conviction in a magistrates court, fly-tipping is punishable by a fine of up to £50,000, 12 months’ imprisonment or both, and the punishments increase to an unlimited fine, up to five years’ imprisonment or both if convicted in a Crown court. Sentences for fly-tipping offences are handed down based on the environmental offences sentences guidance published by the independent Sentencing Council.
The guidance includes, however, a requirement to consider the offender’s ability to pay. Sometimes we get the criticism that the courts are not setting high enough sanctions or fully using the penalties and fines within their powers, but there is a requirement when deciding on the severity of the sentence that consideration be given to whether the accused can afford to pay the penalty, and that sometimes leads to slightly lower penalties being imposed.
In 2018-19, 2,397 prosecutions were brought against fly-tipping offenders, which was an increase on the number for 2017-18. Of those brought to court, 2,052 were issued with a fine, which was an increase of 6% compared with 2017-18. The total value of fines issued by magistrates courts also increased to just over £1 million, which was an increase of 29% compared with 2017-18. So the figures are going up and the measures are starting to work. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough will say that is not yet enough, but we are on the right trajectory.
Matt Western
Those figures are really interesting and pleasing to hear, but 3,000, which is the national figure, when compared with 12,200 for the number of cases in Warwickshire, obviously represents a very small percentage indeed. I hear the points being made across the Chamber, but of course we cannot bash local authorities because they have had significant budget cuts and face huge pressures. I would like to see them do more, as I am sure the Minister would too.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there are other measures that I believe will help local authorities, and there are certain reasons why they have been unable to tackle all the incidents he mentions.
We have previously worked with the Sentencing Council to amend sentencing guidance for magistrates, but I acknowledge that the sentences handed down do not always reflect the severity of the crime committed or the costs borne by the victim. It is for this reason that the Government committed in our manifesto to increasing penalties for fly-tipping, and we acknowledged in our waste and resources strategy that there is more to do to strengthen sentences, especially in magistrates courts.
Therefore, working with our partners in the national fly-tipping prevention group, which is chaired by DEFRA, we will continue to work with the Sentencing Council and the Judicial Office to explore ways of ensuring that the penalties handed down for fly-tipping are appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised this issue, and we are working on the sentencing, so this is in train.
The national fly-tipping prevention group has previously published a series of fly-tipping prevention guides, which include a recommendation for private landowners to consider installing appropriate deterrence signage and CCTV cameras, in recognition of the part that such measures can play. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for his suggestions. It is important to note that increasing the penalties for fly-tipping is not the only approach that can be used to tackle this unacceptable crime. As he alluded to, our waste and resources strategy sets out our commitment to prevent, detect and deter waste crime, including fly-tipping.
The Government have been significantly impacted by coronavirus, but my officials are working hard to deliver on those commitments. Even during the lockdown we continued working on the strategy and on the waste measures. This includes developing a web-based fly-tipping toolkit to help local authorities and others, working in partnership, to tackle fly-tipping. In Hertfordshire, such an approach, using measures suggested by the toolkit, has seen incidents of fly-tipping fall by 10% in the first year. I have been asked whether this is working anywhere, and this shows that some local authorities are being successful in tackling fly-tipping. Lots of those ideas have been copied. The toolkit is still being worked on but will be available shortly. We think that it will help local authorities, for example by allowing them to follow best practice from other local authorities.
I am aware that in some instances, where a fly-tipper is taken to court, it is felt that the penalty does not always reflect the crime. Therefore, the toolkit also provide advice to local authorities taking fly-tippers to court on how to present a robust case, because often they take them to court but still they do not get the correct fine. So help and advice is out there for the local authorities too, to go armed with the right data and so on, so that the magistrates or the Crown court will give out the correct penalty or fine.
We are aware that a significant proportion of fly-tippers are those who masquerade as legitimate waste carriers before illegally dumping their customers’ waste. We are therefore working to reform the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime, and the Environment Bill, which we hope will come to Committee very soon, will contain powers to introduce the mandatory electronic tracking of waste, which will obviously be subject to consultation. That will, among other things, reduce the ability of waste criminals to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste, and deter illegitimate operators from entering the sector. It will help to ensure that waste is dealt with appropriately, reducing instances where waste is not tracked and drops out of the system, which unfortunately does happen. We intend to consult on these proposals in 2021.
The Bill, which we hope will receive Royal Assent in 2021, includes a number of other measures to help tackle waste crime. As well as granting the power to regulate for the creation of a mandatory electronic waste-tracking system, it will simplify the process for enforcement authorities to enter residential or abandoned premises under a warrant without having to wait seven days. The current requirement to wait seven days enables the evidence to be hidden, removed or destroyed, so that change will be genuinely helpful. A new power will also be introduced to search for and seize evidence of waste crime. So there is a lot going on.
The Bill will reduce costs and bureaucracy when the police seize vehicles involved in waste crime on behalf of the Environment Agency. It will do so by removing the current practice whereby that is automatically done on behalf of the relevant waste collection authority unless an Environment Agency officer is present, and it will allow the police to seize a vehicle on behalf of the regulator. It should speed up the process and make it quicker and more proactive.
In addition, the Bill will allow for the level of fixed penalty notices to be amended through secondary legislation, so the calls in this place for higher penalties could become a possibility through secondary legislation. So we are listening to all these comments.
These extensive new powers, which have been widely discussed with stakeholders, will aid us in our fight to ensure that waste criminals, such as illegitimate waste operators reliant on fly-tipping for income, are held accountable for their actions.
I am pleased to update my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough on the Budget, which allocated half a million pounds in 2021 to support innovative approaches to tackling fly-tipping. We are exploring those funding opportunities and priorities right now. We are considering the role that mobile and web-based applications and research projects could play in tackling fly-tipping. As my hon. Friend mentions, our annual fly-tipping statistics currently report fly-tipping incidents recorded by local authorities, but they exclude those incidents on private land. He makes an extremely good point, which has been raised by many other people. We are therefore exploring ways that we could plug that data gap by potentially using mobile digital apps to record information. That could be extremely useful.
Before I wrap up, I want to acknowledge the incredible pressure that local authorities have been under during the coronavirus lockdown. It has been mentioned by many people, but in all honesty, I and DEFRA have been working really hard with the waste industry to get those household waste and recycling centres open—which they have done pretty quickly, considering what had hit them. They shut down initially, but they are pretty much all up and running now. I pay tribute to the whole sector, which has worked so hard.
As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully sympathise with hon. Members on this issue. I recognise that there are a lot concerns. The case has been very well made. I hope it is clear that extensive action is under way to cut down on unacceptable waste. There is a lot in the waste and resources strategy and the Environment Bill, and the national fly-tipping prevention group is working on all these measures. I hope that that gives a bit of reassurance that we are trying to crack down on this problem. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for bringing the issue to us today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. What an informative debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statement
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
As the covid-19 incidence rate continues to rise across the country, a suite of local and national action is required to break the trains of transmission and enable people to maintain a more normal way of life.
The Government will act swiftly and decisively to limit further spread, reduce disruption and contain local outbreaks. The local action committee command structure reviewed the latest evidence during two urgently convened meetings yesterday, in which we worked with local leaders and the scientific community to assess the data and consider whether further evidence was required.
Despite local interventions being put into place in the north-west of England since 5 August, the latest data in the seven day period 19-25 September, shows a continuing increase in incidence rates per 100,000 population and also the percentage of positive test results, especially within the Merseyside region. The impact of this has resulted in increased hospital admissions and ICU occupancy in the Merseyside area.
As a result, from 00:01 on Saturday 3 October we are implementing stricter restrictions in regulations to apply across the Merseyside region, which consists of Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral and for these purposes also Hatton and Warrington. The new restriction will prohibit inter-household mixing in any indoors venue, unless there is an exemption in place. This restriction includes hospitality, leisure, retail and entertainment venues (including bars, pubs and restaurants).
We reviewed the position in the north-east. In addition to the north-east measures we announced last week, from 00:01 on Saturday 3 October we are also implementing further regulations in the form of a regional approach to Hartlepool and Middlesbrough to replicate the restrictions in place since 30 September in Durham County, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland. These regulations will prohibit inter-household mixing in any indoors venue, unless there is an exemption in place. This includes hospitality, leisure, retail and entertainment venues (including bars, pubs and restaurants).
We reviewed the level of current interventions in Bolton, and from 00:01 on Saturday 3 October, we will be aligning these with measures in place across the rest of Greater Manchester.
We are also recommending that Sheffield is escalated as an area of enhanced support and that Rotherham, Luton, Wakefield, Barrow-in-Furness, Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester are added to the watchlist as areas of concern.
The recommendation is also that Spelthorne and Hertsmere are removed from the watchlist.
We appreciate that this will be difficult news for the people living in these areas, profoundly affecting their daily lives. These decisions are not taken lightly, and such measures will be kept under review and in place no longer than they are necessary.
There are exemptions to these measures so people can still meet with those in their support bubble. There are other limited exemptions such as for work purposes or to provide care or assistance to a vulnerable person. Through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Linked Childcare Households) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, people may create an exclusive childcare bubble for the purposes of informal childcare for children under 14, helping to ease pressure on those living under local restrictions so they can get to work.
The guidance on gov.uk covering these areas will also be amended to fully reflect these changes.
[HCWS482]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Trade Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 128-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (1 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe their desk, chair and any surfaces they touch. If the capacity of the committee room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, along with lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Committee room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be sought to withdraw amendments. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee.
We will now begin. On the first group, it might help noble Lords to note that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, has withdrawn, so the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans will follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, down twice on the list. He may be preparing to make two speeches, but I hope he forgives me if I call him just once, at the end, before the Minister.
Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements
Amendment 12
Lord Grantchester
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with and are consistent with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by but not limited to—(a) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; (b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s environmental obligations.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lords, Lord Duncan and Lord Oates, for adding their names to this amendment. That it has drawn such widespread support underlines the importance of making climate change, biodiversity and environmental protection central to the United Kingdom’s trade policy—a feature that goes totally unmentioned in the Trade Bill.
I am sure many colleagues across your Lordships’ House believe that achieving the UK’s environmental goals, including net zero by 2050, requires action across all government departments and areas of policy. Trade must be included in that. Trade agreements, including existing EU agreements, typically include national treatment of trade in oil and gas, thereby locking in dependency on fossil fuels, with high greenhouse gas emissions, while incentivising increased fossil fuel infrastructure and even fracking, which would need to be reduced in any continuity agreements.
The risks to the environment from poor trade policies are considerable. Trade agreements could promote the import of cheap higher-carbon goods, effectively off- shoring the UK’s emissions. For example, the EU’s own impact assessment of TTIP, the EU-US trade deal, predicts that it would generate an additional 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. This would be fundamentally at odds with our international climate obligations. We must require our trade policies to be up to date and consistent with our environmental obligations.
There was consensus on Tuesday that modern trade agreements go far wider and deeper in their consequences on domestic policy. New and existing trading relationships also present opportunities for the United Kingdom to promote ambitious biodiversity and environmental standards abroad and strengthen the UK’s economic competitiveness through exports of low-carbon goods and services. This new opportunity represents a market for low-carbon goods, estimated by the Committee on Climate Change to be worth more than £1 trillion a year by 2030.
Amendment 12 simply states that regulations to implement trade agreements cannot be made unless agreements are consistent with and in consideration of the UK’s international obligations. The amendment names three main international protocols specifically—the Paris climate agreement, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity—but is important to recognise that it is not limited to these alone. Indeed, many of the amendments grouped with this one go further and name additional international agreements, notably Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and other noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton.
I will also speak to Amendment 14 in this group, in the names of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This restricts the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations to those that have been rolled over, as originally agreed or substantially similar to trade agreements previously agreed by the UK while a member state of the EU. The powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 2(6) are drawn far too wide and all-encompassing, enabling the Secretary of State to modify any retained EU legislation or primary legislation, as well as to confer discretion to make subordinate legislation, delegate functions and impose penalties. This allows the Government to undermine existing standards across important areas such as food, animal welfare, production methods and environmental protections.
Amendment 22, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, specifically removes from Clause 2(6)(a) its tendency to Henry VIII powers. I am grateful to Greener UK and others for their public support for this amendment, and I welcome the many other similar amendments in the group, underlining how important it is that trade agreements are consistent with the UK’s obligations and endorsed by Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has achieved a precedent for such an amendment by securing climate change protections in the Pension Schemes Bill. This is an opportunity to replicate that provision in this Bill. It stresses that the UK does not want trade agreements that drive a race to the bottom in standards and environmental protections, especially when they contribute to an unacceptable and damaging global footprint. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, I have added my name to Amendment 12 in this group, and will speak to others, notably Amendments 40 and 73. As the noble Lord also said, this group deals with the critical role that trade can play in tackling climate and nature emergencies.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to shape the UK’s future trade policy for the first time in over 40 years, and represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK to show global leadership on climate action in advance of our presidency of COP 26 next year. It allows us the chance to ensure that the UK’s trade policy aligns with existing environmental obligations and the UK’s climate goal of achieving net zero by 2050.
At Second Reading, I raised my concerns that the Bill is currently silent on climate change and highlighted the benefits which can come from ensuring that all our legislation is consistent with climate goals. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, we achieved this with the climate change provisions inserted in the Pension Schemes Bill during its passage through this House. I welcome the Minister’s positive response at Second Reading, when he said that continuity agreements will be consistent with international environmental obligations and Amendment 12 makes this explicit in the Bill. Amendments 40 and 73 go further, to ensure that future trade agreements and trade negotiations also align with our climate ambitions.
On Amendment 40, I particularly support the introduction of sustainability impact assessments. Only with such assessments will Parliament be able to sufficiently scrutinise trade deals against our current obligations made under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act, in the very limited 21-day period that the CRaG Act allows for. Sustainability impact assessments will help to incentivise trade deals which promote low-carbon imports, services and technologies, rather than those that increase global emissions, impacting the health of our planet and our citizens.
The benefits of a long-term future trade policy which can help to meet our climate and environmental goals are enormous and can strengthen the UK’s economic competitiveness through supporting exports of low-carbon goods and services. As has been said, the business opportunities of moving to a low-carbon economy were estimated by the Committee on Climate Change as being worth £1 trillion a year by 2030. UK low-carbon services are estimated to have a growth potential of 12% to 15% a year up to 2030. It makes sense from an economic, social and environmental perspective.
This is being more widely recognised. Business groups such as the Aldersgate Group, an alliance of major businesses, academic institutions, and professional and civil society organisations driving action for a sustainable and competitive economy, support amendments that aim to better align the UK’s trade policy with its environmental and climate goals, and enable sufficient parliamentary scrutiny in doing so. It believes that, without careful reference to climate change and the environment in the Bill, the terms of future free trade agreements could make it harder for the UK to achieve its domestic targets and could undermine the momentum behind its clean growth agenda.
Importantly, any explicit or implicit restrictions on the UK’s ability to implement new climate and environmental standards could create an uneven playing field for British businesses forced to compete with imports abiding by lower climate and environmental standards. The development and ratification of trade deals must also be subject to timely and close parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny. These amendments would ensure much needed consistency between the UK’s trade policy, its international position on climate change and the environment, and its domestic policy and industrial strategy goals, to which the Minister made reference this morning.
We are at a critical turning point; the next 10 years are crucial, and we have a real opportunity for global action on climate change. It is vital that future trade policy helps, not hinders, the delivery of the UK’s climate and environmental goals. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that it has not been possible to reach the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, who was due to participate remotely, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Subject to what my noble friend the Minister might say in his reply, it appears that the powers set out here go far wider than necessary to obtain the objective of the Bill in negotiating trade agreements.
I will focus my remarks on Amendment 69 in my name and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for her support. It reflects the commitment set out in our manifesto to maintain our high standards. I am mindful of the fact that the World Trade Organization would permit us, not just to maintain our own high standards, but to ensure that we can aim to protect the environment in trade-related measures, subject to certain specified conditions. This is, therefore, a probing amendment to ask my noble friend whether, in the course of international trade negotiations, particularly new ones with the US and other countries with which we hope to negotiate free trade agreements, the Government intend to push the boundaries of standards by going one step further and asking these countries to meet out high standards. The idea is not just to ensure that we are meeting our current high standards but to insist that other countries do as well.
The amendment sets out a framework for achieving that through each House of Parliament approving a Motion. The benchmark would be the minimum standards for environmental protections, food safety and animal welfare for the goods imported through the relevant trade agreements. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to support this. I entirely support what the Government say about continuing to uphold our high standards and I support the general thrust of this group of amendments, as set out in Amendment 12 and Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I hope that, through Amendment 69, climate change and environmental standards will form a close part of international trade agreements. We should not wait for the next COP. We should use the opportunity of each free trade agreement we are negotiating to push the boundaries of environmental protection.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She always speaks a lot of sense and I thoroughly agree with her. I am delighted to support Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Duncan of Springbank and Lord Browne of Ladyton. I also add my support to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
As other noble Lords have said, we are at a crossroads for the environment, climate change and biodiversity. Last week, I listened to Christiana Figueres spelling out the real and present danger that we are in. She says that we have just 10 years to cut our emissions by 50% if we are to get to the net zero target by 2050. This is not a dress rehearsal; it is real life. Amendments that bind into law trade standards that protect our planet, curb emissions, encourage biodiversity and, at the same time, promote human health are quite simple on one level. They are also totally necessary. If the Government want us to believe that they are serious about what they say is their desire to meet the Paris targets, why on earth are these amendments not at the heart of the Bill, rather than being peripheral or just according to what someone says?
Trade is one of the most powerful levers that we have in the world. Business is already ahead of the Government. For instance, Coller Capital has been running a risk register for several years now and will not invest in countries or companies that depend on businesses which damage the environment or products which, in some way or another, will cause or be affected by climate change. In her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the Aldersgate Group has set ambitious targets. It knows that if we are to be competitive in future, we have to raise our game. The CBI has also recommended that the UK’s export strategy must be augmented by a green trade focus ahead of COP 26. It even suggests that we should introduce accelerated tariff reductions in the FTAs for multilateral agreement partner countries which meet, or, indeed surpass, their Paris Agreement targets. The Government’s own proposal for its net zero review says that business is calling out for a “clear roadmap”.
We could also start to lower tariffs on low-carbon goods and services like New Zealand does. Its Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability—which was signed into law by New Zealand, Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland and Norway—aims to remove tariffs on goods and services that protect the planet, eliminate harmful fossil fuel subsidies and develop clear eco-labelling. It says:
“Globally, countries are subsidising fossil fuel production… to the tune of over $500 billion US dollars a year.”
I ask the Minister whether he knows why and what we are doing about that. I also ask the Government whether we are considering seeking membership of that particular agreement or, indeed, trying to do something similar ourselves.
SIAs are not complicated; there is a growing demand for forest and agricultural commodities that drives greenhouse gas emissions and has negative effects on biodiversity overseas, and our current legislation does not require this to be monitored. Does not the Minister agree that this is an absurd situation? We cannot export our emissions overseas any more than we can export cruelty by allowing the import of animal products that have been reared in conditions that we would not agree with. At the moment, we do not know what damage we are doing to nature and the environment through trade because, as the WWF said in a recent report, we are importing from nations that are high risk. If we are in the dark, how is the consumer going to know what they are buying?
Finally, I think noble Lords would be surprised if I did not turn to the question of public health. What is the UK to do if we do not include amendments such as this? We are about to enter uncharted territory; we are leaving a very big bloc and rapidly trying to secure new trade deals with every other country. Of course there will be changes; there might be some opportunities in terms of good standards; but there are also risks.
Since the dawn of time, we have known that what we eat is the backbone of our health, and here are just three ways—there are many more—in which free trade deals without standards could increase ill health and obesity. For instance, I cite the increase in the availability of products that are high in fats, sugars and salts and backed by huge advertising spends. The other day, I spoke about Tim Tams. I said that they were American; they are in fact an Australian version of our Penguins. Some 91% of households in Britain already buy Penguins, but Tim Tams are going to be cheaper and heavily marketed and, sadly, the Prime Minister himself was spotted waving a packet around when he recently made the case for a free trade deal with Australia. We do not need more chocolate bars.
Secondly, if our farmers and producers are undercut by cheaper imports from overseas because overseas farmers have lower standards, our farming will erode over time. We will import more and more and it will become more processed, because that is what happens when food has to travel over long distances and last for a long time.
Finally, as we all know, the USA is very aggressive in its trade negotiations, demanding that there be no labelling or HFSS advertising restrictions. If we give in there, then, quite honestly, all the progress we have made around public health and, indeed, our environmental efforts will be for naught. The good thing is that if we protect the environment, we also protect the health of all of us. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Perhaps we will be able to come back to him. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it might come as no surprise that I agree with every word that has been said so far, and I support the general thrust of all the amendments in this group. I have tabled Amendment 73 and the linked Amendment 74, which comes up in a later group; ideally, I will combine these two on Report.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I remind him of what the Government have been saying. The Conservative Party 2019 manifesto made a commitment that:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
We have heard that many times during debates on the Agriculture Bill, and I hope that is absolutely true. In relation to the pandemic, the Government have also said that they plan to deliver a UK and world economy which is stronger, cleaner, more sustainable and more resilient after this crisis. In their 25-year environment plan, the Government pledged to embed
“environmental sustainability… at the very heart of global production and trade”.
They are committed to developing a “trading framework that supports” environmental goals. That is all fantastic and I very much hope that the Government are going to live up to those commitments and promises.
My Amendment 73 is needed because risk to the environment from poor trade policies are considerable—as other Peers have already said. Free trade agreements can promote the import of cheaper and higher-carbon goods, effectively offshoring the UK’s emissions and undermining its international environmental obligations. However, the UK could and should develop a fresh approach consistent with the action needed to respond to the environmental crisis, promoting high standards and dramatically reducing the UK’s environmental impact both domestically and overseas.
The Government are very quick to say that they are achieving their carbon emissions targets, but in fact they offshore a huge amount. When we buy things from other countries, it is their carbon burden and not ours, and we are big importers. In order to ensure that trade agreements work with, rather than against, the environment, the Bill must be amended to ensure multilateral environmental agreements that are compatible with the trade deals the UK is negotiating and signing. It must also ensure that trade negotiations are conducted with nations that are fully implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements, unless under specific conditions. Negotiating partners of the UK must be informed of our climate and environmental goals and ensure that these take precedence over any international trade agreement. I realise that this will be difficult when talking to the United States, but I am afraid that we have to do it.
In 2021, the UK will host COP 26—I hope to see many of you there—the biggest climate talks since the Paris agreement was negotiated and signed in 2015. At that stage, the UK has to show global climate leadership by ensuring that its trade policy is aligned with its environmental ambition and international commitments. These measures will ensure that the UK creates a resilient future-focused economy fit for the needs of the 21st century. This is not just about the environment and being very green; it is about human survival at comfort levels that we would all find acceptable.
Should such an amendment not be passed, the risk will remain that the UK strikes trade deals that would undermine its environmental ambitions. Of course, this is an especially great risk because the Government have still not resolved the conflicting views of various Ministers regarding trade and the environment. My Amendment 73 addresses the oversight of the Bill, which fails to ensure that trade agreements work with, rather than against, environmental policy and commitments. I am trying to be helpful here; I am actually trying to help the Government achieve their promises.
Subsection (3) ensures that trade negotiations are normally conducted only
“with nations that are fully implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements”.
This would ensure that the United Kingdom is making the closest links and ties with like-minded nations that also wish to show climate leadership on the international stage. Subsection (4) requires UK negotiators to be clear about
“the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental goals”.
The UK and its negotiators must be clear that these “will take precedence” over a trade deal if there is any conflict between them, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, for the information of Members, I will say that I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has withdrawn. I call the next speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I plan to speak mainly on Amendment 12, but I also support Amendment 40 and, particularly, Amendment 69 in this group. Leaving the European Union should not mean leaving our international obligations. Recognition of those conventions mentioned under Amendment 12 is, one would imagine, already accounted for in the existing trade agreements due to be transposed into UK law as a result of this Bill. However, without this amendment, these remain an expectation not an assurance.
I am pleased by recent statements from the Prime Minister and the seriousness of this Government in attempting to deal with the climate crisis. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the Government or their existing trading partners in intending to abide by our international environmental obligations. Only by omission of any explicit reference to our environmental obligations have doubts been raised.
Lord Lansley (Con)
[Inaudible.]—the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that the Government are genuinely committed to achieving our environmental and climate change objectives. In so far as I depart from him and others, it is not in relation to that but in relation to the effect of the amendments.
The amendments in this group have a number of different effects. Amendments 12 and 40 essentially bear upon the agreements to be implemented using regulations made under Clause 2, which, as the Bill is presently constructed, are the roll-over agreements that we started with from the European Union. I have no reason to understand—unless somebody tells me otherwise—that any are inconsistent with our environmental obligations, so I do not understand why it is necessary to put amendments in the Bill to tell us that we should not implement them if they are contrary to those obligations since I do not think that is the case. That is step one.
Step two is that a number of these amendments go further. They want to construct what is essentially a structure for mandating the Government to enter into future international trade agreements only in ways consistent with our international obligations on the environment and a series of other specific requirements. We will encounter this argument again and again during scrutiny of the Bill. My view is that while the Bill is an appropriate mechanism for us to improve the process of scrutiny of future trade agreements, it is not right in this legislation to attempt to construct a list of what the Government are intending to achieve in future trade negotiations. It would be a very long list. Having constructed such a long list, the Government would be unable to conduct any of those trade negotiations with any negotiating flexibility whatever. People could just look at the legislation and say, “We know what the British Government can do, and it is not very much”.
Mandating international trade negotiators in advance also means that we would trespass into the territory of removing from Governments the executive power of the prerogative and executive prerogative. We could do it, but if we are going to do it, we should do it in the context of a major piece of legislation which sets up a statutory framework for doing so. We have no such statutory framework, and I do not think we can conceive that it should be added to piecemeal in this way. I therefore cannot agree with most of Amendments 40, 69 and 73.
Amendment 21 appears to have been constructed simply to prevent the Government implementing any trade agreement with the United States. I do not know of any country outwith the criteria other than the United States, it having issued notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. If I understand the amendment, it would come into effect on 20 November 2020 at the earliest. Expressing a purely personal view, I hope that will not happen and that it will not be necessary.
I want to mention one or two other small things. I do not understand Amendment 14 at all since it seems to replicate what is already in the Bill. We are intending to implement agreements similar to, or the same as, those we entered into as a member of the European Union. If it is saying something other than that, it would introduce a degree of ambiguity which I do not think is desirable.
Amendment 22 does something completely different. It removes the power to modify retained direct principal European Union legislation. We went over this in some detail the previous time this Bill was before us, two years ago. I still do not understand why this is necessary in so far as the power is already in the Government’s hands under Schedule 8 to the EU withdrawal Act 2018. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it is additionally necessary to legislate in this way now.
Finally, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not with us, his spirit moves with us none the less. If one looks at Clause 2(6) one will see that line 26 states:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, among other things, make provision”
and then there is a list. On 20 March 2019, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked what “among other things” meant and why that phrase was there. The subsection is there to say that the regulations may make provision in a number of specific respects, but the drafters have given Ministers additional freedom to do what exactly? Since these are roll-over agreements, it seems to me that the words “among other things” are not necessary. At the time, my noble friend Lady Fairhead said that it was an interesting point and she would take it away and think about it. Therefore, if they have thought about it, they have put it back in the Bill having thought about it, or else they did not think about it and have simply reproduced the Bill and it is as pointless now as it was then. Perhaps the Minister will kindly tell us what “among other things” in that line means.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the other noble Lords who have signed his Amendment 12. As the Committee should be aware, the United Kingdom has been a leader in standing up internationally for high environmental standards around the world. As the Minister made clear at Second Reading, all the continuity agreements that we have been and are negotiating are fully compliant with our international obligations, including the Paris Agreement on climate change. It is unnecessary to constrain the Government’s freedom in negotiating trade agreements with countries, including developing countries which may not have adopted the same environmental standards as we have, because that might have unintended consequences. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement targets only carbon reduction, but does not fully address the equally great national security challenge of providing clean energy for the whole planet, particularly in a world that needs more energy, not less.
As for Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I am not quite sure what its purpose is. As I understand it, it would prohibit the application of the powers created in this clause for the purposes of an enhanced continuity trade agreement such as that which we have agreed with Japan. Why would the noble Lord and my noble friend wish unduly to restrict the freedom of our negotiators to take any available opportunity to include enhancements to any continuity agreement?
As for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I oppose it for the reason suggested by my noble friend Lord Lansley. It seems to me that it is designed to prevent a trade agreement with the United States, and that would have a negative effect on the economy and deny opportunities to British exporters and food producers.
Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is similarly unnecessary. In any case, your Lordships have received repeated assurances that none of our continuity agreements will deviate from the high standards that we apply to environmental issues, similar to human rights, as debated in a previous group. The Minister has already reassured the Committee that the Government will continue to publish parliamentary reports with each continuity agreement.
It will not surprise my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering to hear that I do not support her Amendment 69. It is clear that the Food Standards Agency has the powers to permit, or not, the sale of any foods which might be imported under FTAs. The amendment also seeks to require alignment of our agricultural marketing standards with those of the EU, which we have left. I agree with my noble friend that high animal welfare standards are a laudable objective, and we have done relatively well in this country in this area. However, I think she is incorrect to argue that animal welfare is exactly the same as animal health and hygiene. We will be free to set our own regulations after the end of the transition period. I earnestly trust that we will move quickly to adopt standards that are WTO compliant, unlike those of the EU, which in certain respects conflict with the WTO’s SPS agreement.
As my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading, it is not within the gift of the UK Parliament to legislate on animal welfare standards for overseas countries. The Government have been clear that we have no intention of lowering standards, and we have fulfilled this commitment through our deeds. None of the 20 agreements already signed has reduced standards in any area. As the Minister said at Second Reading, it will be the job of the food standards agencies to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards and that consumers are protected from unsafe food that does not meet those standards. Decisions on those standards are a matter solely for the UK and are made separately from any trade agreements. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position.
For similar reasons, I am also opposed to Amendments 73 and 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In any case, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the Government would obviously not seek to enter into an international trade agreement without any merit with any nation? Neither should we expect only to enter into agreements which share precisely our positions on all multilateral environmental agreements.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is surely nothing more important than addressing climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others have made clear. It is difficult to see that any trade agreement could possibly be justified if it is in contradiction to what must be an overriding national and international aim. Trade agreements must at the very least be consistent with our climate goals, and certainly must not undermine those commitments. I am sure that the noble Viscount will note the cross-party nature of many of these amendments.
My noble friend Lord Oates is very sorry that he cannot be here today, as he is attending a funeral. Amendment 12 in the name of Lord Grantchester and others, including my noble friend Lord Oates, means that any trade agreement we make must be consistent with our commitments under the Paris climate change agreement, CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity. That is surely a given, and yet we know that this does not mean that such aims are built into trade deals. In Amendment 21, my noble friend Lord Oates and others make the case here stronger still: that trade deals can be made only with those who have signed up to the Paris Agreement, or not served notice that they intend to leave.
If after the debate we heard in the United States this week the American people decide that they wish to have Mr Trump as President for the next four years, then no trade deal could be undertaken with the United States, which will have pulled out of the Paris Agreement by then, having given the necessary three years’ notice and a fourth year to implement that—the four-year provision that President Obama very sensibly put into the Paris Agreement.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 40. As we deepen and strengthen our global trading relations, we cannot ignore our environmental commitments. I support this amendment because it means that our environmental obligations, as outlined by international law, cannot be undermined by future trade deals.
This must be a green Brexit. The Government’s election manifesto stated that they will not compromise on our high environmental protections in any future trade deals. Without this amendment, these are promises without actions. The international agreements laid out in this amendment are about not just environmental protection but our health and well-being, and are for the benefit of generations to come.
In the interests of time, I will outline only three of these international agreements. First, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution has helped reduce pollution levels across borders and improve human health. As we have seen during lockdowns, the rapid decline in air pollution has had a positive impact on the health and well-being of people and nature in the UK and internationally. By honouring our commitment to this convention in this amendment, we can continue to protect the health of people and ensure that we do not undermine the improvements made as we recover from the pandemic and restart the economy.
Secondly, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is included in this amendment. It is about not just maritime jurisdiction but managing resources in a sustainable manner. The issue of fish stocks in UK fishing waters has been a prominent debate in Brexit. By continuing our commitment to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we can ensure that the quality and productiveness of our fish stocks are maintained. It is essential for both our biodiversity and the long-term livelihood of our fishermen.
Thirdly, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a key mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas contributions and plays an important role in reducing emissions in the fight against the climate crisis. Global trade has an environmental footprint. For instance, 30% of carbon dioxide emissions are from freight transport. As we develop trading relations, we must ensure that we stay on the path to net zero emissions by 2050. This amendment means that we will continue to protect the environment in a way that does not restrict trade. It is an opportunity to make trade more sustainable by supporting investment in greener sectors and turning away from polluting industries to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
This amendment would also ensure that, within 12 months of making regulations or ratifying a trade agreement, a report assessing the impact of regulations on our environmental obligations is presented to Parliament. This is key in ensuring that we are held accountable and have fully considered the implications of any deal. If the UK is to be a leader in sustainability, this amendment must be supported. Without it, we lack a meaningful commitment to tackling the climate crisis.
The Government assure us that they are putting green at the heart of the coronavirus recovery. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the UK to be seen as a leading example in enabling a global green industrial revolution. Supporting this amendment would enable us to be an effective environmental leader, especially as we prepare to host COP 26 next year.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already referred to the Henry VIII powers and questioned why they are repeated in this Bill when, to a large extent, they are available in the withdrawal Act. Amendment 22, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, gives us an opportunity to look at one part of that. It would delete the Henry VIII power contained on page 2, in paragraph (a) in line 27. That is a power to modify
“retained direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.
That sounds rather obscure, but it is an opportunity to change significant standards, using Henry VIII powers to modify substantive primary legislation by means of statutory instruments. We all know what problems these powers present, as they are very topical at the moment. The powers can be exercised by UK Ministers or by Ministers in devolved Administrations, described as “appropriate authorities” in the clause. They put Ministers in the position that they probably have to worry a little less about what Parliament will think or do about what they are negotiating.
The Explanatory Notes say that this provision
“does not allow for regulations to make or extend criminal offences, charge fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies.”
The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, raised this issue in the context of the previous Trade Bill, and pointed out:
“We are not persuaded by the Government’s position that it is sufficient for the power in clause 2 to be constrained presumptively rather than explicitly. We recommend that the restrictions on the power be included in the text of the Bill.”
That is a perfectly reasonable request by the committee.
There is a context to it, or a context to our consideration of it. We have just been through a series of parliamentary rows and debates about the use of powers under the public health Act of 1984. I say the use—it was the fairly incompetent use of them, because every prosecution that relied on that legislation and orders made under it failed. Convictions were overturned because of confusion about the regulation-making power that the Act provided, and confusion about whether the individuals to which the provisions were applied could reasonably be expected to be infected or simply be put under these provisions for their own benefit, for which the legislation did not provide.
Continuity trade deals post Brexit are not the same as a pandemic, but they are surrounded by issues of urgency and claims of exceptional circumstances. It is in such contexts that powers of delegated legislation get abused or overused. When that happens, we ask why Parliament created such wide powers and why we allowed it in the first place. The answer usually is that it was by ignoring what the Delegated Powers Committee, the Statutory Instruments Committee or the Constitution Committee said at the time and relying on the fact that Governments will always do the right thing, won’t they? Well, Governments will not always do the right thing, sometimes for profoundly objectionable reasons and sometimes because they think that the need to get on with things overrides any of these considerations. There is a case for making the legislation clear on the limits on the use of power to repeal or modify existing primary legislation and that provision ought to be in the Bill. There is still time to put this right at Report.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in the thrust of his comments, although I agree very much with them. The overuse of Henry VIII powers is certainly a matter that we need to give considerable attention to.
I apologise if the signal is breaking up. I have a download speed of 1.45 and an upload speed of 0.57, which makes the signal unstable. That is obviously a problem when working remotely, as I am doing.
I strongly support the thrust of Amendment 12 and all the rest of the group. There can be no doubt that the EU has rightly placed considerable emphasis on environmental and climate change matters. If—sadly, to my mind—we are moving away from having a significant proportion of our trade with the EU to a position whereby our trade is likely to be much more with third-world countries, valid concerns arise. That is not to say that changes in trade patterns are necessarily a retrograde move; they are not. Clearly, there are opportunities as well, provided that we are not trying to secure imported goods that are cheaper because they have been manufactured or extracted in a manner that ignores the need to safeguard our planet with regard to the impact of manufacturing on global warming or biodiversity.
It is not acceptable, in this day and age, for the UK to duck its international obligations in these matters to get cheap goods or, particularly, cheap raw materials. When one considers the way in which the environment is being despoiled in many countries, particularly in South America, we must flag up these concerns from day one of our new international trading era. We must establish a firm understanding that we shall not trade away our duties to the planet to make a quick buck.
How we in this Committee can flag up our firm commitments in these matters is to write such safeguards as provided by these amendments into the Bill. Indeed, I find it incomprehensible that Members in the other place should not have done that already. In the absence of political will in another place to make such obviously desirable and necessary steps, we, if not in this Committee then certainly at Report, should insist without hesitation that we have such provision in the Bill that we eventually return to another place.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has eloquently made one of the points that I was going to make, which is that most of the amendments in this group relate in practice to continuity agreements only, because they relate to regulations made under Clause (2)(1) of the Bill, and Clause 2 relates only to continuity agreements. I accept, however, that noble Lords are trying to frame their arguments in a broader context of any trade agreement. If that is the case, their amendments will not do that—although some of them do—so they are not achieving their desired effect.
It is important to recognise that the Government have been clear in their policy towards the environment and the Paris accord. In rollover agreements that have been agreed to date, there has not been a single issue of concern to those who seek to reinforce those agreements to which we have committed in relation to environmental protections and other matters. As a general principle, we do not clutter up every single bit of legislation with general policy positions unless they are absolutely necessary, which clearly they are not in this case, or you would end up with an impossibly long list of items that you are trying to remind the Government is their policy.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, before I start, I should apologise for any noise that may interfere. There is a demonstration outside and every now and then, the volume increases.
There are a number of amendments in this group on a broad range of environmental protections. I do not intend to speak to all of them, save to say that I support them and hope that, on Report, the movers can work together to amalgamate them satisfactorily. I will, however, single out Amendment 40 which provides for the laying before Parliament of a report assessing the impact of our environmental obligations. That will be very important.
I am going to spend the rest of my time speaking to Amendment 21, to which I have added my name. In 2015, to those of us for whom climate change represents a real and looming existential threat, the Paris Agreement was received with relief. It commits Governments to submit their national plans to cut emissions and ultimately, each party to the agreement will have to do their bit to keep the rising global temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade and to pursue efforts to limit it further, to 1.5 degrees centigrade. International agreements are initially signed to signal intent to comply but become binding only through ratification, so it is a worry when Governments do not ratify. Seven countries have not yet ratified the agreement: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan and Eritrea.
Turkey stands out as the only member of the G20 not to have formally endorsed the deal after Russia ratified it in October 2019. Turkey is a member of the OECD, with high economic ambitions. It has very good renewable resources and therefore the potential to reduce emissions quite significantly; and yet, it still plans massive expansion of coal-fired power stations. Turkey’s emissions increased by 135% between 1990 and 2016. This cannot go on: it really must join the rest of the G20 and signal its intent to move ahead on this agenda.
I turn to the US, which is the second largest emitter after China, accounting for 13% of global emissions. The US is still on the UN list of the original 187 countries to have ratified. However, as my noble friend Lady Northover said, it began the procedure to withdraw from the accord in 2019 and will leave on 4 November this year, I believe. President Trump remains a climate change denier. No one knows what the US elections will bring, but one thing is for sure: a Biden presidency will put the world on a much safer trajectory. Let us hope that it happens, and that it is not too late for action subsequently.
In the meantime, let us make Britain’s values and priorities clear. Action on climate change is not a “nice to have” option: it is an imperative. If, next year, we are to have a successful outcome to our presidency of COP 26 and a successful presidency of the G7, we must refuse to do business with rogue states. That sounds harsh, does it not? But if I were referring to Russia or China, one would not recoil at such a statement. The fact is that we cannot tackle climate change, halt species loss and save our oceans if we have double standards.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the new EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, I support any attempts in this debate to improve parliamentary scrutiny, although that is not the subject of this amendment. Our committee has already examined the promising Japan FTA and much of the less promising US FTA, and we are moving on to Australia, New Zealand and, beyond that, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Government have given us plenty to think about. Of course, much hangs on the overarching EU agreement, which we all await impatiently, because it affects the success of all the others.
The Minister has already acknowledged the value of our scrutiny under CRaG and that of the Commons’ IDC. I also believe that she shares my concern that CRaG is amendable and that all these FTAs and treaties should reflect the latest thinking on such issues as human rights and the SDGs, mentioned in the previous amendment.
The Minister said on Tuesday that work is being done on supply chains. It is a learning process, and I appreciate that this Bill is about continuity agreements, which already safeguard such issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has reminded us of that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that we are cluttering up the legislation. However, these issues are relevant because of the multitude of agreements on the horizon. Today’s amendments are about the environment and climate change, which are subjects of massive public concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said on Tuesday that we live in different times and under rules that are mainly a consequence of our long EU membership. High environmental and technical standards are what producers, traders and investors now want and expect.
We have already heard of a range of issues that constitute possible improvements, if not to this Bill then to future agreements. I recognise how difficult it is for a Government to accommodate all the interests represented, especially as they will have to be fitted to different agreements and different countries. Formal consultation with stakeholders and the public, as well as with Parliament through explanatory memorandums, correspondence and debates, is now an accepted part of CRaG procedure, and we must celebrate that.
These amendments, alongside those on international development and the SDGs, catch my attention because they are about the planet we live on. I have spent my working life learning about conditions in other countries, and it is not difficult to agree with the conservationists and the climate changers that much more must be done to adapt the world to a more carbon-free economy. When it comes to trade, the UK has a huge advantage: it is historically a famous trading nation and is one of the foremost countries adapting to climate change and acquiring scientific and technical know-how to help other countries. Non-EU agreements must surely include proper references to international obligations, as set out in these amendments.
Last week, the Commons International Trade Committee discussed the opportunities on the environment coming up in the CPTPP—the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, of which much is expected. These include not only the Paris targets, the rules governing renewable energy, carbon reduction and transport costs, but also tighter collaboration on the handling of emergencies, such as floods and forest fires, and even an environmental tax or tariff. New Zealand’s Prime Minister is a pioneer of sustainable trade. She is also critical in the developed world’s poor response to climate change. Through the CPTPP and the UN, she will no doubt offer good advice, even to Australia, on these issues.
The mutual benefits for global trade and sustainable development in trade agreements are fast coming up the agenda. As we enter a new era of free trade, the Government would do well to pay them more than lip service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right: it is a matter of human survival.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I first thank my noble friends, Lord Grimstone, the Minister, and Lord Younger of Leckie, together with their officials, for the time they gave me yesterday to discuss my concerns on this and other amendments.
Rather like the Agriculture Bill, we have a slight overlap of amendments. Inevitably, I am afraid that I will have to touch on Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and Amendment 17, which relates to investor-state dispute settlements. I will major a bit more on those when we come to them, but they are interlinked, because of Amendments 69 and 73.
The earlier amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, refer to the international agreements. This is a continuity Bill, and I have little doubt that this Government—my Government—and indeed a Government in the colours of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester would abide by their international agreements. What concerns me more, however, is the wording picked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering in Amendment 69, where she talks not of international agreements, but of
“standards established by primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom”
and, in Amendment 73, where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talks about the
“appropriate authority to take action in pursuit of the UK’s climate and environmental goals”.
I am in total support of the Government in their ambition that climate change and environmental issues should be right at the centre of our trade policy. I hope that, when he sums up, my noble friend will confirm that that is indeed the Government’s position. My noble friend Lord Grimstone told me that yesterday, but it would be nice to have it on the official record.
However, my problem lies in looking at other countries that have tried to impose stricter standards other than international agreements and then get taken to court under ISDSs. I have two examples that I will expand upon. The first is Philip Morris v Australia in 2015. Philip Morris lost that case, and rightly so, but the problem was that it cost Australia 22 million Australian dollars, which seems an unnecessary amount of money for our Government to have to fork out if they are taken to court in a similar case. The other case that I shall mention at this stage is Cargill v Mexico, where Cargill was awarded $77.3 million when it won a case against a tax on high-fructose corn syrup that was introduced to address health concerns.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I regard this group of amendments as vital. I thank my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the others who have put their names to the various amendments and given us the opportunity to express our support.
Already in this debate, various speakers have particularly attracted my attention, but I would like to say how much I appreciated the thoughts of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who seemed to talk about the real nature of the world and our responsibilities within it and how these amendments relate to that. I think he was right.
What do these amendments deal with? First, they deal with food security, which is obviously vital to the British people. Food security covers not only the adequate supply of food but means that the quality of food is such that it sustains the well-being of the population. At a time when we are deeply concerned about the pressures on the health service and the rest, we are preoccupied—or we should be—with the problems of obesity in our society. A healthy diet is vital. Therefore, anything that is done to strengthen commitment in this area is important.
These amendments also deal with vital subjects such as biodiversity. Biodiversity is in major crisis at the moment. It is not just in decline; it is a catastrophic decline which can begin—indeed before very long—to threaten the human species itself. They also similarly deal with endangered species. We know in the same way how far our existence is interlinked with nature and the glorious variety of species in the world. Again, the decline in the number of species is not just a matter to note; it is a matter of profound concern.
We all know about climate change. There is no way that we can stop it, of course, because sometimes we assume in our arrogance that the human race is infinite, but we are not; the planet is not infinite. Eventually, we know that it will disappear back into the sun or whatever, but we can at least prolong the span of life of our own species and, by recognising our interdependence with other species, those as well. We all care deeply about environmental standards. We have spent hours considering the Agriculture Bill which is to have its Third Reading today. It puts the importance of animal welfare to the fore and we spent hours debating that. All of these things are central to the quality of the life we want to live—the very continuation of the life we want to live and which our children and their successors will able to live. These amendments meet that.
We have heard it asked today: why are we worried about these issues? The Government have given us assurances. I hope I will be forgiven, but I think that there is a certain amount of scepticism in society at large, not least among people like myself, about what the assurances really amount to in terms of effective commitment. That is why it is so important to put these things into the Bill. If Ministers say, “We have already committed ourselves, so why do we need this?”, why not put it into the Bill? The Ministers who have given these undertakings will not be there forever and we do not know what their successors will want to do or the attitude they will have. That is why, again, it is important to take every opportunity to ensure that the commitment is set out in the Bill and thus cannot be easily avoided. I thank those noble Lords who have put forward these amendments and I am glad to support them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not available at the moment. We will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a sobering fact that, as we discuss this important group of amendments with regard to the UK adhering to international obligations, the European Union has today issued a letter of formal notice on a potential infraction where we have breached an international agreement. That is the backcloth against which we must consider all the groups of amendments to come: how we as a country want to be seen around the world as a nation that adheres to its national obligations. Those on climate change and the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated in opening the debate on this group so well, are obligations that the UK is a party to.
I want to speak first to Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates who, as my noble friend Lady Northover has said, cannot be here today because he is at a funeral. The amendment is also signed by my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Sheehan. I shall also address the cross-party Amendment 40 which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates but has been spoken to very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am sure that if the noble Lords, Lord Duncan of Springbank and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, had been able to take part in the debate on this group, they would have done so. I am grateful for their support.
I turn first to Amendment 21, which should be looked at in the context of other amendments to Clause 2 to expand the provisions of the Bill to agreements that have been signed as part of the EU and now, going forward, to new agreements. As such, the amendments limit the scope of the use of implementing powers to all agreements only with countries that are party to the Paris agreement. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change deals with greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation, mitigation and finance. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan indicated, the Paris agreement was signed in 2016. As of this year, it has been signed by 196 states, while 189 have become a party to it, with the only significant omissions being Iran and Turkey. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others have said, in June 2017, the US President, Donald Trump, announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement. However, reassuringly for some of us, Joe Biden the Democrat candidate, signalled as recently as Tuesday night that if he is successful in the election, he will seek for the US to rejoin.
Our amendment is perfectly clear and I will show how to some extent it links with Amendment 40. The Paris agreement is now a foundation block for the global effort at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is simply impossible to strip out the efforts to tackle climate change without also adapting trading practices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated, this is an area where these can be seen in separate lights. It is worth reminding the Committee that low-carbon exports alone in goods and services from the UK in 2018 were worth £5.3 billion. If you add on top of that UK legal consulting, investment products and the UK’s global leadership in arbitration and the City of London with the financial options it offers for sustainability products, we are a world leader in global trade on the environment and sustainability. It is, I think, a simple fact that for the UK to be an independent global trading nation, any deep and comprehensive free trade agreement that we would be willing to enter into should be part of and consistent with our Paris climate agreement.
We have taken this approach as a result of being a member of the EU. If the Government do not consider that we should continue with this, can they explain why not? In essence, the Government seem to be seeking continuity in our trading relationships, but not continuity in the legal framework for climate that we have helped to shape and were a part of in the European Union.
I have in my notes a reminder to reference the fact that Ministers will probably say that they can be trusted, given the continuity agreements that we have signed already, and that it is government policy not to move away from those. But every time the Government say that, in my view it strengthens the argument that if that is the consensus across the political parties, there is merit in making it a statutory function. At a time when the Minister is telling the Committee that we need have no concern about climate change commitments, Liz Truss appointed Tony Abbott as the UK trade commissioner. I shall remind the Committee what I said at Second Reading: in 2017, he told the Global Warming Policy Foundation that
“it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good.”
I think that the UK approach should be stronger than that.
Until now, the approach has been that, as I have mentioned, the European Union has had in its free trade agreements so far a trade and sustainable development chapter. I want to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that this approach, which is set down in European Union law, should no longer be the British approach and that British trade agreements should not have a trade and sustainable development chapter in them. I believe strongly that they should and that it is in our interests that they should. Why will the Government not replicate the approach of maintaining agreements with trade and sustainable development chapters in them? As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, if it comes to the opportunity to enhance agreements, this is the chance to do so because it is the trade and sustainability chapters in the agreements, especially with the least developed countries and those with which we have EPAs, that are the mechanism of dialogue in order to enhance them.
I turn to the United States. I have reflected on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that these amendments would be restrictive. He may be aware of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015 which sets the parameters of US trade policy. Section 2 sets the trade negotiating objectives of which subsections (5) and (7) are
“mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so.”
That legislation by Congress, which the noble Lord says restricts the trade representative of the United States—I think it empowers them—states, as far as Congress is concerned, the remit of what the United States will negotiate. The consequence of what President Trump has said with regard to those international agreements has been significant, because the United States’ legislation states that it can agree a free trade agreement with a country only where both are party to the same international obligations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. There have been some heartfelt speeches, with not a little similarity to those made during the recent passage through this House of the Agriculture Bill, as my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out. I have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling about the importance of environmental protection as it has been linked by Peers to trade. Some powerful speeches were made by many, including my noble friend Lord Sheikh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I will first address Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Duncan and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which would stipulate that Clause 2 could be used only to implement trade agreements which are fully compliant with named international environmental obligations, including the Paris climate change agreement. We understand and share the public’s support for the UK’s high standards of environmental protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put it more eloquently and extensively than I, but there is so much to do when it comes to fighting climate change. However, this Government have already done a huge amount to protect and improve the environment.
Our departure from the EU offers a unique opportunity to design policies that drive environmental improvement with a powerful and permanent impact tailored to the UK’s needs. As set out in the 25-year environment plan, our ambition is to be the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it. It is worth emphasising that we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. We are doubling our international climate finance spend to £11.6 billion by between 2021 and 2025. The UK has world-leading capabilities in areas including offshore wind, smart energy systems and electric vehicle manufacture. As I read my newspaper last week, I noticed that the sales of electric and hybrid vehicles recently overtook the sale of diesel vehicles, which is interesting progress. As your Lordships have already heard, none of our 20 signed continuity agreements has reduced environmental protection in any area, and nor will they.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised three important concerns about FTAs which do not have standards included. I remind her that decisions on standards are not made in FTAs; they are domestic decisions which are and always will be made in Parliament. No FTA in itself has the power to change standards. Giving evidence to the Bill Committee in the other place, a representative of ClientEarth, a leading environmental law charity, described our approach to continuity as “sensible”. The Trade Justice Movement, the NFU, the Confederation of British Industry and others agreed.
Let me now address Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Government were accused of attempting to deliver upcoming agreements which go far beyond our mandate for continuity. I emphasise that that is not the case and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, we have stayed true to our mandate of reproducing the original EU agreements, subject only to the technical changes required to make the agreements operable in a UK context.
In some areas, significant technical changes to agreements are required to make them work in a UK context. In these circumstances, the power would be used to make the necessary changes to UK domestic law to ensure that the obligations under the agreement are met. Let me give your Lordships an example: resizing quotas with a trading partner to reflect the fact that the UK comprises a different share of a partner country’s trade than did the EU.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have recently reached agreement in principle for a UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership, which analysis shows could increase bilateral trade by £15.2 billion and offer a £1.5 billion boost to the UK economy. This agreement locks in the benefits of the EU-Japan deal and, picking up on my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s argument—and her hopes—goes even further in a number of areas, such as digital and financial services. By excluding this agreement from the scope of the Bill, the amendment would deny UK business and consumers the benefits which the agreement will bring. Your Lordships will already be aware of the enhanced scrutiny package which we have provided, reflecting its status as an enhanced agreement. The Government do not need this power to negotiate or sign agreements, but to implement in domestic law the obligations which arise from them. The “substantially similar” standard is ambiguous and would, unfortunately, introduce an element of uncertainty to the scope of the power.
I will address Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We believe that it is not required—there, I have said it, which will not please the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I will give my explanations.
I have set out the Government’s commitment to maintaining the UK’s high standards of environmental protections and our ambitious targets for the future. In addition, of the 40 continuity agreements that we are seeking to make, every partner country has signed the Paris Agreement, although it has not yet been fully ratified by all partners. I remind your Lordships that this Bill cannot be used to implement any free trade agreement with the United States, as it did not have a free trade agreement with the EU on exit day. We have already said that we will bring forward separate legislation for new FTAs if required.
Turning to Amendment 22, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, while I understand the concerns that some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, have raised about this power, without it our continuity agreements would be inoperable, which in turn would disrupt the trade flows on which businesses and consumers rely. This power is necessary. It is proportionate and constrained. It is proportionate because it allows solely for the amendment of primary legislation that is direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law. Obligations in continuity agreements often fall into one of these two categories, which is why this power is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that he did not think that the Henry VIII power is sufficiently constrained and urged the Government to listen to, among others, the Delegated Powers Committee on the use of these powers. I was pleased to see—I hope that he will have seen it, too—that the Delegated Powers Committee in its 21st report expressed no concerns at all over the delegated powers in this legislation. In fact, I point out to the noble Lord that the committee has twice considered this and raised no concerns on either occasion.
On Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I can confirm that our continuity agreements and the underlying EU agreements on which they are based are in full compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and every other international environmental obligation named in the amendment.
Amendment 69, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, seeks to achieve similar outcomes to the amendments that we have already discussed. It would give Parliament a greater role in determining whether food, animal welfare and environmental standards have been weakened. It would also amend the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to oblige Her Majesty’s Treasury to have regard to these standards when establishing tariffs and duties.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about unintended consequences and I draw your Lordships’ attention to two that the proposed new clause could have. The first relates to the impact on the developing world, from which we import a huge amount of food each year. Due to the predominance of agriculture in the economies of developing countries, increasing barriers to trade between these countries and the UK could have an exaggerated effect on the economies of countries with which we sign an FTA. It is not economically viable for firms in the developing world to produce goods to multiple sets of standards for different export markets. Higher standards inevitably lead to higher costs, which could in turn lead to less demand for products and exports from these countries.
The second unintended consequence is the disruption posed to UK consumers in the price and availability of foodstuffs. The effect of the amendment could be to disrupt agri-food imports provided under FTAs entering the country in the short and possibly longer terms, while also jeopardising relationships with friendly trade partners, who would be concerned about this unique and unilateral action. When it comes to developing countries in particular, the UK imports predominantly raw food and ingredients, such as tea, cocoa and bananas, among other things. Where these imports are included within FTAs, they would be required to prove that they meet the UK’s domestic environmental standards, among others, before they could continue to be exported to the UK, which would put businesses in developing countries at risk. It would also disincentivise developing countries from seeking new opportunities through FTAs with the UK. On the proposed amendment to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, I assure the Committee that consideration for food, animal welfare and environmental standards underpins government policy in every department.
On Amendment 73, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the UK will continue to be bound by those international multilateral environmental agreements —MEAs—to which it is party. The amendment, however, goes beyond the UK’s MEA commitments. It could prevent the UK from negotiating and agreeing international trade agreements with many countries at a time when the Government’s priority is to promote free trade as well as to improve the trade and export opportunities for sectors where increased trade can provide both economic and environmental and climate benefits. In other words, there is merit for us, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned. The proposed new clause could hinder both our trade and environment and climate ambitions by restricting the opportunities for dialogue with trading partners and limiting the constructive dialogue and good will that are key to making positive progress as the UK leads globally on climate change at COP 26 and more broadly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger for explaining in some detail the negotiating mandate we have agreed with the US. Could he confirm that this extends to animal welfare, as well as environmental protection standards, which is the subject of Amendment 69?
I was a little confused when my noble friend Lady Noakes talked about tomatoes. I had not talked about tomatoes, but there we are. The Minister referred to “unintended consequences”, which I am loath to envisage, and specifically to tea, cocoa and bananas. I understand that they are largely covered by fair trade provisions for marketing in the UK. Is that indeed the case?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am not sure that I can be drawn to talk about tomatoes. The best thing I could do, particularly for the points on the US, is to write to her with a full answer on animal welfare, which I could attempt, but also on tea, cocoa, bananas and the fair trade question.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on this group of amendments. The Bill is an opportunity to restate trade policy in the important area of environmental protections, in support of the UK’s international obligations. With COP 26 next year, when the Government must be a global leader on the climate emergency, the UK must set an example to the rest of the world by drawing attention to trade that is built on international commitments entered into with so many multilateral agreements.
I hear again that the UK cannot impose regulations on overseas jurisdictions. I merely reply that we already send inspectors into factories and workplaces in countries such as India and Bangladesh, to check on their work practices in the manufacture of clothing. The nature of trade agreements has changed considerably since the UK entered the EU, when it ceased to be the sole competent authority on trade matters, a point acknowledged by the Minister in his reply to an earlier debate on Tuesday. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his remarks on the powers subject to annulment by Amendment 22. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee has not been entirely satisfied by the Government’s reply on this presumptive power.
However, I listened carefully to the reply from the Minister and the many contributions regarding how the Committee may return to the issue later, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for further consideration.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 13. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 13
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the ability of a UK government to take public services back into public ownership.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open this important group and move Amendment 13 in my name. I indicate, at this point, that I shall be supporting Amendment 51. Protecting public services must be a priority for any Government, but we must not let bad trade deals limit the ability to provide this protection. In doing this, allowing services to be brought back into public ownership is one of the important tools Governments should not give away lightly or easily in negotiations. Concerns are well documented about how standstill and ratchet clauses in agreements can lock in levels of privatisation and other forms of liberalisation and accelerate them, which will limit the scope of future Governments to take sensible steps, when services are not being properly provided, to bring them back into the public sector.
Most US trade deals also contain forms of investor-state dispute settlement, which could allow foreign investors to sue the UK Government for actions that threaten their profits, including renationalising parts of the former public sector. ISDS does not pose a hypothetical threat, but a very real one. The Portuguese Government were sued using ISDS when the metro in Lisbon was returned to public ownership. ISDS clauses in bilateral investment treaties are being used now to prepare a series of cases against the UK Government for pausing construction contracts during the pandemic.
The TUC is particularly worried that the Bill does not exempt all public services from trade agreements, as this would allow part-privatised services to be included in commitments to reduce barriers to trade. When part-privatised services are included in this way, they cannot be brought back into public ownership as this would be regarded as a barrier to other countries being able to access the UK market. Only last week, the TUC expressed concern about the UK’s intention to join CPTPP, since CPTPP has no general exemption for public services.
Amendment 13 would ensure that regulations made under the Bill to implement agreements can be made only if they do not contravene the ability of a UK Government to take public services back into public ownership. Public services provide an essential public good. Ministers must not forget that as they seek to clinch a trade deal at any cost.
I indicated I will be strongly supporting Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK. If the Covid crisis has taught us anything, it is how reliant we are on the NHS and care services. The idea of them being put out to tender to foreign companies fills most of us with dread.
The Minister will undoubtedly say that the Government have made clear that the NHS will not be on the table in any trade deal, especially with the US. I am sure he will stress that we will not be paying higher prices for drugs, nor moving patient data across the Atlantic, but the US negotiating objectives for a UK FTA, in the section on procedural fairness for pharmaceuticals and medical devices, clearly call for “government regulatory reimbursement regimes” to provide
“full market access for U.S. products.”
The US President has clearly said that foreign Governments extort “unreasonably low prices” from US pharmaceutical firms, and he directed his trade negotiator to make the issue
“a top priority with every trading partner.”
The Prime Minister also made clear in a Telegraph article that he supports an insurance-based healthcare system for non-essential treatments.
I sense we are losing clarity, but we can provide it by supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I believe that the lack of scrutiny mechanisms for trade agreements and the Government’s desire not to put NHS protections in the Bill are connected, and I am not the only one. The British Medical Association has said that under the Bill
“Parliament does not have adequate powers to guide and scrutinise trade negotiations and the current process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence or permanently block trade agreements. This could mean the UK enters into trade deals that have significant impact on public health and the domestic healthcare sector without Parliament having a meaningful role in scrutiny.”
We should heed that warning.
Global Justice Now has also found that the US wants its companies to have unrestricted access to UK data, including NHS health records. The value of this health data is estimated at £10 billion a year. The Bill in its current form could allow UK data to be moved to servers in America and stop the NHS from analysing its health data without paying royalties. This cannot be right and is not within the spirit of our approach to our healthcare system. Let us commit in statute to protecting our beloved NHS in trade deals, especially during this pandemic when we are relying on it the most.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 51. I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for setting the scene for this debate. The amendment inserts a new clause into the Trade Bill which protects the NHS and publicly funded health and care services from any form of control from outside the United Kingdom. Like my noble friend, I thank the BMA and the Trade Justice Movement for their briefings and the Library for an excellent brief. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for their support.
The Government are pressing ahead with trade negotiations with the United States, the EU and elsewhere, despite there being no system of transparency or scrutiny of trade deals. Your Lordships’ House passed an amendment to the previous Trade Bill on parliamentary scrutiny. Since then, the Government have not made good on promises to give Parliament a say in new trade deals. Noble Lords should support a similar amendment to this Bill. The Trade Bill should be amended to protect the UK’s high food and animal welfare standards, and to protect the NHS and public health from provisions in trade deals.
The Covid crisis has hit global trade. It is essential that the UK’s trade policy maintains the right to regulate, protects the NHS and supports countries in the global south. We are concerned that, at present, Parliament does not have adequate powers to guide and scrutinise trade negotiations. My noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lord Lennie explained this to the Committee on Tuesday and the current process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence or permanently block trade agreements. This could mean the UK entering into trade deals that have a significant impact on public health and the domestic healthcare sector without Parliament having a meaningful role in scrutiny. As the Trade Bill is currently the only legislative vehicle for Parliament’s oversight of trade negotiations, we believe that additional scrutiny mechanisms are vital to protect the NHS and public health as the UK begins to negotiate independent free trade agreements in earnest.
As my noble friend said, this amendment seeks to ensure that our NHS is protected. It is necessary because this Government, and the one before them, have form in this area. Last year, noble Lords discussed the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. It gave the Secretary of State powers, as the Constitution Committee put it, to make any healthcare deal with anyone, anywhere in the world. I am pleased to say that your Lordships’ House successfully refocused that Bill on to the issue of 27 million European health insurance card holders and their interests at the time, instead of laying the groundwork for trade deals involving our NHS. On 5 February last year, I said that
“it seems to open the door to healthcare negotiations across the rest of the world. In other words, it also lays the basis for trade and foreign affairs discussion concerning healthcare. One must ask: which countries do the Government have in mind, and for what purpose and why is the Bill addressing world issues and not limited to the European Union?”—[Official Report, 5/2/19; col. 1484.]
That was remedied by your Lordships’ House. However, it is clear that if that Bill had been agreed as originally drafted, it would have opened the way for this Government already to be in negotiations with the USA and others, and to give them open access to our NHS.
While the Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is “not on the table” in trade negotiations, leaked documents reveal that that is not the case, as my noble friend Lord Bassam outlined. Let us be quite safe. The Trade Bill should be amended to protect the NHS; we should have these safeguards in place, in statute. It is vital that the Bill protects the health and social care sectors by safeguarding future options for rolling back either privatisation or restructuring. We need to protect our right to restructure our health and social care services into a more collaborative model. Trade agreements must not be permitted to lock in current or higher levels of privatisation within the NHS in England, nor lead to privatisation in the devolved nations without their say so.
To do this, the Bill must ensure that the health and social care sectors are excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements. The Bill must rule out investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms in UK trade deals to ensure that private foreign companies cannot sue the UK Government for legitimate public procurement and regulatory decisions that we decide to take with regard to our public services, including the NHS. If a future Government want to change the structure of the NHS, they must not be prevented from doing so by trade deals.
It is worth noting that an EU investment treaty recently resulted in the Slovakian Government being ordered to pay €22 million in damages to a foreign private health insurance firm after it decided to reverse the privatisation of its national sickness insurance market. Investor protection mechanisms have also been used extensively to challenge public health initiatives like tobacco plain packaging. There is a great deal at stake here. We need to include protections to ensure that NHS price control mechanisms and the UK’s current intellectual property regime are maintained.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton—ably introduced by him—to which I was pleased to attach my name. Looking at this, I cannot but think of the many wearying social media debates I engaged in about how our membership of the European Union did not stop the bringing of disastrously outsourced public services back into public hands. But that is now all history. I think all sides of the House can agree about what won the 2016 referendum. The result was a clear direction from the public on this, if not much else: take back control. That must surely apply, as a matter of priority, to public services. I look back to the 2012 Olympics, an age ago now, but it is hard to forget the G4S security fiasco, when the Army had to step in. That is what has now happened with our railways: the control that the public has long been asking for. I recall that, even in 2015, a majority of Conservative voters wanted to see our railways run for public good, not private profit. It is what should happen with the disastrously underperforming, privatised, national Covid test and trace system. The private sector can always walk away. It makes a mess and leaves the public sector to pick up the pieces. The service users suffer, the providers are loaded with debt, the public pay more and a few walk away with the profits, usually stashed in a handy tax haven.
Given the rigid ideology of the Government, I will not even ask the Minister to agree with me, but I will ask him to agree with the idea of democracy, of keeping options open, including the option to take back control of public services. It is a legal principle that one Parliament cannot bind future ones, but locking us into trade deals where a country has given its word does, presumably, have that effect under the rule of law. The amendment does not force the Government to do anything, despite the obvious public good of bringing public services back into public hands. It does prevent the closing down of democratic decision making: it keeps control. I invite the Minister to tell me why keeping our options open is a bad idea and to support Amendment 13.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has ably laid out the detail of Amendment 51, to which I was pleased to attach my name alongside those of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox. There is little doubt that, of all the elements of the Trade Bill, protection of the NHS has attracted the greatest attention. As many Peers have already reflected in the Committee, this is a reminder that trade Bills are of far greater public interest and concern now than they were when this House and the other place last considered them. It is a powerful path for the argument for new systems of oversight equal to those our MEPs enjoyed and the US Congress regularly utilises.
I recall taking part in a march in 2014 with the group called 999 Call for the NHS. It started in Jarrow, following in famous footsteps, although I only walked the Luton to Bedford leg. We stopped for a comfort break at an establishment along the route. A young man behind the bar asked: “Why are we suddenly so busy?” We told him: “We are marching against the privatisation of the NHS.” He said: “What? It still says NHS above the door of my doctor’s surgery.”
Of course we know that that is not true: there is significant privatisation already. To cite just one statistic, 13% of in-patient mental healthcare beds in England are privately run. In Manchester, patients have a 50:50 chance of being admitted to a privately owned hospital and a one in four chance of the bed being provided by an American-owned company. We have lost control in significant areas of the NHS. This amendment makes sure that we can take it back and not lose further control.
Finally, I will refer briefly to Amendment 75. We have yet to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I look forward to her explanation, but my eye notes with approval the amendment’s provision against the use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures—another great threat to public democratic control and decision-making and something that the Green Party has long campaigned against. Protection of access to generic affordable drugs and preventing excess windfall profits for pharmaceutical companies: I cannot see anything not to like in this amendment.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 75 in my name. Intellectual property rights, if governed badly, can result in monopolies and unethical practices, particularly when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and medicines. In recent years, these practices have become more commonplace. Indeed, the NHS’s spiralling drugs bill led even the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, to recognise that pharmaceutical companies are trying to, in his words, “rip off taxpayers”, and that big business must be more socially responsible. Something must be terribly wrong. In an interview in the Times, he condemns profiteering on products that rely on government-funded research and NHS patient data.
In the UK, high prices have put pressure on national health budgets and led to the rationing of treatments—for example, on breakthrough medicines for hepatitis C and cancer. There are also significant delays for cystic fibrosis patients to get access to the drug Orkambi given the unaffordable price that the pharmaceutical company Vertex was demanding. It took years of stalled negotiations between NICE and Vertex and the threat of a compulsory licence to push Vertex to lower the price. In the meantime, 200 people died. The breast cancer drug trastuzumab—I hope I said that correctly—is unavailable to the vast majority of women across the developing world because Roche holds multiple patents on the drug in South Africa, blocking biosimilars from being sold in the country until 2033. This is despite the fact that trastuzumab is included in the WHO’s essential medicines list.
These and other examples of unethical pricing regimes by pharmaceutical companies prompted me to put forward my Amendment 75. It aims to ensure that a Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards—such as they are in medicines—to protect public health, with a particular focus on securing access to less costly generic medicines, is not undermined or restricted by international trade agreements to which we are a party.
The amendment is rooted in the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, which is a binding international human rights treaty that we in the UK ratified in 1976. The ICESCR ensures the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including—and this is the part that is pertinent to the amendment—the right to the highest attainable standard of health. What Government would not aspire to the best available healthcare for their citizens? But whether they would want that or not is immaterial; if they are a party to the ICESCR then this is a statutory duty that they owe their citizens. That is the point of the amendment. It puts on the face of the Bill something that is not just nice to have but that the Government are already committed to and should be proud of: to proclaim their commitment to the highest standard of health for all their citizens.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I also look forward to the comments of my friends, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Under normal Committee circumstances, we would have enjoyed debating some of these amendments.
In my view, this is the most important amendment for our highly valued NHS. Any trade deal that allows someone to own and manage or have access to any patient data, in no matter how small a way, is a threat to our NHS. The greatest perceived or real threat is from a trade deal with the USA that includes any part of the NHS. Our health service is free at the point of need; the USA healthcare system, on the other hand, is based on ability to pay. That in itself defines what the motives will be for any USA organisation wanting to get involved in any aspects of our NHS.
The Government repeatedly say that our NHS will not be on the table and that it is not for sale. What does that mean? The Government and NHS England already allow private contractors to bid for health services. Recent examples are Deloitte and Serco, for Covid-19-related services. Tennessee-based Acadia runs nearly a third of mental health beds, and the Priory Group has won many NHS contracts. Centene, a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, a tech and logistic provider, works with many GP practices. Palantir, an American data-mining company, is contracted to track, model, and analyse data from Covid-19. Optum, a subsidiary of the giant US health provider UnitedHealth, has contracts with many CCGs.
It is said that the citizens of the UK are not bothered who provides the service, as long as it is free when they need it, but they will if the taxes have to go up, services become poor and they have to pay for extras. While our health service is not perfect in every way, we get a bigger bang for our buck, despite being one of the least funded of OECD countries. Commercial companies may not wish or be allowed directly to run clinical services, but may be interested in managing the services. NHS England is moving to integrated care services, devising systems to be able to run such services. American companies such as UnitedHealth and other IPOs may well be interested in running regional services, with a contract that allows them to keep any surplus as profits. They could do that only by cutting services, particularly in secondary care.
The jewels in the crown of our NHS are information and data. A national health service that in the near future will be completely digitised is a goldmine of data, estimated to be worth well over £10 billion a year —data that is a goldmine for developing artificial intelligence, robotics and so on. No one in the world has such a database. Add to this the genomics data that UK has for both patients and population that is unique in the world makes the NHS highly attractive for developing and testing of personalised medicines. Digitised patient information is of immense value for doing clinical trials with stratified patients. There is no other country in the world that can so quickly identify patient groups required for such trials, as demonstrated recently in a clinical trial of a US-manufactured drug, conducted with speed and lower cost, mostly in the United Kingdom. It is this kind of information that makes our NHS is so valuable; any pharma, biotech, medical devices or diagnostic company would be mad not to want to get its hands on it.
The Government have said that they would welcome companies to come and help innovate. That is an invitation. The unicorn companies we wish the UK to develop will become a reality, but the UK will not be the owners. Of course, it could all be for good, except that it will be profit driven. Why is it that USA has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and delivers one of the worst outcomes in health? The big pharma companies say that we pay too little for our medicines, as already mentioned, through our regulatory system and medicines reimbursement regime. While I accept that NICE methodologies need a review, pharma would want much more than that in any UK-USA trade deal. I declare an interest here: in October 1997, I submitted a paper developed by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to establish a national institute of clinical effectiveness, which became the NICE of today, to the then Minister of Health in the Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. So I may have some right to comment on the methodologies of NICE.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, even when medicines patents run out, US pharma would seek data exclusivity to prevent cheaper drugs being produced. For all those reasons, why would any country negotiating a trade deal not wish to have any aspects of our NHS to be part of it, particularly the USA? To be able to get a share of delivery of service, manage or procure for any part of NHS is a profitable prize in itself; to be able to get hold of even a part of the health and patient data, with the possibility of owning it, is a prize measured in billions of dollars.
The only way to keep our NHS in our hands is to rule out any possibility of it being included in any trade documents maybe through mechanisms of positive listing or legislation in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will be committed to do this at Report. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Fox (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I shall speak to Amendment 51, to which I am a signatory. Before I do that, I commend my noble friend Lady Sheehan, who spoke eloquently on her Amendment 75, one part of which was about the dangers of price gouging. She mentioned a number of different ploys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel. But there is another one, whereby companies gain control of the generic and the replacement for the generic, then seek to phase out the generic. That has been happening recently. Perhaps the Minister can explain how, in trading terms, we can combat that kind of behaviour.
The dangers of ISDS, which were set out by my noble friend Lady Sheehan and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, are real and present. I look forward to the Minister’s response to their speeches on that issue.
Amendment 51 is designed to protect the NHS from potential dangers. If we are setting out on the great ship of global trade, it may be a lifebelt. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is right that this Bill is the only game in town for Parliament to exert its views, and this issue is of real concern to many Members of both Houses. That is why we are right to be having this discussion today.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was brilliant and devastating as he described the threats to our health service—threats that it is already facing. He described how we are on the brink of serious dangers, which the amendment highlights and seeks to avoid. The stakes are high, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out when speaking to an earlier group of amendments. The NHS is a huge potential market for any national economy with which we might wish to conclude a trade deal, not least, of course, the United States of America. However, we should acknowledge that it is also clear that the UK is in a position to continue to benefit substantially from the right relationship with international medical service and pharmaceutical companies, and we have to get that balance right between closing and opening our borders.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have some sympathy with this group of amendments, and Amendment 51 in particular. I will make a very brief contribution. In summing up the last debate, my noble friend Lord Younger very helpfully shared with us the negotiating mandate the Government have achieved with the United States in particular. I think it would put our minds at rest if, in summing up this small group of amendments, my noble friend could repeat the contents of that negotiating mandate, particularly as regards any possible negotiating mandate as regards the health service. I know we have had repeated assurances that that is the case, but I think it would be very helpful to know what actually is covered in the negotiating mandate and whether there is any window at all for an aggressive approach to be made by the United States in this regard.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Patel have very eloquently spoken to these amendments. They are incredibly important, and I strongly support them. We have to protect the NHS and publicly funded healthcare services across the UK from any control from outside the UK. To do otherwise would cost us dearly and would, in the end, prevent us looking after our own, because we would be told what to do from outside.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has shown, all aspects of the NHS and social care must be protected from trade agreements at every level. We need to maintain the option of reversing the privatisation which has already occurred, if that is what we decide to do in the future, and we must be free to create collaborative health and social care. Trade agreements must not drive us into some kind of locked-in increased privatisation of the NHS or, indeed, force any such change in the devolved nations. The health and social care sectors must be excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements, otherwise we will find that the NHS is irretrievably undermined.
On maintaining quality, we are world leaders in pharmaceutical research and development, yet access does not always match innovation. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has pointed out that in the first year of a new medicine being launched, only one-fifth of eligible patients in the UK get access compared to those in France and Germany. Our ability to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices must not be undermined by some small sub-paragraph in a trade agreement that slips by almost unnoticed.
In addition, medicines and medical devices must remain affordable in the UK. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society highlighted the huge extra cost to the NHS after Essential Pharma disclosed plans to cease production of Priadel, its cheapest lithium carbonate product, due to restrictions on permitted pricing. The suggested alternatives for bipolar disorder owned by the same company can cost at least 10 times as much.
So this is not only about who runs the NHS today. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, our NHS databases are extremely valuable. They are a resource for our future research and development and, from that, for our future economic development. If we lose them through a trade agreement, we will irretrievably damage our future economic development.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 75, which ensures that the Government can uphold the right of citizens to access medicines under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as part of the right to the highest attainable standard of healthcare. Modern free trade agreements are used increasingly as vehicles to further pharmaceutical industry interests ahead of public health needs. They increasingly include clauses on intellectual property, pharmaceutical regulatory processes and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that affect price and decrease access to medicines. To secure affordable access to medicines, the Government must be able to grant compulsory licences, deal with exhausted intellectual property rights, strengthen patentability criteria and determine what constitutes a national emergency, as laid out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. The Covid pandemic has shown why we must always be able to make technologies available quickly, widely and at the lowest cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, generics are not always cheaper in a complex market that can easily be manipulated.
Our NHS database is extremely valuable, and its value is increasing. It cannot be thrown away. There are times when short-term industry profits are not good for patients and delay access to affordable medicines and health technologies. These amendments aim to secure our healthcare for the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that informed patient consent requires a patient to know whether data is held, what it is used for and how it can be manipulated, even when it is anonymised. They would rightly be outraged if that data is allowed to put profits in the pockets of other countries, knowing that it will never be ploughed back into the NHS—certainly not at 100%.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will intervene only briefly, initially to support my noble friend Lord Bassam in some of the examples he gave. Dispute settlement in trade deals is pretty important as is what is put into the deal. I am not clear about—but I hope I am—whether “public services” includes critical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned, the two go together. I would cite energy, for a start, because one can see the problems we are going to have with energy in this country with the collapse of the nuclear deal. We must have a mix. There is a good chance that the lights and the gas may go out and the Government may want to move at some point to take monopoly control of the service. They ought to be able to do that, but there are too many sticky fingers for my liking in the issues involved and therefore I think the idea behind the amendment by my noble friend Lord Bassam is very good.
I want to make a brief point about Amendment 51 on the health service. I thought the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was devastating with its list of companies. Do not get me wrong, I have no objection to the NHS or other public services using the best available management tools, techniques and individuals to provide services but making use of them is not the same as handing over ownership. That is where one has to draw the line. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a very fair point. The public do not care who is providing the service as long as it is there when they need it, free at the point of use. He went on to say that they will care when their taxes go up. That point is when someone, such as the Prime Minister, will say, “You can avoid that by buying some insurance.” It is the slippery road to push us down the insurance route. I know we are all nice people in the Lords but frankly I do not trust the Prime Minister.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, many of the debates here take me back to 2012, and I look forward to the contribution from my former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I want to speak in support of Amendment 75 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan. She has laid the amendment out effectively and comprehensively. There has long been tension between those marketing and those purchasing proprietary medicines and generics. Clearly, where pharmaceutical companies invest in research and development they should be rewarded for that, but we also know how expert the industry is at claiming R&D when that is beyond what they have actually done.
This issue plays out in the NHS but also internationally, particularly in developing countries where basic medicines may not be affordable and dependence on generics is vital. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the pandemic has shown how important this is. It reinforces that we are all interlinked. An infection that affects the community in one part of the world is within days potentially spread worldwide. It is in all our interests that disease is countered everywhere, as well as that being the right thing to do.
As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, Amendment 75 affirms the Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards to protect public health, including securing access to more affordable generic medicines. As she said, earlier FTAs often focused on tariffs and trade in goods, while in the past couple of decades FTAs have become more comprehensive. Of course, many such developments are welcome in terms of ensuring standards, as we have been discussing, but provisions can also inappropriately protect monopolistic business. As I have said, genuinely innovative companies have a case, but their role can be exploited. In recognition of this, the WTO’s TRIPS agreement included public health safeguards. These were reaffirmed in the 2001 Doha declaration. Protecting genuine innovation has therefore already been addressed by the WTO, and it is important that these proposals are taken forward. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall start with Amendments 51 and 75, dealing with protecting the NHS and access to medicines. The Government’s position on this is clear: they are committed to the NHS and to high standards of public health, and they are committed to ensuring that any trade agreements will respect that. We have been quite explicit on that. What noble Lords think that other countries such as the US might want from a trade agreement is, frankly, not relevant and should not be driving the content of this Bill.
In my view, these amendments are part of the continuing public scaremongering about my party’s approach to the NHS. Indeed, I was surprised to find noble Lords mentioning the existing and long-standing involvement of private sector companies in the NHS, some of which are owned by non-UK interests, in derogatory terms. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I celebrate the fact that we use private sector services where it makes sense in the delivery of healthcare services, and the fact that we use them to a marginal extent in the NHS does not affect the Government’s commitment to the NHS nor their determination to protect it. I wish that noble Lords would hear that. I was frankly shocked to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about not trusting the Prime Minister on the NHS.
The real reason I put my name down to speak on this group is that my attention was caught by Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. I know that he is an old-fashioned Labour man and that, deep down, he will want to nationalise or renationalise anything that moves. Indeed, I first met the noble Lord when we were debating private finance initiatives back in the 1990s. Needless to say, the noble Lord opposed anything to do with the private sector being involved, and I have to say that I lost that debate, but it was, of course, before the Labour Government of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, came in and took up PFI with such misguided enthusiasm that they practically wrecked the finances of the NHS. However, I say to the noble Lord that he cannot seriously think that a Conservative Government will put in a Bill introduced by them references to public services being subject to monopoly or exclusive rights or, more importantly, allowing them to be brought back into the public sector as if those are good things. I accept that sometimes they are necessary things, but the thought that we would legislate as if they are good values to protect in legislation is, frankly, for the birds.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about today’s drugs not always necessarily being the cheapest. I accept that, but on the other hand, I am sure he would agree that in the overwhelming range of medicines, today’s drugs are highly valuable and economic.
I remember that during my time as director of VSO, I attended a training course for medical personnel of all kinds, doctors, nurses and so on, who would be going off to take up exacting assignments in the poorest parts of the world. The lecturer was absolutely brilliant. He was an eminent physician who has gone on to even more eminent positions. At a certain point he dished out two pieces of paper each to everyone in the room. He said, “Please write down on one piece of paper the last drug that you prescribed for a patient. On the second piece of paper, please write down the name of the last drug that you took.”
The lecturer collected these in and then went into a state of outrage—he was a very effective performer—saying, “You are going to do vital medical work in various parts of the world”. As he went through the bits of paper, he said, “Look at this! You know that, for this patented drug, there is a generic drug available at a cheaper rate. You know that—why have you done it?” People were just flummoxed; they did not know why they had done it. They had got into a culture where too much of the sale of medicines was in the hands of PR and advertising companies that were, on the back of drugs, making a lot of money by finding more attractive ways of presenting things that were available generically.
I also remember at that time that, in Bangladesh, there was a great deal of concern because we were trying to support a factory—an enterprise—that was making generic drugs available in Bangladesh. My goodness, the moves that were afoot to try to undermine the viability of that company.
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for having introduced her amendment because, if there is one thing that we must hold dear, it is that we cannot allow any further privatisation of the health service by the back door. It is inadvertent sometimes, but sometimes it is quite deliberate by those who try to manipulate trade deals in the interests of their own countries and industries.
I also commend very warmly my noble friend Lord Bassam. He is absolutely right that it is vital that Governments of all persuasions have available without inhibition the opportunity to introduce public ownership where it becomes essential. We again know that there have been too many dangers that these rights may be curbed. We have had a peculiar situation in Britain where, because of the curbs that already exist, we have had nationalised companies in other European countries running British rail systems. That is just absurd. We must not open the door to the possibility that more of that could occur. My noble friend is absolutely right to have brought his amendment into the context of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I say first that I very much agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Noakes had to say, which means that I can save myself saying some of those things by thoroughly agreeing with her, in particular on the point she made about the disinformation about private ownership in the NHS.
When the noble Lord, Lord Patel, whom I regard as a friend, makes his points, he has to answer the following question. Is it his proposition that when the Priory Group, which was a UK company for many years, was bought by an American company, that should have been prevented by the UK Government? That is the question that he has to answer. In fact, it was not prevented by the UK Government, and indeed for decades Governments in this country have allowed foreign ownership of UK companies. If we were to stop that, it would of course have very big implications for the investor relationship that we have with other countries. However, that is not what we are proposing, and I do not think that it is what either the Official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats are proposing, so it does not really have any force as an argument.
More to the point is whether anything in our trade relationships and trade agreements that we enter into prejudices our ability to have a National Health Service free at the point of use, paid for out of general taxation and controlled by us as a public service? There is nothing in those trade agreements that allows that. In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee—she might care to look at the evidence that has been given—is examining in detail the Government’s proposals for negotiations with the United States on a prospective free trade agreement. That expressly excludes any measures that would have any impact on the NHS or on our ability to control our pharmaceutical pricing and supply system. That is very clear; she can look at it.
All three amendments relate to rollover agreements; they do not talk about future trade agreements. Therefore, the debate about the American free trade agreement is irrelevant to these amendments. I looked at one example —the Canada-EU agreement, which is able to be rolled over with the benefit of implementation through this legislation. A description on the EU legal database of Chapter Nine of the agreement on cross-border trade in services says that
“this chapter fully upholds governments’ ability to regulate and supply services in the public interest.”
On Chapter Eighteen, which relates to state enterprises, monopolies, and enterprises granted special rights or privileges, it says, in terms:
“The rules ensure that both parties have the full freedom of choice in the way they provide public services to their citizens.”
There is a general exception which says that provision can be made
“to protect human, animal or plant life or health”.
I think that the proposers of amendments of this character have to look at what they are proposing and ask whether it changes anything. The rollover agreements comply with those requirements, and therefore the legislation is entirely robust.
I rather deprecate the idea that one proposes amendments and, before listening to the debate, says, “Well, I might bring it back on Report”. I suggest to noble Lords that they listen to the debate and, if they propose to bring back an amendment back on Report, they redesign it so that it bites on future trade agreements. At least we could then have a debate that was relevant. There is nothing in what is proposed here in relation to health or public services, in particular, that bites in any sensible way on the existing trade agreement.
We should remember that these trade agreements do not change domestic law. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for example, that the law of the land says that you cannot introduce charges for NHS services other than by new primary legislation. That is the only way in which it can happen. Therefore, we do not need to trust the Prime Minister; it is in the law. Of course, one can change anything through primary legislation, but the Prime Minister has not done so, and I can confidently say to noble Lords that I know that he will not do so to introduce charging for NHS services. He would not get it through even if he tried.
Therefore, I do not quite get any of this. Frankly, Amendment 13 feels a bit as though the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wants to ignore the result of the last general election. If the election had gone another way and Jeremy Corbyn had become Prime Minister, he could have done these things and trade agreements would not have stopped him. It is the election that stopped him, and not trying to legislate to stop trade agreements being irrelevant.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for stating in very clear terms the benefit of putting into statute some of the restrictions on some of the activities of our political leaders, so that we do not need to trust them, because these are in the law. I hope that when it comes to future groups in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others will remember those very wise words of counsel that it is important to have things in writing in our statutes to protect our valued principles and institutions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing that.
As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out—this is at the heart of the debate on this group—the NHS is not just a greatly valued health and social service for our nation but is seen by many as a great economic asset. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right that, when it comes to procurement and the provision of services, there is a great deal that is provided by the private sector. In the debate on the first group, I highlighted that about half the public procurement of the entire UK Government relates to health and that around one-quarter of the beds in the mental health service in the north-west of England are operated by an American health operator. I made no judgment about the good or bad side of that, but simply stated it as a fact. And it is a fact that the United States wants to expand market access to the provision. The question that then comes is: what is the limit and, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, what is the right balance? That is a question for the Government.
The Government have stated, as they would say, “categorically”, that the NHS is not for sale. Michael Gove was in the Scottish Parliament just this week, and he said to MSPs:
“The NHS is not for sale under any circumstances.”
My question is: what does he mean by the NHS? For many people, intellectual property and pharmaceuticals, the access to and price of medicines, the delivery of services, the buildings that people are in, and the employers of the people providing those services, are the NHS. We can outline concerns about some of the risks of a trade agreement facilitating greater market access for the provision of the private service situation from America, but what is the Government’s view about the limits of that? This is a genuine and legitimate question that Members speaking on this group have asked.
Before I move on to Amendment 75, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, reference was given to the potential American deal. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely correct that much of the Bill is about how the continuity agreements are in operation; he cited the existing agreements that we have and he cited CETA. On IP and ISDS, which we will come to later, there is a different approach, which we want to explore further.
One of the things that gave us a degree of reassurance —there was of course debate on CETA and the health service; I remember that very clearly—and one of the differences was that British parliamentarians were able to take part in discussions agreeing the mandate for CETA when it came to the remit and extent to which health and pharmaceuticals and intellectual property would be within the agreement. The INTA committee in the European Parliament would have seen the text of the mandate and the negotiation position, the offer from the European Union and a draft text before it was signed, and it would have seen the final text before it went for a final review. None of us in this Committee will have any opportunity to have any of the equivalent for the American deal. It is therefore right to ask probing questions, especially since the question asked—I think by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—was: what do the Americans want? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that wanting something is not getting it. However, knowing what they want, and asking the Government what their position is on whether we are offering it, is correct scrutiny.
What do the Americans want? As we have heard, on intellectual property they refer to TRIPS, and page 8 of its negotiating mandate says it wants to
“ensure that the Agreement fosters innovation and promotes access to medicines, reflecting a standard similar to that found in U.S. law”.
When it comes to procedural fairness for pharmaceutical and medical devices, it wants to:
“Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products.”
We know what the American request is. We have not seen any of the negotiating offer from the UK—any counter-offer or any draft text—and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has not been provided with any draft text, as far as I am aware. Therefore, it is right to have in this Bill, at this time, proper questions along those lines. If the Government do not say what they mean by the NHS and the extent to which market access is open to new American providers then we must have the continuation of scrutiny.
On Amendment 75, I think my noble friend did the Committee a great service in bringing this amendment forward. My noble friend Baroness Northover has given the international context, as part of the debate on this group is around the international considerations. I am a member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, and we published a report in July this year which highlighted some of the truly drastic impacts of Covid-19 on Africa. We looked not just purely at the health elements but at the economic impacts. Of course, any economic impacts on the continent of Africa are also trade impacts for the United Kingdom’s relationship with those countries.
The African Trade Policy Centre of the UN Economic Commission for Africa has seen a 40% fall in African exports and GDP has effectively halved. The worst-case scenario looks like GDP falling by $120 billion, and UN ECA estimates point to Covid-19 pushing 27 million people into extreme poverty while imposing £44 billion to £46 billion in additional health costs. We know that those additional health costs will also incorporate what is likely to be a huge burden on many countries to provide vaccines and other medical support for a long-term, sustainable recovery from Covid-19.
It is right that my noble friend has raised the issue of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration and whether the United Kingdom should activate, under that TRIPS Agreement, the ability of taking products over patents and then making them accessible. They would be accessible not just here in the United Kingdom but through a trading relationship. It is absolutely right that she has made that case. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has pointed to the Government’s capability to do that. My question to the Minister is: is it the Government’s intention to do it?
Canada did it in March. Canada Bill C-13—
“An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19”—
authorised the Government of Canada to supply
“a patented invention to the extent necessary to respond to a public health emergency that is a matter of national concern.”
The Prime Minister indicated that Canada’s role within that is not just at home but abroad. If Canada was able to do that in March, knowing what the likely global impact would be not only on Canada but on the least-developed countries in the world, what is the UK’s position? If we have not activated that agreement, why not? If it is the Government’s intention to do it, how will they implement it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords remember that when they first entered your Lordships’ House, they would occasionally find it hard to remember how to get from A to B. There have been times during this debate, echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Lansley, when I thought perhaps I had wandered into the wrong Committee Room by mistake, because a lot of what we have discussed—in what has been a most stimulating debate—did not seem to relate to the purpose of the Bill, which is the rollover of continuity trade agreements. Leaving that to one side, I turn first to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would mean that the Clause 2 power could not be used to implement agreements that restrict the delivery of public services through public monopolies, exclusive rights or nationalisation.
As noble Lords know, we need the powers in the Bill to ensure continuity of trading relationships with existing partners. To date—I say yet again—we have signed 20 agreements with 48 countries, accounting, I am pleased to say, for £110 billion of trade in 2018 numbers. I can confirm that none of these signed agreements have impacted our ability to deliver public services effectively. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in trade agreements and will continue to do so. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public and that will not change. I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a complete reassurance on that. I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we will not do anything that impugns the democratic control of these matters.
Noble Lords will observe from our record of signed agreements that the continuity programme is seeking to preserve current trading relationships, not alter the way in which our public services are designed or delivered. If this is not an unparliamentary term, I think it is a red herring to suggest otherwise.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to stipulate that regulations can be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if the agreement does not undermine the way in which the NHS is delivered as a public good, universal and free at the point of service.
No one listening to the debate could be in any doubt of the important place that the NHS has in the nation’s heart. I am pleased to put on record that I and the Government share the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. We have been consistently clear about our commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS: that it is universal and free at the point of need. I tell the Committee the same thing that my colleague, the Minister for Trade Policy, told the other place, that
“the NHS is not and never will be for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 315.]
The Government will ensure that no trade agreements will affect our ability to keep public services public.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his explanation. The Minister faces two main problems with this Bill. The first is the lack of transparency, which many noble Lords have mentioned during the debate. Until there is transparency, the Minister may be in some trouble over the issues of public services, particularly the National Health Service.
The second problem is this: I know that the Minister is relatively new at his job but it is our job to test Bills and decide what is relevant. Nothing is more relevant to most of the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate than the safety and security of the National Health Service, so my conclusion is that the Minister would perhaps be wise to discuss this issue with us between now and the next stage of the Bill. Can we meet and discuss it? Of course he reassures us and of course we know what the policy is but, with the exception of two or three speakers today, I think that we would all feel a lot safer if this measure were in the Bill.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those comments. If she, as an experienced hand, is prepared to lend some of her experience to a new boy, I would be delighted to receive it. I cannot think of a better person to have a meeting with to enable me to do that. I meant absolutely no discourtesy at any point about the scrutiny of this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in his remarks, the Minister referred twice to the mandate that the negotiators have for a future trade deal with America and stated that the mandate excludes the NHS. The language that the Government have always used is that they do not have a “mandate” for these negotiations, but “negotiating objectives”. If there is a mandate, as the Minister referred to, will he write to me about what it is? If he would prefer that to be confidential, he can write just to me, but it would also be beneficial and helpful if he wrote to the International Agreements Sub-Committee about it.
Secondly, the Minister must have been briefed before the debate on this group of amendments on both the consequences and the global implications of my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s very proper amendment, which raises these questions. My question to him—on the Government’s policy on utilising the TRIPS flexibilities that exist for medicines patents, which could then be available through our trading relationship with the least developed countries—could not have been more specific. He did not respond to it in his winding-up speech, so what is the Government’s position there? If they have not implemented legislation, as Canada did in March, why not?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I draw no distinction between our negotiating objectives, which were made public before we started the US FTA negotiations, and the mandate. When I used “mandate”, I was referring to our negotiating objectives. I apologise if that caused the noble Lord any confusion. I will write to him on his point about TRIPS.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very long and wide-ranging debate on amendments which are pretty simple in their effect. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendment and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton in particular. The thing that has impressed me most is that that support has come from right across the political spectrum with the notable exception of the Minister, my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, took me back to the time in the 1990s when she and I were engaged in fairly ferocious debate on the potential of PFI. As she courteously reminded the Committee, it was a debate that she lost. She then went on to say that I had been scaremongering. I do not think I was scaremongering then, and I do not think I am scaremongering today with this amendment, because it is pretty modest. It seeks to ensure that services can be taken back into the public service. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, in a way it is trying to help to codify the Prime Minister’s words and commitments to keeping the public services public and being able to use the public sector in a particular way. That is the modesty of that amendment, and I am surprised that the Minister has not been able to accept it.
Surely, if he wants to reassure us—he worked very hard to, and I congratulate him on his reply—the most reassuring thing to do would be to accept our amendment to the Bill and put beyond any doubt the Prime Minister’s commitment by ensuring that we could keep services public, protect public services and bring things back into the public service where we needed to. Imagine if we were in a position now, with the Covid epidemic, where for some reason or another we had precluded us having the ability to bring back in-house test, track and trace. That would be disastrous. It is evident to all of us that test, track and trace as it is currently being operated by a number of private sector operators is not performing as well as it should. To say, ludicrously, that we could not use the public service to rectify that and improve it would surely be absurd. In a sense, that is where my argument leads: we should be able use the public service in that way.
It is a tradition, of course, and a matter of practice that in Grand Committee one should not press one’s amendment to a vote and one cannot, but this is an issue that we will have to return to when we get to Report. Although I shall read the Minister’s words of reassurance with great care, I do not think there was sufficient in them to provide the Committee or the House with the sort of reassurance and trust that we seek. This afternoon I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I think your Lordships will want to return to this on Report, and I rather hope that we do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the appropriate authority has published a report reviewing the impact of any changes brought about by that international trade agreement on the existing law of intellectual property.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to explore issues that could be damaging to intellectual property law.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in the digital era in particular, intellectual property is the lifeblood of our creative and tech industries. As the Alliance for Intellectual Property points out, the UK’s IP framework has a number of features that protect UK consumers and reward UK creators and inventors. It is quite possible that our trading partners may wish to reduce or water down these protections. To ensure that the UK’s IP framework will continue to deliver significant economic benefits, it is paramount that the UK does not concede or dilute its current IP standards as part of trade negotiations; indeed, they should be enhanced.
Ensuring that we will retain or enhance these core protections involves asking ourselves the following questions for each trade agreement. For instance, on international treaties generally, will the UK encourage all our trade partners to promote both the ratification of, and adherence to, terms of international treaties for the recognition and enforcement of copyright, trademark design and other intellectual property rights? With regard to trademarks, will we resist the introduction of proof of use?
With regard to maintaining the UK’s injunctive relief powers, in the UK rights holders can apply to the civil courts for no-fault injunctive relief. Will the UK Government ensure the preservation of their no-fault injunctive relief regime? With regard to design rights, will our negotiators ensure that the current level of protection is not weakened and that such protection is available to all UK designers, particularly regarding unregistered designs? With regard to copyright, will we make sure that the copyright term of 70 years after death is preserved? New Zealand, by contrast, has only a 50-year term.
With regard to copyright exceptions, will future free trade agreements negotiated by the UK include balanced copyright exceptions and limitations, and uphold standards such as the Berne three-step test? Will we resist any adoption of US-style fair use?
With regard to the liability of online platforms, will the UK oppose any obligations under any trade agreement, particularly with the US, that would broaden liability shields for online intermediaries or digital platforms? Will the UK ensure that its negotiators work together with the US to simplify the DMCA notice and takedown provisions and embrace a sharing of best practice within the US and UK systems? The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which I strongly support, would give this wider and greater force regarding children.
With regard to site blocking, will the Government make sure that our site-blocking provisions for pirate sites are protected and included in free trade agreements? It seems they have not been in the Japan free trade agreement. With regard to sovereignty over exhaustion rights, will we ensure that exhaustion continues to be a sovereign issue for the UK, that it is not prescribed in any trade agreement and that there is no shift to an international exhaustion regime?
With regard to the artist resale right, the ARR ensures that UK visual artists receive a modest royalty when their work is resold on the secondary art market. Will we be maintaining the ARR and pressing for it to be included in all future trade agreements? With regard to reciprocal public performance rights, will the Government press the countries that we are negotiating with to provide for full payment for all music rights holders from the use of their works or from recordings, public performance and broadcast?
With regard to source codes, will we be preventing the mandatory transfer of source codes, algorithms or encryption keys as a condition of market access? With regard to data, will we be supporting the development of AI through aligning open government data and text and data mining rules with our own? Lastly, with regard to robust enforcement measures, the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and infringement is crucial for ensuring the integrity of future trade agreements. Will we be ensuring that effective mechanisms for enforcement are in place so that rights holders have the ability to enforce IP laws within these jurisdictions?
These are all significant aspects of IP rights that have hitherto been relied on by our exporters and service providers. The Minister assured me at Second Reading:
“As he will know, our intellectual property regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. One of our priorities will be to ensure that future trade agreements do not negatively impact on standards in this area and that our regime will promote trade in intellectual property.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 747-78.]
But how will we know for sure in advance? Here is a classic example. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys points out that in the UK’s negotiating objectives under “Intellectual property” on page 11, the Government commit to:
“Secure patents, trademarks, and designs provisions that: are consistent with the UK’s existing international obligations, including the European Patent Convention (EPC), to which the UK is party”.
In the corresponding US negotiating objectives, the US Government state that they will seek provisions governing intellectual property rights
“that reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in US law.”
As CIPA says:
“These UK and US objectives are not fully aligned, and a similar non-alignment may well arise in negotiations with other countries. This carries the serious risk of creating damaging uncertainty about the UK’s continuing membership of the EPC”.
Let us take two more examples. The July letter of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, about the New Zealand negotiations on intellectual property gave very little away. In his slightly fuller letter on the Japan agreement in September, he said:
“New protections for UK creative industries—British businesses can now be confident that their brands and innovations will be protected. We have gone beyond the EU on provisions that tackle online infringement of IP rights, such as film and music piracy.”
That is all well and good, but it is precious little information on such an important subject. We should know in advance through a specific report what the IP situation on each trade agreement will be so that we can be assured that the relevant protection and provisions are in place. That is what this amendment does.
I turn briefly to Amendment 16 on data flows to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be speaking and which I have signed. However, I do not want to steal any of her thunder. It is sufficient to say that this was not dealt with by the Minister at Second Reading. It supports the free flow of data and regulated access to data sets; ensuring that data can flow across borders is essential for digital trade, in particular for e-commerce consumption and supply chains and the use of data collection and data analytics through the cloud and otherwise.
In his September letter on the Japan agreement, the Minister said that cutting-edge digital and data provisions had been agreed. Again, how are we to judge? How are we to judge, too, the impact of any safe harbour or privacy shield provisions on our wider digital economy, especially in the light of Schrems II? Already, the Government’s consultation on a national data strategy with its promise to remove legal barriers to data use are problematic. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, that the Government Digital Service is carrying out a risk assessment. What impact will that have on our trade agreement negotiations?
All of this argues for a specific impact report prior to a trade agreement being signed in respect of data flows. I shall leave the Minister to the mercies of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16 in my name, which requests a similar report on data. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their support. I in turn support Amendment 15 in their names on intellectual property. This is an issue on which we have worked together over many years, and of course the Minister, my noble friend Lord Younger, is something of an expert on IP, so I am hopeful of making progress and look forward to his response.
Our amendment on data is possibly even more important than that on IP, if that is possible. Data is like the electricity on which it depends: it allows everything to work and permits communication and analysis across the world. Data flow now underlies almost every aspect of our lives from financial services to the food supply chain, from defence to the music industry. The cloud is everywhere; it has made some people very rich, and has radically changed the market valuations of the world’s companies—here I refer to my own registered interests.
However, unlike IP where there are well-established international frameworks and bodies, in data there is inadequate international alignment of standards, and that has led to disputes between the EU and the US, as I know only too well as a former Minister with responsibility for data. The combination of the GDPR and the European Court ruling on Schrems caused huge problems that we solved with the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework. Led by my right honourable friend Matt Hancock and my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde, who is now of course our esteemed Chief Whip, we put the GDPR and associated changes on to the UK statute book so that the UK would be declared equivalent to the EU and data could continue to flow after EU exit. We still await clarity on that equivalence decision, which is important to many sectors and is a matter of much concern to the EU Scrutiny Committee on which I have the pleasure of sitting.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as chair of the 5Rights Foundation.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the online safety of UK children and other vulnerable users is not compromised in any UK trade deals, which is of particular relevance to the trade deal between the UK and the US for two reasons. First, the US has recently taken a determined stance in this area and inserted a requirement for recipients of US trade deals—including Mexico, Canada and Japan—to accept aspects of the broad and hugely contested US domestic law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which even the US Attorney-General William Barr describes as enabling
“platforms to absolve themselves completely of responsibility for policing their platforms”
and an IP regime that unduly benefits the mega corporations of Silicon Valley.
Secondly, such broad protection from any liability threatens to put a chill on, if not undermine entirely, existing UK law and threatens the efficacy of the much-anticipated online harms Bill. By contrast, Amendment 34 would make negotiators unable to agree to terms in any trade agreement that did not uphold the UK’s regime of child online protection.
New paragraph (a) captures laws and undertakings in current UK legislation and treaties. This would allow the Government to cite treaties such as the UNCRC, which the UK has ratified but the US has not, and also domestic legislation that has already been passed, for example protections for children from pornography in the Digital Economy Act 2017.
New paragraph (b) specifically refers to the data protections brought into law on 2 September in the form of the age-appropriate design code, an initiative introduced and won in the House of Lords by a similar all-party grouping. It is already having a profound impact on the safety and privacy of children online around the world. New paragraph (b) also ensures that the Data Protection Act 2018 is protected more generally, since the code is built on the broader provisions of the DPA.
New paragraph (c) would allow the Secretary of State to determine that domestic legislation which protects children online can be subject to a carve-out in trade agreements. We cannot directly protect a Bill that is yet to be brought forward but, if this amendment were adopted, the advances promised by the online harms Bill, such as a duty of care tackling the spread of child sexual abuse material, and the introduction of minimum standards, could all be upheld.
Finally, the amendment defines children as persons under 18. This is crucial, since the US domestic consumer law, COPPA, has created a de facto age of adulthood online of 13, an age of maturity that flies in the face of our law, our culture and all known understanding of childhood development.
Turning to the amendment’s relevance to the Bill, I have listened carefully to the Minister, who is at pains to point out that the powers of the Bill are limited to continuity agreements. However, much has been repeatedly said about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the UK’s values as a new trading nation. The Committee can only judge the Government’s priorities on what is in front of it, and I am hopeful that their long-term commitment to making the UK the safest place for a child to be online will be one such priority.
I am not an expert in trade, but I have consulted widely with colleagues and legal experts who are. Their collective confusion would suggest that it remains unclear to what extent agreements between the EU and the US in relation to data flow, data protection and liability services might be considered in scope under language about mutual recognition agreements, which we have yet to hear much about. The Library’s briefing on the Bill points to the fact that:
“The bill does not specify that the new agreement between the UK and a partner country must replicate or be similar to the original EU agreement.”
Were the EU-US agreements to bring these into scope, this leaves a great danger that the safety of UK children will be undermined through the mechanism of a Trade Bill with no oversight or challenge. When the Minister responds, I would appreciate some clarity that this is not the case.
I want to be clear about what it would mean if we sign away the UK’s right to protect children online. The tech sector would be able to continue to regulate itself, meaning more young people having their data harvested and used to recommend dangerous self-harm and suicide content. More games with no breaks or save buttons would trap children in twilight worlds of gaming. More children would be suggested as potential friends to strange adults through risky design features, and more would face the images of their horrific sexual abuse being circulated online forever. These are just some of the harms that the code and the upcoming online harms Bill are designed to end. All would be at risk if the tech companies get their way—as they are furiously lobbying to do—through the “back door” of a Trade Bill. This is not a risk we need to take.
I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that amendments of this nature hamper the free hand of trade negotiators and, simultaneously, give sight to trade partners of the UK’s red lines. I hope he will forgive me for saying that that is indeed my intention.
I will finish by hijacking a comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, during Tuesday’s Committee to point out that it is not only those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench who want their anxieties to be answered in the Bill. Online harms are an issue that causes anxiety to Members of all parties in both Houses and to vast swathes of the public. There was undoubtedly a majority in the country for releasing the UK from its European trade partners, which forms the context for the Bill, but there is a far greater majority in the country for regulating technology companies. A survey undertaken last year by 5Rights showed that 90% of parents wanted internet companies to be required to follow rules to protect children online, and 67% of those wanted them to be enforced by an independent regulator or the Government.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has sought to reassure me on Zoom and by letter that the Government will try to maintain their ability to protect users from emerging online harms in a UK-US trade agreement, and I very much welcome his personal commitment to child online safety. However, given the importance of the issue, I ask the Government to put that reassurance in the Bill. It is not scaremongering. The US, at the behest of the richest and most powerful companies in the world, has already inserted Section 230 into each of its recent trade agreements. As the UK becomes the author of its own priorities in the world, there must be no greater priority than putting beyond doubt that it will not trade away the safety and security of its children.
Therefore I ask the Minister whether he can persuade the Government to adopt the substance of the proposed amendment and, in doing so, categorically take our kids off the table.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, next to speak are the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, but they are not present and are not logged on to Zoom. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 15 and 16 speak for themselves, but I just want to take a moment to say how glad I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought her amendment on safeguarding. The significance and importance of this cannot be overemphasised, and I hope that she will find support from across the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, but I particularly want to speak to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. This issue is particularly dear to my heart. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the Minister will say that this does not fall within the remit of the Trade Bill, which simply deals with continuity agreements, but by that very fact this feature to do with online child safety is of vital importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has comprehensively addressed this amendment. She has clearly said that its purpose is to ensure that the online safety of children and other vulnerable users is not compromised as a direct consequence of clauses that appear in free trade agreements.
As we are already aware, the UK does not have a highly developed system of negotiation. As the Bill stands there is no parliamentary oversight, meaning that the terms of the agreements are exclusively in the hands of the negotiators and the Government of the day. This is of particular concern in the area of online protection, for two reasons. First, this is an area on which the US has already taken a determined stance and inserted a requirement for recipients of US trade deals to accept aspects of a broad and hugely contested US domestic law unduly benefiting the mega corporations of Silicon Valley in the USA. Secondly, such a broad lack of liability threatens to undermine or put a chill on the existing UK law and the much-anticipated online harms Bill, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, so I call again the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise because I did not unmute myself, but I think that Lady Sheikh has managed to unmute me.
I support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. While the internet is a space for innovation, expression and communication, it can also be damaging. As our digital world develops and innovates, so do the risks of online harm. Children are increasingly exposed to inappropriate content, grooming, harassment, malicious behaviour, misinformation and breaches of privacy. Two-thirds of vulnerable children and young people, supported by Barnardo’s sexual exploitation service, were groomed online before meeting their abuser in person.
Social media companies have failed to prioritise children’s safety. Last year, the NSPCC found that more than 70% of reported grooming took place on the main social media networks—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Snapchat. The global platforms are not taking enough responsibility for content on their sites, or being held accountable. More needs to be done to verify user identities, monitor harmful content and handle reports of abuse effectively. Harmful content and activities have a damaging effect on children’s mental and physical well-being and can lead to exploitation, trafficking, substance abuse and radicalisation. Those impacts are rarely short term; they stay with the children for the rest of their lives.
The UK is committed to being the safest place in the world to be online, and we must do more. We need better safeguards, and I urge the Government to prioritise the online harms Bill, which will be world leading in safety requirements and holding the industry accountable. As we leave the European Union and continue to develop our place in the digital world, we must ensure that our standards and goals are not jeopardised. We recently signed a trade deal with Japan; this historic agreement will advance digital standards through data provisions that maintain and improve digital safety. This year, Japan was ranked first in the child online safety index for low cyber risks. Those risks refer to bullying, misuse of technology, the detrimental effect of gaming and social media, and exposure to violent and sexual content.
In the UK-Japan trade deal, the rights and protection of children online have not been undermined, as Japan shares a similar ambition to ours for legislative standards. But what will happen when we look to sign with other countries that do not have the same level of protection? Unlike Japan, the United States came 22nd out of 30 countries in the child online safety index for cyber risks.
Although this is only one aspect of the index, it shows that children are particularly at risk online in the United States. We cannot expose our children to the same abuse. The new trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada has created a legal shield for tech companies, whereby the service providers are not held liable for content on their platforms or the harm it may cause to users. This fails to hold social media companies to account, and is not an effective safeguard for children.
Supporting the amendment would mean that our existing protections could not be traded away, and would ensure that we could fulfil our duty of care to children. If we do not support the amendment, we risk undermining our commitment to create a safer world online for the protection of children. Furthermore, if we do not do this, we could cause a situation in which social media giants are not transparent in how they deal with abuse online, and may be less accountable.
The pandemic has reinforced the importance of the digital world in our lives. When we return to normality, we must have better safeguards. We should not just maintain our existing safeguards; we should endeavour to strengthen them. The amendment would mean at least that our existing laws, and therefore the rights of our children, were protected. I hope that it will be accepted.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in responding to the last group of amendments, the Minster, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, expressed surprise at the broad nature of the debate. I would say to him, perhaps facetiously, “Welcome to the House of Lords”. I fear that this group may tempt his colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to make a similar observation, but I ask that he does not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the end of the previous debate, the nature of these debates highlights serious concerns that noble Lords have, and the Government should take them seriously, even when they are not necessarily on the face of the Bill.
This is a very good example of that. I shall not speak in detail about Amendment 34, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a very powerful speech. I am also glad that Lady Sheikh managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, online, because he made a very strident contribution on something that is extremely important.
Similarly, I am not going to talk much about intellectual property. On this issue I bend the knee to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—and, frankly, so should Her Majesty’s Government. I suggest that the Minister should give my noble friend’s words, and particularly his questions, special attention, because they are serious and important issues that face a lot of companies in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke strongly on data flow. At the risk of provoking the ire of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I have to say that I agree with her. Her issue is absolutely fundamental—and I shall expand a bit on that.
I have previously quoted the “exuberant” Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describes her. Here is another quote, from a speech she made to the WTO almost exactly a year ago:
“We believe it is high time to reform digital trade rules so that they are fit for the 21st century, reducing restrictions to market access to support e-commerce and ensure the free flow of data across borders.”
Yet despite this enthusiasm or exuberance, I sense that there are problems when it comes to squaring the conflicting pressures that are mounting around the free flow of data across borders. Indeed, when the Minister kindly invited myself and others to a facilitated discussion on the progress of the US-UK trade deal, I was surprised and shocked by the insouciant response to my question on data adequacy and the issue of reconciling US and EU data rules. It was a very short answer, and to us, it did not show a full understanding of the challenge.
However, it is not just about GDPR. I will talk in a little detail about Schrems II, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised, because it is an important cloud hanging over what we seek to achieve. To remind your Lordships, in that ruling the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the EU, found on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US data protection shield. To explain, it wrote in its press release that
“the requirements of US national security, public interest and law enforcement have primacy, thus condoning interference with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to that third country.”
It added that
“mechanisms in the EU-US Privacy Shield ostensibly intended to mitigate this interference are not up the required legal standard of ‘essential equivalence’ with EU law.”
Broadly, the US’s prioritization of digital surveillance in the view of the court collides directly with European fundamental rights.
That is a sobering ruling, which spells danger for UK trade aspirations and sets some alarm bells ringing regarding the UK’s surveillance regime. Her Majesty’s Government need to reflect on this very seriously when talking up the potential for a UK-US trade deal that includes data, and they should contrast that stark ruling with the freebooting statement from the Secretary of State with which I opened. By the way, I assume that Her Majesty’s Government are probably having to reflect on this ruling in their efforts to tie down data adequacy with the EU when the transition period runs out. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity to update us on progress with these discussions with the EU.
This is not a trivial issue, and we need to demonstrate in this country that we take it seriously. As a starting point, accepting Amendments 15, 16 and 34 would be a very good idea.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be relatively brief because much of what I want to say has been covered by the other speakers, not that I could ever have competed with the tour d’horizon that was the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the expertise also shown by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It was also a bit of a tour de force, since it touched on every issue there is to touch on in terms of intellectual property. Indeed, if the noble Lords were minded to follow that up with amendments to back up some of the points they were making, the glacial progress we are making so far on the Bill would turn into a complete and utter standstill. So much is going on here, and so many things need to be addressed, that I am almost tempted to go into cahoots with them to try to see whether we can pick them out. Perhaps I will resist that one.
Both Amendments 15 and 16, taken together or separately, are helpful in the sense that, as others have said, they pick up some of the rather considerable concerns that we are all hearing from the IP sector about the future, about what is going to happen to personal data flows and, indeed, about what is going to happen to our IP industry, which is so vital to the UK economy and our cultural industries. They seem to be very sensible information-gathering amendments that do not impose any great burden on the Government, and they would help to inform the situation as we reach the turning points at the end of this year. I hope that they commend themselves at least in outline to the Minister.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I thank them for their engagement on the Bill and for their wider work over many years on the vital issue of intellectual property. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, this debate is rather reminiscent of six years ago when I was somewhat steeped in intellectual property in the old BIS department. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was my opposite number, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was my successor. This could therefore, perhaps, be described as a continuity debate on a continuity Bill.
These amendments would require the Government to publish reports detailing the impact of a trade agreement on intellectual property and data flows before they could make implementing regulations under Clause 2. I am proud to say the UK’s IP regime is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. That is a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Now that we have left the EU, in line with our WTO commitments, the Government will continue to maintain our high level of protections of intellectual property. Let me say that at the outset. We recognise that an effective intellectual property system needs to strike a balance between supporting the UK’s world- class technology sectors to research and innovate and reflecting wider public interests. This balance will be reflected in our approach to intellectual property when striking new free trade agreements.
None of the 20 continuity agreements we have signed has weakened IP protections in any way, replicating as they do the provisions in the underlying EU agreements. They do not introduce new or diluted provisions in the fields of IP, data flows or any other areas. As a result, we heard positive endorsements of the Bill during Committee in the other place from service-oriented industries including the Advertising Association, the Institute of Directors and EY.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, invited me to take the questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I say at the outset that I should and do take his questions seriously. One of the points that he raised was: will the Government include a wide range of specified provisions on IP in the trade agreements? Given that this is a continuity Bill, I suggest to him that the answers to his question can be found in the status quo. He mentioned negotiations on IP with the USA and New Zealand, which are not included in the scope of the Bill. However, DIT Ministers hold regular briefings with Peers on the progress of negotiations; I have attended at least two, and I encourage him to join up next time round.
Further to this, the noble Lord asked about the question of IP in our negotiating objectives in the US agreement. If he would like more information on our approach to IP in the negotiations with the USA, he can consult our negotiation objectives. Giving him a bit more detail, I assure him that, first, we will secure copyright provisions that support UK creative industries through an effective and balanced global framework. We will project UK brands while keeping the market open for competition, and we will promote transparent and efficient administration and enforcement of IP rights.
We have already mentioned the parliamentary reports we publish alongside signed agreements explaining our approach to delivering continuity. We believe that publishing additional reports alongside these would slow down the process of concluding agreements and increase the bureaucracy involved. In fact, taken cumulatively, all of the amendments tabled to the Bill by your Lordships would compel the Government to publish no less than 11 new reports alongside every single continuity agreement we sign. I believe that this would not be a good use of time or resources, and I hope the Committee agrees with that.
The UK has long been, and remains, a strong supporter of an open, rules-based international trading system. The WTO’s TRIPS—which was referred to in the debate on the last group—sets out the minimum standards for trade in intellectual property across all WTO member nations. As the UK updates the terms of its WTO membership, we will be making sure that we remain compliant with the TRIPS agreement and, as part of future trade deals, the UK will look to refer to—and improve on—the standards set out in international agreements.
With regard to future FTAs—although they are not included in the scope of this Bill—we support ambitious and liberal provisions that support international cross-border data flows while understanding the importance of ensuring that personal data protections are not put at risk. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that uninterrupted data flows can continue between the UK, the EU and other countries around the world. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the free flow of data, including personal data, is crucial to international co-operation in the modern world, but it must be underpinned by high data protection standards. We are equally committed to ensuring high standards of data protection and privacy after the end of the transition period.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned in his remarks the 2020 Schrems II judgment, which I will say a few words about to help him with some more information. As I said earlier, the UK Government are committed to ensuring high data protection standards and supporting UK organisations and businesses is very important. The UK Government are reviewing the details of the judgment in the case referred to earlier—Schrems II— and considering its impact on data transfers for UK organisations.
As he may know, the UK Government intervened in the case, arguing in support of standard contractual clauses—so-called SCCs—and are pleased that the court has upheld this important mechanism for transferring data internationally. Therefore, the UK may independently take steps to address issues arising from the judgment after the transition period. The Government are working with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that updated guidance on international data transfers will be available as soon as possible. The Government will continue to work with the commissioner’s office and international counterparts to address the impacts of this particular judgment.
The Government have been clear that FTAs do not provide a legal basis for the cross-border transfer of personal data. I make it clear that this will be controlled by our domestic data protection legislation. Moving forward, as we develop our trading relationships with other countries, our approach must be transparent and inclusive. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to develop our priorities around trade and intellectual property, including the devolved Administrations, industry and consumers. Getting the right outcome for UK inventors, creators and consumers will be key. Given that we are seeking to replicate commitments in existing EU trade agreements, I do not believe that producing further reports, in addition to those we already publish, alongside each signed agreement is necessary or proportionate.
I now turn to an important part of this debate. Amendment 34 is intended to prevent the Clause 2 power being used to implement continuity agreements which do not comply with existing domestic and international obligations regarding the important subject of the protection of children and other vulnerable user groups using the internet. We heard passionate speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I want to be clear, perhaps echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this Government are, and must be, committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online and for children to be online. We carefully consider any interaction between trade policy and online harms policy in trade agreements. I can confirm that we stand by our online harm commitments, and nothing agreed as part of any trade deal will affect that.
In 2019, as the noble Baroness and others will know, the DCMS published the online harms White Paper, with the initial government response in February this year, setting out the direction of travel. The DCMS will publish a full government response to the White Paper consultation later this year. This will include more detailed proposals on online harms regulation and will be released alongside interim voluntary codes on tackling online terrorist and child sexual exploitation, as well as abuse content and activity. The DCMS will follow the full government response with legislation, which is currently being prepared and will be ready early next year.
It should come as no surprise that our continuity programme is consistent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, which are themselves fully compliant with such obligations. By transitioning these agreements, we are reaffirming the UK’s commitment to international obligations on protecting young and vulnerable internet users, which is so important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether the agreement between the EU and the US on data services should be considered in the scope of the Bill and be able to be rolled over. The scope of the Bill applies to either FTAs or agreements that relate mainly to trade between a partner country and the EU signed before the UK left. She will know that we are in negotiations with the US on an FTA, as I mentioned earlier, and we will bring forward separate legislation on that if required. I hope that that gives her enough reassurance at this stage.
Our continuity agreements will safeguard, not undermine, our domestic protections and international commitments regarding online protection of young and vulnerable internet users. In the light of those reassurances covering all the amendments, I hope that Amendment 15 will be withdrawn and that noble Lords will not press Amendments 16 and 34.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had two requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response on Schrems II, which was very helpful. I would like just one further detail. Can he confirm that the advice, when it comes, could concern where databases are domiciled? If so, the advice needs to be made available earlier rather than later so that companies are able to comply. Therefore, can he give some indication of the timetable for when business might get some guidelines so that they can work out their new data management policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. That is a very fair question from the noble Lord. As he will expect, I do not have a timeline, so the best thing for me to do is to look at his question and write to him, giving whatever information we have from the department, together with any extra information that might be helpful to him.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I have also had a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to speak after the Minister, but I now call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise if I did not make myself very clear when I was speaking earlier, but the Minister did not seem to answer my point. If we are talking about the standards set for any rollover agreements covered by this legislation and—as we hope to persuade the Government—the future free trade agreements that are still to be negotiated with other countries, what standards of child protection can the Government assert they will use if legislation that is going to contain that has not yet been put into primary legislation? For example, he mentioned the commitment in a White Paper, and presumably there will have been legislation, on an issue that deals with child harm. It deals specifically with the question of whether or not the future basis under which this would be done is a duty of care. These are quite important and quite difficult concepts. If they are not there they do not give us a standard. If they are delayed, or in some way changed as they go through the parliamentary process, they may not eventuate into a situation which can be used. My question remains: is this not an issue where it would be helpful to the Government to have something very clear on the face of the Bill that dealt with that particular issue of child harm, which as we have heard, is so important to the people of this country?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I believe I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, if I may. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. It is fair to say that this is, just by dint of the coincidence of timing, tied up with all the work we are doing on the online harms White Paper. He will know that more detailed proposals on the regulations will be released alongside the interim voluntary codes. We need to look at this in tandem with what we are doing with free trade agreements. That is the answer I can give to him at the moment. Again, I will write to him with more details on this because it is a very important subject.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for asking half of my question, but, as the Minister just said, it is tied up with online harms, we are tied up with trade—I think that is our collective anxiety, if you like. At what point do these things start impacting on each other in ways that are negative to children? The reason for having a standard going in is to make sure that children are not victims of what happens over the next months and so on. I want to make that point.
I have another question, if the Minister would be kind enough to answer. He mentioned, a couple of times, high standards of data protection, but does he mean the standards that we negotiated so long and so heavily during the passage of the DPA 2018? Are those the standards, and will those remain the standards, or are we talking about some other general high standards of data protection?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
To answer the second question from the noble Baroness, we could well be. I think I have said, in other respects, when we do finally leave the EU after the transition period, because we will have left the EU it will be up to us to look at our standards and raise them if we think that is right. On the way forward on online harms, which is very close to the heart of the noble Baroness, I reassure her that there is a lot of cross-departmental work going on here. Although this is DCMS-led, I reassure her, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grimstone, that the DIT and other departments are working together on the way forward, bearing in mind the White Paper.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. It was useful to be reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, of his antecedents. I remember many happy hours discussing copyright exceptions—I think it was from 2013 onwards —and I am sure it was one of the Minister’s favourite jobs at the time, with all the minutiae of intellectual property involved.
This has been a relatively short but, I hope, well-argued debate and I am grateful to those who supported not only my Amendment 15 but Amendments 16 and 34, which I strongly support as well. If we were looking for an order of priority, Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is the absolute touchstone for this debate. She referred to putting an intentional red line in the negotiations, a very powerful phrase. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said that children’s safety should not be traded away again, which really emphasises the importance of this. The point was made that we do not yet have all the legislation we need in this area, therefore any negotiations need to take account of future legislation. It is a really tricky one. The Minister has a wonderful bedside manner and used the word “reassure” on a number of occasions, but this is a really difficult and important area. Personally, I am not 100% reassured and if the noble Baroness wanted to bring her amendment back on Report, many of us would give her a great deal of support.
Turning to data, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fox: the one thing giving business sleepless nights is the whole issue of data adequacy and data flows. Post Schrems, that is a really difficult area. The Minister mentioned it and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, answered a Written Question from me recently about the taskforce. It is urgent that we should have those guidelines in place. It is not adequate that people should simply have to rely on standard contractual clauses, especially for small business, as it will imply that they have to take a great deal of legal advice. I should say that since I no longer charge by the hour, I have no direct personal interest in that. However, it is a serious area and I hope it is being taken on board at speed.
On the IP front, there was a kind of multiple-choice questionnaire which I hope the Minister will use in future negotiations to tick or cross, as the case may be. The big problem is that this all demonstrates the feeling that the scrutiny process is inadequate, whether on continuity agreements or new agreements. The Minister says that the amendments would require another 11 reports, or whatever the tally would be, but that demonstrates a theme that has run through Second Reading and Committee so far: that the level of scrutiny we are being given over free-trade agreements is inadequate. Whether on things such as IP and data, which are crucial to business, or things which have a greater moral and societal foundation, as in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, this is about the opportunity for scrutiny not being adequate at this point.
I will obviously withdraw the amendment, as we are in Grand Committee, but we are, in a sense, still back with the feeling that we have to go much further on scrutiny. If that involves 11 reports, so be it: these are important agreements for our future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Hendy
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the international trade agreement does not contain any form of investor-state dispute settlement mechanism applicable to any part of the United Kingdom in relation to a claim brought by a foreign investor against a United Kingdom public authority except to the extent that—(a) the laws of the United Kingdom administered in the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom so provide, and(b) a person (whether or not an investor) domiciled in the United Kingdom has equal protection under those laws and equal access to redress for any such claim in those courts and tribunals.( ) In this section “public authority” includes the Crown, Parliament, an appropriate authority as defined in section 4(1), a local authority, and any person who has functions which include functions of a public nature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would preclude the subjection of acts and decisions of UK public bodies to claims for compensation by foreign investors under ISDS or other multilateral investment courts or tribunals. It would not preclude a foreign investor relying on UK domestic law or the UK’s judicial system.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
I am in your hands, Chair. I see what the time is, and my speech to move this amendment will not be as short as the interventions I made earlier in our discussions of the Bill. I cannot guarantee that I will finish by 7.30 pm, I am afraid. Do you wish me to proceed? Should I break in the middle of my speech? How should I conduct it?
Motion to Adjourn
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
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.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Freeman
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 1 October, of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very much-valued service to the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ replies are also brief.
Hospitals and Nursing Homes: Do Not Resuscitate Notices
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of Do Not Resuscitate notices in hospitals and nursing homes since March.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the department is very clear that the blanket use of DNACPR and DNR is unacceptable. An agreement to a DNACPR is an individual decision and should involve the person concerned or, where the person lacks capacity, their family, carer, guardian or any other legally recognised advocate. I can inform the House that the Minister for Patient Safety and Mental Health will be writing to the Care Quality Commission requesting that it investigates and reports on DNACPR issues.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend and am aware of the letters written in respect of people with learning disabilities and autism during the first phase of the Covid-19 outbreak. However, with the second wave looking as though it is on its way, my noble friend will be aware that there is still concern from charities such as Mencap and the National Autistic Society, not least because of the attitude in some areas that people who have social care support needs are rather lesser human beings than the rest of us. How will the Care Quality Commission carry out this assessment as the second wave increases?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is completely unacceptable for any group of people to have blanket DNACPR provisions apply to them. The adult social care winter plan published on 18 September reiterates that and makes the position crystal clear. The General Medical Council is providing additional support and guidance to clinicians on how to meet the needs of patients and relatives, and the Resuscitation Council UK is creating a large amount of resources to provide training. The CQC is monitoring the situation extremely carefully.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the distressing circumstances of the pandemic have once again highlighted the difficult and sometimes controversial issues about end-of-life treatment in general and individual choices. Will the Government set up a long-proposed review to examine all these issues, particularly to improve real patient choice?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. The Covid epidemic has shone a spotlight on the awful arrangements around end of life at a time when contagious disease presents a threat to all those present in a nursing home or hospital. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who have lived through such an experience or will face one in the near future. I note the noble Baroness’s call for a review. There is no current plan for one but I will carry the idea back to the department.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I sympathise with the medical profession engaged in saving lives at all costs. However, many people will have spent a great deal of time in thought and consultation with relatives before deciding not to be resuscitated, should they become desperately ill, especially with Covid, with possible permanent physical or mental impairment. It is inconceivable that their wishes should be overturned by medical professionals who do not know or understand their background. What are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Baroness’s sentiments—so does the department and so do the Government. We have noted what happened during the Covid epidemic. The CQC is investigating potential lapses at that time. We have reinforced guidance in the winter plan and the CQC continues to review the situation. New training and guidance provisions are being put in place. We take the situation extremely seriously and are putting in the procedures and investment necessary to ensure the right outcome.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
What training is being given to physicians and healthcare workers for when they discuss DNR with patients and next of kin?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The department is aware of the Queen’s Nursing Institute report on training and, although the majority of responses were positive, it raised questions about the training of, in particular, care home staff on the instruction to change resuscitation orders for patients without discussion. We are looking at that report very carefully. We cannot comment on individual cases but the report raises important questions. In the meantime, the General Medical Council is providing additional support and guidance to clinicians and the Resuscitation Council is creating a large range of resources for clinicians to help guide them and provide training.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I am pleased that the Minister has recognised that, although DNR is a medical decision and not something that requires a patient’s consent, not consulting with the patient and their family is an unlawful breach of human rights. We should be grateful that the scandal was exposed by Turning Point and other charities during the pandemic. Does the Minister have plans to review the DNR decisions that were made during the pandemic and does he know, or perhaps he can find out, how many DNRs were issued in excess of what one might have expected during the pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, NHSE&I is currently engaged with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to develop better information for patients and to understand whether procedures need to be changed. I reassure the noble Baroness that DNRs are not issued, they are agreed with families and relevant loved ones. On no account should DNRs be unilaterally issued. They are for a joint decision; that kind of blanket application is something that we are extremely concerned about and seeking to avoid.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, when someone who has a DNACPR is well enough to leave hospital, can the Minister assure me that the notice will be reviewed as a matter of course after consultation with the patient and their carers?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point. Of course, someone who walks healthy from a hospital need not have such a notice left on their clinical records. I will admit that I do not know the precise arrangements for how that is conducted but I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness and explain the procedure.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has already said that he quite understands that there will be people, particularly the elderly, who do not wish to be resuscitated. One easy way of ensuring that resuscitation does not happen is for people to have a living will. Will the Minister undertake to try to encourage GPs to ensure that all their patients understand this and that they have the potential to have a living will?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the benefits of living wills are enormous, both for those entering the last stages of their life and their loved ones. It is something that we are keen to encourage. I do not know the precise arrangements for how GPs play a role in that, but I will be glad to write to the noble Baroness and explain what provisions are in place for encouraging the use of living wills.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his balanced comments on this extremely fraught situation—I think everything has just about been said. Every life is, of course, to be valued but many of us as we get older—dare I say, we are quite a lot older in this House than the average population—will be looking at whether we want a do not resuscitate order in our living will. That is why I commend the idea from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, of spreading this information around.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend puts it all very well. It is my birthday today, so I am feeling a little bit older and thoughtful on these subjects. On a serious point, living wills have enormous benefits and give peace of mind to those who enter nursing homes and hospitals, and their loved ones. We will look carefully at this important point and I will share my correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, with my noble friend.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Happy birthday to the Minister. Given the dangers of the shortcut abbreviation of DNR, which can result in essential care decreasing, has the Department of Health considered adopting NHS Wales’s concept of a natural, anticipated and accepted death—NAAD? In five years, this has had no problems reported and gently and sensitively leads to DNACPR conversations with patients and those who love them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the testimony of the noble Baroness. We often keep track of Wales’s use of innovative health measures and, while I am not aware of this concept in particular, I will be glad to take the advice back to the department, recommend it and return to the noble Baroness with a response on how we are going to take it forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed—my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Crime: Emergency Services Staff
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a new sentencing tariff for those who commit a crime and who kill a member of the emergency services as a result.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the sentencing reforms we announced in our White Paper, the Government are currently considering options for strengthening the law in relation to those who kill emergency workers while engaged in unlawful activity. This consideration will include proposals made by the family of PC Andrew Harper, who we remain in close discussion with.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I declare my interest as a former police officer with the Thames Valley Police, the same force that the late PC Andrew Harper so gallantly served. I commend PC Harper’s widow, Lissie, for her courageous campaigning on this issue. Like many members of the emergency services, I suffered serious injury while on duty and saw colleagues nearly killed in the line of duty. Such incidents should never be regarded as an occupational hazard for those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. Does my noble friend the Minister agreed that, whatever the legal complexity, we can, and should, do more to increase the deterrent against criminals causing harm to our emergency services?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for sharing his personal experience of the dangers faced by members of our emergency services. Those are why in 2018 we introduced the new aggravated offences of assaulting emergency workers and are now revisiting the maximum penalties for them. We are all aware that in some cases, such assaults have led to much more tragic circumstances, in which some emergency workers have died in the line of duty. That is why it is right that we also consider whether a change in sentencing or to the criminal law is required where an emergency worker is killed by another person in the course of unlawful activity. I am sure that all noble Lords join me in paying tribute and sending our sincere condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of Matthew Ratana, who was fatally shot on 25 September while on duty at the Croydon custody suite.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addressing and ensuring better public protection for our communities so that residents feel safe, what extra measures are the Government introducing inside and outside prison to improve ways of dealing with terrorism offenders? Will we see a drive to recruit more counterterrorism specialist probation officers?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Public protection is the Government’s number one priority. We have already made changes to the law regarding the sentencing and release of terrorist offenders. As part of the proposal in the sentencing White Paper that we talked about last week, the Government intend to introduce a new power to prevent automatic early release for a wider range of offenders who are a significant public protection concern. Earlier this year the Government also announced that they will double the number of specialist probation officers who focus on terrorist prisoners. The Government also intend to create a new counterterrorism assessment and intervention centre.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is absolutely right that we should feel horrified by some crimes, and I certainly endorse the good wishes sent by the Minister. However, we must not get into the situation that, for every type of offence, there is a specific sentencing statutory provision. It makes the task of judges almost impossible if they constantly have to compare statutory penalties for one offence with another which are marginally different in effect.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, which is why we are taking our time in considering this complex issue of whether there should be any changes to sentencing or to criminal law. We will work through this in a timely manner, consulting with the judiciary all the way.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite right that there should be proper consultation on this, as the Minister says. However, we should look at the sentencing tariff not only for those who kill but for those who cause serious, life-changing injuries to emergency workers. Two years ago, in a drunken spree, Hayden Brown drove into the patrol car carrying PC Tom Dorman—now Sergeant Tom Dorman—and a colleague. As was said in court, the two officers were thrown into the air “like ragdolls”, and Sergeant Dorman lost his leg as a result. Brown has now been released from prison after serving 10 months, while Sergeant Dorman must live with the consequences of that criminality for the rest of his life. How does that square with the Government’s rhetoric of protecting the protectors?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is correct. The White Paper is looking at serious assaults very seriously. That is why we are changing the time served of sentences of over seven years from the current 50% to two-thirds. In the White Paper, we are also looking at changing it from 50% to two-thirds for sentences of four to seven years. All these things will ensure that the public have confidence in the judicial system.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, this is an important issue. We are going very slowly on it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am the son of a policeman and spent my first five years living in a police station in Llangollen. The November 2018 guidelines for an unlawful act of manslaughter were arrived at after four years of consideration and consultation with 45 bodies, including the council of Her Majesty’s judges, the criminal Bar, the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, the Ministry of Justice, the Justice Committee, the unions, the Howard League for Penal Reform, leading academics, the royal medical colleges and many others. The guidelines were widely accepted and came into effect less than two years ago. Why is the Ministry of Justice proposing to revisit this issue so soon?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is for public confidence. We consulted over the summer and there was a wide agreement that the tariffs should go to two years rather than the 12 months.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I associate this side of the House with the sympathy expressed to the families of Sergeant Ratana and Police Constable Andrew Harper. As we have heard from many of the questions asked, serious assault, not-so-serious assault, murder or manslaughter of any emergency worker should be attended by higher sentences. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be a consultation about differential sentencing for those sorts of crimes, and that it will be published very shortly?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am very sorry that I cannot give an assurance on when it will be published but, as with all these things, there will be consultation, and it will be on everything from minor and major assault to murder and manslaughter.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the analysis of Andy Symonds, chair of Norfolk Police Federation? He said that it was essential that courts, as well as the Government, played a part in stopping violent offenders, and that there was a need for predictable, tough sentences for offenders who attack police officers. He says that this has not happened, and that it is one of the main drivers of the rising numbers of assaults that we are seeing year on year. Putting on a uniform for public service always carries a risk. We in Parliament and the courts should respond to that risk by unambiguously making clear to those who assault the uniformed services that they will face the most severe penalties.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. Oh, I am sorry, it is the Minister.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Sentencing is ultimately a matter for the independent courts, which is why in 2018 we introduced the new aggravated offence of assaulting emergency workers. As I said, we are looking at increasing the 12 months to a two-year maximum penalty. While sentencing is for judges in individual cases, it is for the Government to give courts the full range of powers to deal effectively with anybody who attacks any policeman or emergency worker.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. As I said, we did go on rather too long in the supplementary questions and answers, and I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, whom I tried to get in rather prematurely.
Net Zero Review
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Net Zero Review will take into account co-benefits, including those relating to (1) improved health, (2) productivity, and (3) employment, in calculating the costs and investments needed to reach net zero emissions.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the net-zero review will cover how the transition to net zero will be funded and assess options for where the costs will fall. This involves analysing the range of options for how households, businesses and the taxpayer could contribute to the costs of transition, as well as maximising opportunities for economic growth as we transition to a green economy. We will need to evaluate the trade-offs between costs, competitiveness, effects on consumers and impacts on taxpayers.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and for her recognition that costs are not the only issue to be taken into account. The Covid crisis demonstrates to us every day the need to assess the effects of individual policies in the round, not simply against a single metric. So does the Minister agree that the magnitude of the threats from unrestrained climate change means that when we assess the cost of measures to meet our net-zero target, we need also to take into account the benefits to health and employment, and to sustainable economic recovery? Could we not set an example of good practice in overall impact assessment of climate measures as part of our preparations for COP 26 next year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need to look at these issues in the round. She referred to the impact of the Covid crisis, and to our aims for a green recovery. The Government have put huge emphasis on a green recovery, because not only will that help us meet our net-zero target in the longer term, but it has been shown that, in the shorter term, such policies bring extra economic benefit in their own right—and that is the exact approach the Government are taking.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations to determine what contribution the different jurisdictions will commit to in order to achieve the overall UK target for climate measures? Perhaps the Minister could provide me with an answer in relation to that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
There are ongoing discussions with all the devolved Administrations on the issue of climate change, and I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness with further details of those discussions.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register, and I congratulate the Government on putting the green economy at the forefront of the work that we are doing. However, will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that industrial cities such as Leicester will need a lot of work to be able to produce the net-zero targets, especially as there are ever-diminishing green spaces in the city?
Baroness Penn (Con)
One of the things that the Net Zero Review is looking at is the role of technology and innovation that might help cities that could struggle to meet the net-zero target to make further progress towards it.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register. May I ask the Minister whether the role of agriculture and domestic food production will be taken into account in the review, and also about the future of the emissions trading scheme?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Emissions trading is one aspect of meeting our net-zero target, so I think it will be taken into account in the review, as will nature-based solutions to climate change, which also form part of our strategy.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all homes are insulated to a standard compatible with net zero?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that the green homes grant, launched yesterday for applications, will deliver £2 billion-worth of funding for home owners and landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of homes and help us make progress towards that net-zero target.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, one of the biggest challenges of climate change is to bring our citizens along with us. If we do not do that, we will not achieve this. Will she give us her ideas on how we should accomplish that? How will we bring citizens along to agree to these changes?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, bringing people and our citizens along with us will be a big focus for our work on COP 26—making sure that it is not just Governments getting together but businesses and citizens from the UK and across the world. Part of the point of the review cited in the original Question was to have a clear and transparent analysis of the costs and benefits, and to look at how and where they should fall, so that everyone can understand the path towards transition and the contribution that we will all have to make towards it.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Government commit to creating an open, shared resource, with all the data, conclusions, research and arguments generated as part of the Net Zero Review, so that we can all go forward and benefit, as professionals, from a shared resource in creating ideas and opportunities to make progress—and, in particular, reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, so that we as citizens can share the conclusions that are reached, and the effects that they will have on us?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will take back to the Treasury the desire for the review to be as transparent as possible. I think that that is exactly the intention. We will publish an interim report this autumn. It will set out our approach to the review and will contain the analysis done to date, which will inform the final findings.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Net Zero Review terms of reference, part 2, “Objectives”, begins:
“To consider how the transition to net zero will be funded and assess options for where the costs will fall. This will involve:”,
and then there are four bullet points, the second of which is:
“Identify mechanisms to create an equitable balance of contributions.”
Does the Minister not agree that this must mean that the issues raised by the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, must be taken into account?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I cannot pre-empt the findings of the review, but I can say that it will absolutely take into account the opportunities that arise from the transition, including for employment, productivity and economic growth. It will also consider just where the costs will fall and how they will be paid for.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB) [V]
I draw attention to my interests in the register. To build on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about citizen engagement, the citizens’ Climate Assembly UK made many great recommendations when it recently reported, many around business, which is vital to help reach net zero. Will the Government commit—as the citizens’ assembly, at 83%, agreed—to making sure that government contracts are given to responsible, low-carbon producing suppliers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government will look very closely at the recommendations of the Climate Assembly. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we need businesses to be on board with this agenda. One of our focuses for COP 26 is green finance, and one of our aims there is to get as many private sector actors and businesses as possible subscribed to standards for green finance that can help transform the money going into businesses and how it is allocated, taking into account climate risk, in the future.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following on from the earlier question, what thought have the Government given to the need for retraining to open up the new kinds of jobs that will ensue?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government place huge emphasis on the importance of training as part of our green recovery. The Prime Minister made a series of announcements yesterday on plans to upgrade skills, focusing not just on young people but on older people who did not originally have those skills, to enable them, where needed, to transition to new jobs in the green economy.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
Is the Minister confident that the methodology used by the Treasury in the review will sufficiently factor in the costs of not tackling climate change, which the review carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, in 2006 estimated would be 5% of GDP by 2050?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Yes, I can reassure the noble Baroness that it will. The review is not a question of whether we need to act to meet our net-zero target; it is about how we can act to meet it. That target is set out in law. We were the first major economy to commit to it, and the review is all about how we get there. So the question of the costs of not getting there, although important, is also, I hope, one that we have put to bed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question, the fourth Oral Question, asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen.
Covid-19: NHS Application
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to encourage the uptake of the National Health Service COVID-19 application; and how the effectiveness of that application will be monitored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we have TV advertising, celebrity endorsement, stakeholder mobilisation, social media engagement and newspaper wraparounds. We have done an enormous amount to support the app launch, with a massive campaign—but the greatest promotion is a great product. Fifteen million downloads, 500,000 QR downloads, 8 million venue check-ins and thousands isolated suggest that the British public have embraced the app as a valued tool to protect the ones they love.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, on his birthday. The number of people downloading the app is important, but in assessing its effectiveness, what problems or elements of success will the Government look for, apart from numerical take-up?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the primary purpose of the app is to break the chain of transmission. Therefore, alerting as many people who have been in close proximity to a Covid threat as we can is a primary objective. However, the app also does an enormous amount to provide information for those trying to understand the regulations in their local area. It also does a lot to support those in isolation and we very much hope to be able to connect the payments for isolation benefit with the app in later versions.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the uptake and positive development of the Covid app is likely to be greater if it picks up on all the testing regimes, enables the user to enter a unique code that they have been given and is front and centre of having tests available to record the incidence of illness. Does the Minister agree that urgent, comprehensive testing and tracing is needed for care and health workers if all medical care is to return to normal levels, and for teachers and pupils if schools are to have the best chance of remaining open for all? Does he agree that the app would prove most effective if these goals were accomplished rapidly alongside the development of the app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s observation. These are parallel developments and we are indeed working on them. It is important that the app captures all testing information. We are working extremely hard to ensure that all tests, wherever they come from, whether pillar 1 or pillar 2, are captured in the app. We are also doing an enormous amount to ensure that there are supporting measures for those who work in social care and teaching, so that they have the security of knowing that their workplaces are protected.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish the Minister a happy birthday. So far, £35 million has been spent on the development and testing of the app, which is approximately £15 million more than any other western European country has spent on such app development. Other than the QR code, what functionality has that £15 million been spent on, which is not available in the app of any other western European country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the secret sauce of the app is the algorithm at its heart, which takes data from Apple and Google phones and the Bluetooth component, and applies a risk-scoring analysis that judges proximity, velocity and context to give a true assessment of risk. That is how we seek to avoid false positives and false negatives. We have invested in the algorithm in conjunction with Apple and Google and it is an incredibly important piece of added value. Without that algorithm, the app would not work properly.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on his birthday and I congratulate the Government on introducing this new technology. As he is aware, I am very supportive of this. I would be grateful if he could explain to the House what evidence there might already be from Scotland on the effectiveness of the Protect Scotland app in tracing contacts, ensuring isolation and reducing deaths.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Protect Scotland app has delivered huge value for the Scottish people. It has guided many to isolate and it has been downloaded a very large number of times. We seek to get the UK app and the Scottish app working together in the second version. We have learned an enormous amount by collaborating with Scottish colleagues and have gained enormous value from their learnings.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the purpose of tracing is defeated if millions of people cannot download the app because their phones are a few years old, even models as recent as those from 2018? I discovered this and felt obliged to spend a great deal of money upgrading and took the risk of travelling to a phone shop and spending an hour there doing this. However, millions will not, especially elderly people and those who live in poorer, crowded areas. What can be done for the people who cannot download the app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, had to make that journey. That is a troubling thing for her to have had to do. I reassure her that 89% of the population have phones whose hardware and software is compatible. Even on today’s numbers, one-third of the 16-plus population of Britain has the app on their phone. This number is high enough to make the app extremely effective; it is an enormous penetration. While this does not account for absolutely everyone, it is terrific progress and we will build on that success.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister just gave a figure for the over-16s. In view of the outbreak of Covid in universities, what proportion of university students have accessed the app and actually used it? Am I right in thinking that it is accessible only if you are over 16? Why is this the case?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question. There is a very good reason: the privacy arrangements of the app mean that we do not know who has downloaded it. This information is available only to those who have downloaded it. It is precisely because of those privacy arrangements that an enormous amount of trust is placed in the British people. However, I do not deny that it is frustrating that we do not have the kind of demographic insights that the noble Baroness quite reasonably asks for.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted that this app has now been produced. Fifteen million adopters in a week is excellent news, and I genuinely congratulate the Minister on that. However, 34 countries are already using the ENX system with Bluetooth, and it is to be regretted that we are not ahead of them, but we are not. What conversations have the Government had with some of those countries to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that they have made on their journey? Given the importance of mass take-up—which is important before going on to talk about other things—have the Government considered discussing with Apple, Google and mobile phone suppliers such as Samsung the possibility of putting the app straight on to people’s phones at the point of sale, or point of update, with of course the option for the customer to remove it, should they wish to do so?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord has made a very detailed and technical inquiry. We are studying the ENX system very closely. However, as I mentioned earlier, the secret source of the British app is the algorithm that takes the data from Bluetooth and the phone and analyses it to give the risk assessment. Our view is that that algorithm is absolutely critical. Without it, the ENX system fires off alerts to anyone who has been proximate to another Bluetooth phone that has registered a positive test, even if they have only driven past that phone on the motorway. Those are exactly the kinds of circumstances that the British public made it crystal clear to us they simply would not tolerate. Therefore, we have put an enormous investment into that algorithm. We have had an enormous amount of interest from other countries, and we are happy to share that learning with companies as we develop our intelligence on it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I wish my noble friend many happy returns on his birthday. Clearly, the app is a very useful tool. Does he imagine that the Government will use it in conjunction with the testing of international passengers arriving at airports? When might testing be rolled out at airports?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, version 1 does not have an international component to it, but that is something that we would seek to develop. I emphasise that the app in its current form is very much focused on providing a huge amount of personal privacy and is therefore not an appropriate vehicle for putting in place any form of surveillance or quarantine management. That would be in breach of our arrangements with our technical partners, Apple and Google. Therefore, although I cannot give my noble friend Lady McIntosh a complete answer, I would like to hint that perhaps this will not be the vehicle for accelerating airport testing.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief Statement about what happened yesterday.
As noble Lords will have seen, yesterday we experienced serious technical difficulties with the remote voting system during our consideration of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The result of that difficulty was that three Divisions, on Amendments 3, 11 and 14, had to be deferred. I can confirm that we intend these Divisions to take place on Monday in what would normally be the gap in business between Oral Questions and any Private Notice Question and the beginning of debate on further groups of amendments to the Bill at the normal time of around 2.30 pm. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their forbearance.
Following the issues with the remote voting system, tests of the system will be required to ensure that it works as expected. We would welcome the participation of Members in any such tests, the timing of which will be advertised to noble Lords as soon as possible.
As far as I am aware, we are not anticipating Divisions today but, were one to be called, it, too, would have to be deferred to another day until the tests had taken place.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the usual channels and the clerks for their constructive and flexible approach, which allowed scrutiny of the Bill to continue, despite not having Divisions yesterday.
Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when we talk about the future of professional and amateur sport, will the Minister give us some idea of what emphasis is being given to encouraging people to partake in sport, at whatever level, as opposed to simply watching it, and how the two balance each other? These are two very important aspects of the Question. Can we get clear guidance on the Government’s thinking on both matters?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
The Government have been very clear on the value of sport, both amateur and professional, and encouraging people to take part. We have welcomed many of the online initiatives over the lockdown period in particular, and have supplied funding through Sport England to the tune of £210 million to ensure that those facilities and clubs survive.
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that any government funding to be allocated will not overlook women’s sport, which recently has had some great successes in participation and popularity? We need to keep up the momentum and not lose all the good work done to make women’s sport more accessible and mainstream.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Great progress has been made at both elite and grass-roots levels in women’s sport. My honourable friend the Minister for Sport was absolutely clear yesterday, in responding to the Question, that he expects and will require women’s sport to get the priority it deserves in any funding coming from this package.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I ask you to note my interest on the register: I am chair of ukactive. Have the Government determined the impact on the NHS of the drop in activity levels and the subsequent impact this might have on sport at all levels in the UK? It is projected that 48% of leisure centres may close by Christmas without government financial support.
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is hard to assess the absolute impact of the fact that some leisure centres have not yet reopened, because obviously there is a substitution with other provision being offered, principally online. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of sport for our physical and mental well-being. The Government understand the financial pressures that some sports and leisure centres are under, and are pleased that so many have been able to open, following Covid-secure guidelines.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
[Inaudible.] What investment will the Government make into local provision for children and young people to engage in sports and physical activity that is shaped by them, given the research of the Children’s Society highlighting the importance not only of chosen physical activity but also of positive time with peers, and the fact that that has all been horribly impacted by Covid-19?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share the right reverend Prelate’s appreciation of the fact that sports clubs do so much more for their communities than just provide sport, and I welcome very much the pilot projects that she mentions. Through Sport England, there is a lot of collaboration with young people to ensure that local provision does indeed meet their needs and reflect their own aspirations.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will know that the 67 clubs in the national football league form the most senior levels of semi-professional football below the English Football League and play an essential part in their local communities. I declare an interest as the league’s vice-president. Match-day revenues are, for almost all the clubs, their only serious source of revenue. Can she say more about the very welcome announcement yesterday in the other place by the Minister for Sport that financial assistance is being offered to the National League so that it is able to start its season without spectators this Saturday? How much is being offered by the Government, and what do they mean when they say that the arrangements will be reviewed after the first three months?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, we have given assurance to the national football league that will allow the clubs to reopen and start playing from today. We are at the planning stage in the package that we are putting together and are looking in detail at the financial needs across all those sports that rely on spectators and match-day incomes. I am afraid that I cannot give more detail of the quantum at this stage.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, national football league clubs still have no idea what their settlement is, and they are being asked to start the season in good faith. At the same time, Premiership rugby clubs have been pushed to the brink by the implications of Covid and are now being driven to bankruptcy by a lack of gate receipts; none is profitable. Does the Minister agree that Premiership-level clubs are in the bracket of what the Government call “the greatest need”, and that spectator sport as a whole faces a daily fight for survival, which requires action now to allow a limited number of supporters back safely in order for it to survive and support its fan base and their communities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are very keen to support all sports, for the reasons that we have already summarised, in terms of both their specific sporting contribution and their wider community contribution. Clearly rugby plays an important part and is very central in particular communities. We are going through this in detail with each of the governing bodies, looking at the needs of their specific sports, and will respond as quickly and as effectively as we can.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, great uncertainty exists for both professional and amateur equestrian athletes, who travel extensively to competitions with large horse-boxes around the continent. Are they exempt from needing an operator’s licence, which hauliers certainly need, or are these riders considered hauliers, which clearly they are not? What provisions are being made at Dover to cater for this form of transport?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Viscount asks a very detailed question. If I may, I will respond in writing.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands that there are a lot of very important community football clubs below the level of the National League. I know and have worked with the northern league for many years. In places like Redcar, Crook in County Durham and Tow Law, the club is important not just to football enthusiasts but to the whole community. Many of them feel that if they have to go through another period of uncertainty in these areas, which are already among the poorest and most vulnerable—not only in terms of Covid but because they are what the Government call levelling-up areas—that will be a huge hit to the community. Can she assure me that she will make sure that these clubs are also considered, not just those in the National League and above in the pyramid of the FA?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that these clubs have been a crucial element in the fabric of our communities for many years, much longer than some of the elite clubs. Obviously those clubs are now allowed to have spectators in a Covid-secure way, but we are working closely with Sport England and, as I mentioned earlier, have already distributed £210 million to organisations such as those that the noble Baroness mentioned.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, had a technical problem earlier on so I call him now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the House for its forbearance. We recognise that the DCMS and the Treasury have taken steps to support sports clubs but, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe observed on Monday, sector-specific intervention tends to come at the 11th hour rather than when it would have the greatest benefit. We welcome news of support for the national league, but why did we have to lose Macclesfield Town to provoke ministerial action?
The Government’s first preference is for governing bodies and clubs to do what they can within their own resources. Does the Minister accept, however, that the financial returns submitted to the department are likely to show that reserves are running perilously low or have been depleted?
While we hope there will be solidarity initiatives within sport and that this will help to keep clubs afloat, they are not sufficient. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the Government will act more swiftly and decisively, and in a manner that recognises that sports clubs not only operate as businesses in their communities but are a vital community asset?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think maybe the noble Lord asked more than one question, but I will try to answer as best I can. On his last point about acting swiftly and decisively, I reassure him that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport were on the phone to the national governing bodies of the main spectator sports immediately after the Prime Minister’s announcement that made it clear that spectators could not return on 1 October.
With regard to the financial returns, we are looking forward and are working through those, though obviously their scale and scope will vary. We are very clear about our role in helping clubs. In relation to the noble Lord’s first question, the twists and turns of the virus are difficult to predict, and we have reacted extremely promptly to the current situation.
Students’ Return to Universities
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the situation that students face as they return to university is deeply concerning. Outbreaks are spreading, thousands are now isolating, parents are increasingly worried for their children and university staff working hard to prepare for a safe return are both anxious and angry. This situation was not inevitable, but many rightly feel let down by the Government. We need a plan to get testing fit for purpose, access to remote learning for students who are isolating, and security for the future of our universities.
I ask the Minister to start resolving that today by answering some key questions. Should students who have not yet moved to campus still do so? What steps are the Government urgently taking to speed up access to Covid-19 testing at universities? What support is being offered to those institutions that are setting up their own testing facilities? How do the Government intend to increase digital access for isolating students? As a minimum, we need answers to these points if people who are involved in the university sector and education are to have some confidence of a way forward while things progress as they are.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. We on these Benches very much welcome the announcements on vocational education, particularly the flexible lifelong learning entitlement, of which we have been extolling the virtues for several years.
Regarding the apprenticeship scheme, a flagship policy of the coalition Government that has rather lost its way in recent years, we think we have seen significant reductions in the number of apprentices and the number of young people using the scheme. We need to listen to business and industry about how we can make the apprenticeship scheme work again, particularly for the creative industries.
The Government’s Kickstart programme did not actually figure in this Statement but, again, it supports young people. There is a risk that it does not provide support for those most at risk, a concern shared by many youth organisations. Rather than taking up time now, I will write to the Minister about the problems of eligibility and how they can be overcome.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am horrified that hundreds of thousands of students have returned to their universities, often in cities and urban areas and often living in local communities. Students like to celebrate their return to university and to socialise, and we have seen over 20 cases of Covid affecting those students. It seems to me that the possibility of being able to learn online was very easy for students, so why did we bring them back? What was the scientific advice? What was the modelling that said we could bring students back to university, when they could easily have learned online, without a proper testing regime? There might have been the tests but there were not the facilities to get the test results quickly in place.
In my own city we have 70,000 students returning, many of them living in houses and flats in local communities. Many universities have monetarised their accommodation with private agreements with companies such as Unite Students and CRM, and part of those agreements is for occupancy rates of 80% to 90%. Will the Government reimburse students if they are forced to relinquish their accommodation through illness or through a decision that it is not safe for students to return to university after Christmas?
Students self-isolating in a very small space brings additional problems. Has the DfE been in touch with each university to see what additional support can be provided, be it for mental health or other needs?
In Liverpool today a local lockdown has been announced, under which different households cannot mix. How does this affect university students from different households who are sharing a house?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions and their attention to this issue. Starting university is a stressful experience at the best of times—people are often living away from home for the first time—but particularly so in the current circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, it is stressful not just for the students but for their parents, families and the university staff looking after them. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that throughout this pandemic our priority has always been to keep young people as safe as possible while they continue to learn.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked whether students should currently go to university. Yes, they should, if their university says that it is safe. At the beginning of this week, we had 80% of universities welcoming students back. It will be 90% by the beginning of next week. Students should check with their university and certainly go unless their university tells them not to.
The noble Lord also asked about testing. We are testing 225,000 a day at the moment, with a target to increase that to 500,000 by the end of the month. The message to students is clear, as it is to everyone else: if you have symptoms, please get a test.
The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Storey, asked about digital access. The Government have provided over £100 million to help provide laptops and devices for disadvantaged children and young people so that they can access the education and services they need. This includes devices for care leavers, including those studying at university. We have been working with universities, which have been adept and adaptable in the current circumstances, by shifting their provision online, as they did at the end of the last academic year and continuing that work over the summer, ready for the start of the new academic year.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was anticipating the Statement on further education which my right honourable friend is making in another place as we speak. Perhaps if he writes on that we can correspond once it has been made in another place.
He also asked about face-to-face learning rather than online learning. There are some courses where face-to-face provision is important—for instance, in the creative sector and for medical degrees, which are so important in the current circumstances. Universities are using a blend of online and face-to-face teaching with the provisions and mitigations in place to do that safely.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about accommodation and households. In student halls, it is universities and HE providers that determine what a household is, often around a shared kitchen or shared bathroom facilities. They will provide advice to students about how they can safely self-isolate in a household if that is what they need to do in their part of the country. The Government play no direct role in provision of student accommodation, whether managed by universities or the private sector, but we have urged universities and private hall providers to be fair in their decisions about rent charges in the current climate. Some universities and large companies have waived rents for the summer term or released students early from their contracts at the end of the last academic year, which we welcomed. If students think their accommodation provider is treating them unfairly, they can raise a complaint under the student accommodation code if their provider is a member.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that cash-strapped universities are currently crucially dependent on overseas students. Yesterday at the virtual court meeting of the University of York, we were told of their concern about the shortage of flights from eastern Asia. Students are not arriving and they face long delays. Surely, the Government can collaborate with universities to see how they can help. Airlines have spare capacity, aircraft are sitting around and, presumably, students will be prepared to pay to travel to their academic work here. If the Government can move in to see what they can do to help, it would be much appreciated.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to tell my noble friend that not only will we but we are working with the sector and others on these issues. We have been working with the Civil Aviation Authority to monitor the availability of commercial flights for international students travelling to the UK. We have been working with Universities UK International to support the higher education sector with chartering flights if that is what is needed. The Department for International Trade has been working closely with, for instance, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to secure the necessary approvals for flights to the UK from China. I am pleased to say that it has recently been successful in getting such permissions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of governors of Cardiff Metropolitan University, Welsh University of the Year. In Wales from last Easter, hybrid learning was planned based on two-metre distancing. Given concerns for the risks to student mental health in the absence of face-to-face delivery, are the Government asking English universities urgently to consider the application of these design principles for all courses, not just in healthcare and arts and design?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We expect the majority of universities to be open with a blend of face-to-face and online teaching. As the noble Baroness said, that is important for the provision of education and the mental health and well-being of students, because university is rightly a sociable environment. We recognise that many students and staff will face additional mental health challenges. The guidance we have provided to the sector covers the need for universities to provide additional mental health and well-being support. We are doing what we can, for instance, with the money we have made available for hardship funds for those the current circumstances are causing extra stress.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Statement says that Ministers will work with universities to ensure that all students can return home for Christmas. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to work with universities to ensure that students’ mental health and capacity to learn are not compromised by draconian lockdowns of halls of residence? Has the Department for Education been in touch with the Office for Students to prevent this happening again?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the opportunity to reiterate what my right honourable friend says: we are working with universities to ensure that all students are supported to return home safely and can spend Christmas with their loved ones if they choose to. We will be providing guidance after consultation with the sector to say how that can be done safely at the end of term. Regarding the Office for Students, the noble Baroness may have seen that Sir Michael Barber, its chair, has written today in the Daily Telegraph about the work the OfS is doing to support students. Its student panel is meeting today to discuss how students see the situation, which will inform the response. That is in addition to the HE task force the Government have set up so that we can talk to the sector more generally.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, if we heard that a third-world country had locked up its students without access to food we would rightly be horrified. Yet that is what this Conservative Government have done to our students. The possible harm from Covid transmission is nothing compared to the harm from this draconian action, which will lead young people to distrust authority and despise politicians. Can the Minister persuade his colleagues, as a matter of urgency, to reverse this dreadful punishment and allow our students to be students?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Well, I do not recognise the characterisation that the noble Baroness gives of what is going on. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, students as well as the wider community accept that in a global pandemic there have to be restrictions, for the good of themselves and the community more widely. But we do not believe that we should be inflicting any stricter measures on students; we are asking no more or less of them than we would of any other adult at this difficult time. We are working with universities to make sure that they can support the students studying there to get on with their lives as safely as possible and benefit from their education, while keeping themselves and the community safe.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, Scottish students and those from other EU countries attending Scottish universities pay no tuition fees, and it is now reported that they are being offered discounted accommodation costs. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that every student attending university in the United Kingdom is treated fairly? If the universities cannot deliver the product they sold, why should young people have to meet the full cost?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my noble friend points out, university provision is a devolved matter and different Administrations take different approaches throughout the UK. Her Majesty’s Government expect universities to continue to deliver a high-quality academic experience. As I said, we have seen some fantastic and innovative ways in which universities have adapted to the current circumstances. It is between students and their provider as to whether they think they are getting the quality of education that they signed up for. An established process is in place for students with concerns about their education to follow in England and Wales: in the first instance, it will be through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement contains several excellent initiatives. My main concern is that students leaving home for the first time will be under additional pressure to socialise. Meeting and sharing concerns with others are essential for mental health. Under such pressures, it is easy to forget the somewhat complex guidance. Will the Minister stress the need for displays at places of learning, emphasising the risk of careless mingling to the students’ own life chances and the health and well-being of those they hold dear?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome for what is contained in the Statement. He is absolutely right: as I say, universities should be a sociable experience. People learn not just in lecture halls but in discussions with their fellow students and those around them. We have been providing guidance to HE providers to make sure that people can enjoy as normal and fulfilling a university experience as possible at the moment, while keeping themselves and those around them safe.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare a lapsed interest as, until midnight, I was chair of council of Lancaster University. Does the noble Lord recognise the enormous efforts that universities have made to provide a Covid-secure environment for their students and, in particular, to sustain face-to-face teaching, which I believe to be the essence of the university experience? Can he explain why, to the latest knowledge I have, there is a very serious weakness in the provision of testing facilities on campuses? At Lancaster, we have been promised the possibility of a mobile unit in something like 10 days’ time, which would be on campus for a couple of days. If we are to sustain this Covid-secure environment, we need more action on testing.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I congratulate the noble Lord on the completion of his term as pro-vice chancellor at Lancaster. He will be a tough act to follow, but I see that my right honourable friend—as he would be if he were still in another place—Alistair Burt is going to give following in his footsteps his best shot. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we want to see face-to-face teaching where that is safe and possible. Universities are doing a blend of online and face-to-face, depending on the courses and the circumstances, and on the public health needs in their locality. We are targeting testing capacity at the areas that need it most, including where there are outbreaks, and prioritising at-risk groups. But we are working closely with universities so that we can make sure that they are keeping staff and students as safe as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has run into a technical problem so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I declare as interest as Chancellor of Cardiff University. I am very proud of what that university has done to sustain both face-to-face and online teaching. Cardiff is one of the universities offering testing: ours is asymptomatic testing, which will enable up to 1,000 staff and students per day to be tested. It is one of the latest generation of much more accurate tests, using the sophisticated technology that underlies the Government’s Moonshot ambition. What financial support do the Government plan to give to universities to increase the availability of their tests, because it costs millions to set this up, and to allow them to be opened up to the wider public? Will the Government fast-track the accreditation for such university laboratories and link them into the national network?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I commend the work of Cardiff and other universities, not just for providing tests for students and staff on their campuses but of course for their work in developing a vaccine. Our universities really are at the forefront of it, which is why we need to make sure that they are operating and working as well as they can. The Government are working closely with NHS Test and Trace to get to a position in which all universities have access to a testing centre within 1.5 miles of their campus, with priority for universities in areas of national intervention. On the financial point, I will write to the noble Baroness with further information if she would be happy with that.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, understandably we hear much about the short-term impact of the pandemic on students and universities, but there is a long-term impact too: for an increasing number of university students, the postgraduate outcomes are not great. May I encourage my noble friend the Minister to take this opportunity to examine all the choices that we offer to young people as they leave school, including further education colleges and apprenticeship routes? In many cases, these alternative routes may be more attractive and may lead to greater opportunities out in the world of work, especially in the challenging times ahead.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes a very topical point. She will have seen our right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s speech on this very issue on Tuesday, when he talked about the new lifetime skills guarantee and addressing the gulf between so-called academic and so-called practical education. As he said, we want to end that bogus distinction between HE and FE. It is particularly topical because my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is making a Statement on it in another place with further detail as we speak.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, following the excellent example of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, instead of locking up students and placing security officers outside their doors, does the Minister agree that students in Covid hotspots should be prioritised for double testing, whether or not they have symptoms? If they tested negative, they could get on with their lives; if positive, they would of course need to self-isolate. When will that be possible?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, we are prioritising testing. On double testing, I am afraid I cannot say more, but we will certainly take that back and reply more fully to the noble Baroness. Decisions on what measures are applied and where have to be made by local public health teams, based on the information that they receive through NHS Test and Trace. Universities themselves are not decision-makers there. As I say, we are asking the same of students as we are of any other adults around the country in these trying times.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the provision of computers for students, but there seems to be a lot of variability in the quality and quantity of the online provision that is available. What discussions have the Government had with the regulator to make sure that there is a consistently high standard of online tuition, and that we can learn from best practice?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the Office for Students task force is meeting today, and I am sure that will be one of the points raised and fed back so that we hear directly from students. We are making sure that we provide hardship funding for those who need it and IT equipment, targeted in particular at groups such as care leavers who can most benefit from them. I will certainly keep an eye on the situation, as I know the noble Baroness will.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I declare an interest as a visiting professor lecturing at Plymouth University, and a visiting fellow at Cambridge University, on planning matters. So I will be doing that virtually this year.
I emphasise to the Minister my support for what they are doing. Keeping universities open is absolutely critical, because many students, if they were not able to complete their degree now, would never be able to go back to it, and there would not be the capacity in the university system to double-enter future students with current students for that to happen. So it is vital that universities are kept open. For that, many are struggling with the resourcing needed for the extra costs currently involved. Will the Minister continue to work closely with universities to meet their needs—accepting that some funding has already been provided?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of keeping universities open and thank him for the part that he is personally playing in that. As Sir Michael Barber said today in his article, we cannot
“put a generation of young people’s lives on hold.”
We have to have the right mitigations to make sure that they are doing it safely, but we have to keep universities open for business, and the Government will continue to engage with the sector, as we are doing through the HE task force.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it has been reported that in some universities, private security guards, presumably employed by college authorities, secure and lock premises to prevent students leaving their halls of residence. Was there a vote on this matter in another place? If not, could the Minister explain under what legal authority this draconian action was taken?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, decisions on what measures to apply, and where, are made by public health teams, based on information from NHS Test and Trace. It is not for universities to make those decisions but, as the noble Lord will be aware, as of Monday this week it is illegal to not self-isolate if you are notified by a public health official that you have tested positive or have had close contact with somebody who has tested positive, and that can be enforced by the police. Universities, as responsible providers, are there to make sure that guidance is being followed by those who are studying at them.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
Does my noble friend accept that on-campus learning is still important for the education and well-being of students, and that for students who live at home, often in multi-occupancy homes, while attending university, a physical campus learning space is essential? Will he join me to paying tribute to the University of Bolton, where I am a pro-vice chancellor, which, in very difficult local lockdown circumstances, has introduced a series of Covid measures that have enabled the university to continue to provide a guaranteed minimum level of contact learning?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly join my noble friend in providing that congratulation to the University of Bolton; that is exactly the sort of response we are seeing from across the sector to make sure that students get the high-quality education they expect. My noble friend is right that that should be accompanied by the student experience more broadly—learning to live away from home, meeting people from different backgrounds and exchanging ideas—which is such an integral part of the university experience. We need to make sure that universities are doing that and doing it safely.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Statement, the Secretary of State said:
“As with all our education settings, we will continue monitoring the situation closely and will follow the latest scientific advice, adapting policies as the situation changes.”
What is the latest scientific advice to universities, especially to those that do not have their own testing capacity?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As my right honourable friend said, we continue to follow the scientific advice; this is a changing circumstance, and the advice changes as well. We are providing guidance to the sector, as we did most recently on 10 September, to inform universities as term began. As that changes, we will update it and provide it directly to universities. I imagine that that is published, but if it is not I will correct the record and write to the noble Baroness.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
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 today’s list. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. If a Division is pressed, it will be deferred to a later date.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 134-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (28 Sep 2020)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 17: Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance
Amendment 1
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(ba) the Scottish Ministers, in the case of an agreement entered into or an operational programme approved in accordance with any provision or provisions so far as having effect in relation to Scotland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Scottish Ministers to give financial assistance under Clause 17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to a small number of technical amendments, and I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
These are technical operability amendments and do not represent any change of policy. The Government are acting on very recent legal advice from the European Law Group and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Government’s primary legislation drafters, on the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement as regards retained EU law, with the objective of ensuring that no doubt remains that these powers to continue EU CAP legacy schemes will operate as intended for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
Amendments 1 and 4 relate to the new clause created by Amendment 45, as agreed on Report, “Continuing EU programmes: power to provide financial assistance”, and will ensure that the Scottish Government are able to make domestic payments where agreements and programmes are currently supported under an EU programme relating to rural development or fruit and vegetable producers once the funding for the programme has been used up. This amendment has been tabled at the request of the Scottish Government, whose primary legislation has progressed quickly through their Parliament and who do not have, as a result, an immediate opportunity to correct this themselves.
Amendments 2 and 3 have the effect of adding the promotions aid legislation—EU regulation 1144/2014, delegated regulation 2015/1829 and implementing regulation 2015/1831—to the list of legislation which will become retained EU law under the new clause created by Amendment 46 “Retained direct EU legislation”, as agreed on Report. This ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products which has a direct impact under the withdrawal agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be included in retained direct EU legislation. We have made these amendments at the request of DAERA, which wants to retain the ability to carry out agri-promotion legacy schemes in Northern Ireland under this legislation after the end of the transition period.
Government Amendments 107 and 110 at Report gave Welsh Ministers and DAERA the power to modify retained EU law for CMO apiculture legacy schemes. Amendments 5 and 6 correct a drafting oversight by specifying the resolution procedure for government Amendments 107 and 110 as agreed at Report, for the Welsh Government and DAERA to make regulations in their respective parliaments.
In line with the Sewel convention, the UK Government have sought the legislative consent of all the devolved legislatures for the provisions that engage the LCM process. I am pleased to report that each of the devolved legislatures has agreed legislative consent for the Agriculture Bill on the recommendation of its respective devolved Administration. The Northern Ireland Assembly agreed to the LCM on 31March 2020; the Senedd Cymru on 29 September and the Scottish Parliament on 30 September.
I would like to make clear again that these are purely technical amendments and were tabled at the request of the devolved Administrations to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. These amendments are consequential upon those tabled at Report to reflect the new European Law Group advice. The Government have not changed their policy. I hope that noble Lords will understand my wish, on behalf of the devolved Administrations, to ensure that these matters are firmly settled before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. First, I repeat what I said at Report: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the way he has conducted this Bill, for his kindness and for the way he explained it and answered questions in such a helpful manner. I thank him and all the Front Benches for their hard work on this marathon Bill. They will be more pleased than anyone that we are now at Third Reading.
I want to ask a question or two about Amendment 1, on providing financial assistance for continuing EU programmes as far as Scotland is concerned. The Minister said this was a technical amendment—if I have got this right—because the Scottish Parliament did not have the opportunity to legislate. I was mystified, however, about why it was not included earlier and why we had to wait until Third Reading—at the 59th minute of the 11th hour—to include it, because the original draft included powers for the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but Scotland was not included at all. Why has it been delayed? Are there changed circumstances? Will the Minister expand on that? Was it an oversight or have the circumstances changed?
I am a bit worried that sometimes in Whitehall—not through any malevolence, but just through oversight—we provide fuel for the fires of nationalism that are currently burning and that, on all sides of the House, we do not want to encourage. Therefore, it is very important that we get these things right and get them right early on in the process, so that we are not seen to be putting Scotland in as an afterthought.
Agricultural activities are carried out on two-thirds of the land area of Scotland. It is very important and right that the decisions about funding these continuing EU programmes be made as near as possible to the area in which they are taking place. The Scottish Parliament and Government clearly fulfil that objective. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it was not an afterthought, that it is a technical amendment and that the interests of Scottish farmers, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were not overlooked, because it is a very important issue. I would be grateful for that reassurance from the Minister.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this small group of amendments and will speak in particular to Amendments 1 and 4.
My concerns echo those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This is a recurrent theme expressed by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies which we hear of in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. In thanking my noble friend for listening to their concerns and bringing these amendments forward, I note that consent was given by the Scottish Parliament only yesterday, which seems quite late. Would my noble friend use his good offices to keep Parliament informed and update us on continued progress and on how this will impact negotiations and, afterwards, the implementation of the new policy? It is very important that the national Parliament at Westminster should be kept informed on the impact on the devolved Assemblies.
I take this opportunity, as I will not participate on the last stage, to thank my noble friend for his boundless patience, courtesy and tolerance during the many hours of debate. Through him, I thank the Bill team for the outstanding service they have performed to the House. I also thank the Public Bill Office and all who have been involved, including my noble friend’s able assistant, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has been utterly charming and patient throughout this process.
As my noble friend Lord Gardiner is aware, I hoped he would have brought forward a government amendment on another issue. The House has spoken; it voted overwhelmingly, by I think a majority of 100, to take forward an amendment to the House of Commons on protecting our standards and ensuring that imported food products continue to meet these standards. I also look forward to my noble friend and his department’s response to the Dimbleby report, which would have been very helpful to have.
We are on a voyage of discovery, as there is very little detail about either the interim SFI or the ELMS proceedings—the sustainable farming initiative and the new environmental land management schemes. But we are at this stage, and I congratulate my noble friend on all the hard work from him and his department to get us here.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rationale behind these somewhat late amendments. Over the last 18 months, there have been several occasions on which we have debated legislation under the Defra banner which has been amended for a variety of reasons—with the sheer weight of legislation in Bills and statutory instruments, the degree of detail needed and the very short timeframes have meant that unforced errors have occurred. The main thing is that, in this case, the Government have been able to act so that omissions were rectified.
The first amendment, as the Minister indicated, is at the request of the Scottish devolved Administration to ensure that their agriculture Bill could provide the continuing financial assistance that will be needed and give Scotland the same powers as Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The third amendment is consequential on the first. It would have been helpful if the Scottish Administration realised this omission earlier, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
The second amendment, to Clause 18, relates to retained EU law for promotion schemes for agri-foods not to be used in England, Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland wanted to keep its options open, so we have this amendment.
These are very technical issues, but it is often those that trip us all up. This is, as has been indicated, all very last minute. I understand that this could not be covered later by secondary legislation but would have needed primary legislation to comply with the multiannual financial arrangements.
The last two amendments relate to powers enabling the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation for bees to be included in the Bill. We have debated on many occasions the crucial role that bees and other pollinators play in ensuring that our crops, flowers and trees flourish and survive. I find it extraordinary that such a vital section of the Bill, on apiculture, should have been left without any means of legally ensuring its continuity. However, the error was discovered in the nick of time. I support this group of amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. As I know he is aware, it is clearly very frustrating that they have been tabled at such a late stage. As he has explained, several of the changes come as a result of late requests from the devolved nations. It is a worrying sign of the complexity of legislation across the four nations that decisions are being made on different timeframes and with different consequences for the agricultural community. It underlines our view that we need a robust framework agreement within which we can anticipate and plan legislative changes affecting the four nations in an orderly way in future.
It is understandable that Scotland might want the same powers as other devolved nations to provide financial assistance for rural development initiatives, but I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Foulkes on this. When were the Scottish Government made aware that the powers applied to everybody apart from Scotland, and when did they put in their request to add these powers into the Bill? If future requests are made by the devolved nations, would it be possible to deal with them via secondary legislation, since, had this Bill passed, where or how else could these matters have been pursued?
The Minister also explained that there had been a drafting error on the management of apiculture. It needs a resolution procedure for changes, which has now been included in the Bill as a negative resolution. Have these late changes been sent to the Delegated Powers Committee for review? What provisions are available if other drafting errors of this kind come to light once the Bill has been passed? It goes without saying that we hope no other errors appear, but sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, reminded us, the department has not been exempt from similar errors in secondary legislation in our recent past. Unfortunately, we have form on this.
Finally, the Minister explained that a small number of changes arise from a change in advice from the lawyers about how sections of the withdrawal agreement should be interpreted. Were the lawyers made aware that this Bill was reaching its final stages of consideration and were they given a deadline for their advice which would have allowed the consequences of it to be introduced into the Bill in a timely way? I know the Minister shares our frustration that these issues have arisen at such a late stage. If nothing else, I hope there can be a resolution from the department to learn from these errors so that the same mistakes do not occur in the next piece of legislation and that we can deal with all these matters in a timely manner.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on these technical amendments. No one could be more frustrated than I am at coming before your Lordships at Third Reading with new technical amendments. It is not desirable, and I regret it.
However, on the issue with the Scottish Government, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and all noble Lords that there was no afterthought. Nothing was overlooked. What I am bringing forward is at the request of the Scottish Government. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that this is why work on the framework, collaboration and working together, although agriculture is devolved, are so important.
We clearly did not want to assume that Scotland also wanted powers and we waited for the Scottish Government to confirm that they wanted the provisions extended to them before assuming that that would be the case. We are in regular contact with officials in the Scottish Government. We understood that they were made aware on 15 September; we gave timings and deadlines, and the Delegated Powers Committee was made aware.
I agree that in the perfect world we would have been able to include these at least on Report, if not before, but they are issues that have recently come forward. As I said, I felt that it was better these were dealt with, as they needed to be, in primary legislation. Given the fact that these were flagged up and that the devolved Administrations sought us to attend to them for them, I thought it would be austere—to say the least—to say, “No, you’d better wait for opportunities within your own Administrations.” That is why, although I am frustrated about it and I recognise that frustration, they have come forward.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their kind remarks. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that no one wants to have legislation that is in error in any sense. That is why we have professionals and lawyers bringing forward that expertise. Obviously, what has happened here is that there are some things which the devolved Administrations have looked at and said, “Actually, we would like to have this within our own legislative framework and our own schedules.”
On the point about apiculture, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that bees and pollinators are absolutely essential not only for our crops but for the natural world. This was about ensuring that the regulations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and any changes in them, were to be dealt with by the negative resolution. It was not that there were no regulatory powers; it was to confirm it would be through the negative resolution.
As I say, I wish that these matters had come forward earlier, but—I say this particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised it—I want to get these things right. That is why I have asked your Lordships to accept these amendments. I reiterate that they do not represent any change, they are consequential on those tabled on Report, and they reflect the advice that we need to attend to these for the devolved Administrations at their request. Given the time constraints, introducing them at this stage did at least allow us to ensure that the legislation operates as intended and, very importantly, to the satisfaction of the devolved Administrations. We have had very positive working relationships on the Bill, and more widely as a department. I am very pleased that each devolved legislature has agreed the legislative consent for the Bill on the recommendation of their respective devolved Administrations.
I know that my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised issues separate to the amendments themselves, which obviously I will reflect on. In the meantime, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to this clause.
“(6) The legislation within this subsection is—(a) Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries,(b) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1829 of 23 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in third countries, and(c) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1831 of 7 October 2015 laying down rules for application of Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on information provision and promotion measures concerning agricultural products implemented in the internal market and in the third countries.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that EU legislation relating to promotion measures for agricultural products that has direct effect under the Withdrawal Agreement in relation to existing programmes will also be retained direct EU legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to Clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 5.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(3) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to negative resolution procedure (unless section 54(5) applies).”Member’s explanatory statement.
This amendment sets out the procedure for the regulation making power contained in paragraph 6 of Schedule 6.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, we have come to this final stage of—I think we would say—lengthy deliberations on a Bill which will have a lasting impact on farming and the rural economy. It has been my privilege, coming from a farming background, to have responsibility for the Bill.
It has also presented, if I may say, some challenges from all sides of the House—and quite often from behind me. I am clear that our consideration of the Bill has been full and detailed. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist—to whom I pay a very strong tribute—and I have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss with your Lordships these important matters. I think we would all accept that it has been wide ranging, and I entirely appreciate the commitment with which your Lordships have scrutinised the Bill.
In particular, I acknowledge the cordial working relationship we have both had with the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We all seek a vibrant future for British farmers and the production of food of high quality and to a high standard. Farmers are also custodians of the countryside and our landscapes, and I believe the Bill provides a framework for these two imperatives: food production and an enhanced environment.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Bill team and all the officials at Defra and within the devolved Administrations for their collaborative working, which has made my task not only—on most occasions—straightforward but especially stimulating and rewarding. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments. By any measure, consideration of the Bill has been a mammoth task. In many ways, this is not surprising: this Bill is the first major piece of farming legislation for about 40 years, so there was a lot to discuss. We certainly had a lot of discussion.
I feel I know so much more about the personal lives of so many Peers—their favourite butterflies, their favourite trees, their best-loved walks and landscapes, and even sometimes their special hobbies. Their determination to keep talking past my bedtime has been impressive. I have also been genuinely impressed by their commitment to the environment, and indeed to a policy based on nature-friendly farming for the future. Throughout it all, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, have been the personification of patience and courtesy, and I pay tribute to them both for their professionalism and for initiating the many briefings and discussions which took place around the Bill in an attempt to reach understanding and consensus.
At the end of the day, we have sent only six amendments back to the Commons, and those represent some of the biggest issues where we were unable to reach a consensus. I hope the Commons will understand the strength of feeling from around the Chamber on our concerns, and indeed feel able to reflect on and reconsider its position on those issues. I really hope that it is able to do that, but I suspect that this is not quite the end of the road for the Bill and that it will be back with us again all too soon.
In the meantime, I formally thank both the Minister and the Bill team for getting us to this point. I also thank Daniel Stevens, our legislative officer, for his excellent advice and drafting skills. Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lady Wilcox for contributing their expertise with such style and for being such great partners in our team.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and wisdom in helping us through the passage of the Bill. We have had a great many amendments to deal with, many speakers and some very late nights. Throughout, the Minister has been thorough in his responses and polite; I am sure, had I been in his place, I would not have remained so placid. I am very grateful to him for his diligence and support.
Like others, I have learned a great deal more about agriculture and the land through the passage of the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to the officials for the numerous briefings we have received over the months since Easter. In some cases, there were over 15 officials on the Zoom calls, helping us to get to grips with the Bill and the many clauses we were attempting to amend.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support throughout this process, and those on the Cross Benches who have worked with us to ensure that the issues the public were so concerned about got a proper airing. I agree with her that it will be interesting to see what the Commons sends back to us.
Lastly, but by no means least, I thank the Liberal Democrat whips’ office, without which I would have been floundering with the processes involved in getting to this stage today. This has been a long haul, but we have got there. I again thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, for their guidance on the Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and before her the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Both have contributed enormously to the debates on this Bill. It is a daunting task to be speaking on behalf of my noble friends from the Cross Benches. I could not possibly reflect the depth and breadth of experience and knowledge that resides within the Cross-Bench group. It is a great honour to speak on behalf of my colleagues at Third Reading.
This Bill is of huge significance. I was listening to a presentation yesterday, during which this point in history was once again likened to the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the 1947 Agriculture Act. It represents fundamental change: a once in a lifetime opportunity to reshape the management of the countryside and how we redesign our agriculture. For myself, and a number of us on the Cross Benches and indeed across the whole House, farming and land management have been our main occupation and our lifetime’s work. So, to have the opportunity of participating in this Bill, trying to shape it to make sure it is fit for purpose, has been a privilege and an incredible experience.
I genuinely believe that the amendments that my noble friends and I have sponsored have improved the Bill. I will not attempt to list them, because I run the risk of missing an important contribution, but I have, once again, been so impressed by the depth of resource, the expertise and the knowledge available on the Benches. To be able to interrogate this Bill line by line and scrutinise with vast knowledge of the subject does demonstrate, once again, the value of this House.
Of course, the job is not finished: I do hope our colleagues in the other House do not dismiss our amendments out of hand, but take them seriously, recognising that they are a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to cover issues of importance and relevance to the agricultural sector at this great time of change. Also, since this is a framework Bill, we look forward to receiving more detail in due course, particularly as evidence from the ELMS pilots becomes available. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the House will have the opportunity to comment on the ELMS pilots and the plans to roll them out nationally in due course.
Finally, it is my pleasure to thank all those who have contributed to the smooth running of the process in challenging circumstances: the Bill team was incredibly helpful in dealing with endless queries and in the drafting of amendments; the clerks, as usual, in their guidance and organisational professionalism; the many who work behind the scenes have played a key role, particularly the digital team, who successfully delivered a service to us all so we could contribute in sequence—quite remarkable technology. I thank them all very much indeed. Once again, a big thank you to the Front Bench ministerial team for their tolerance, courtesy, patience and the comprehensive way in which they responded to debates. Thank you.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I do not think we have the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, do we? No. Then we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, we have had a very interesting, worthwhile and civilised series of sessions, discussing our individual, and the Government’s, visions, ideas and plans for the future of rural Britain and agriculture. Clearly there are disagreements, but overall there is a degree of consensus, which I personally much welcome. However, while I do not wish to be the bad fairy at the christening, I do wish to point out that this is an enabling Bill, and without the measures that follow, nothing can result. It is about that that I wish to comment and, at this point, I reiterate my interest as declared in the register and note the agricultural organisations with which I am involved.
I feel I have no alternative but to tell the House that I fear the emperor may have no clothes. I have had no information not in the public domain, and I know that some confidential information has in fact found its way into the press. However, I am quite clear that a number of those who are committed to working closely with the Government and Defra on these matters, and who will not fail to continue to do so—people who come from the practical world of agriculture and the environment—are very concerned that the department is simply not grounded in reality. Farming and land management have to be grounded.
In particular, there are real anxieties about the ability of the Sustainable Food Initiative to act as a bridge between the basic payment scheme and ELMS because, quite simply, there is not enough money. It is as simple as that, and those who say it understand these things. Equally, there is no confidence that working IT systems either will or indeed can be put in place in time. After all, we have been there quite recently. Failure in these respects will certainly lead to significant numbers of farms and rural businesses going bust.
The Minister, as many have said quite rightly, has conducted the proceedings in a genial and constructive manner admired by all around the House, but we must not forget what is happening behind the proscenium arch and curtain in front of which he delivers his lines. If I am right—and, unusually for me, I hope I am not, but I fear it is possible I may be—all that we have been discussing over the past few weeks will turn out to be an agreeable hallucination that will turn into nightmares or worse for many in rural Britain, particularly smaller businesses. Perfectly decent enabling legislation is quite capable of metamorphosing into appalling public administration. Let us all hope and pray that it will not happen in this instance, but the potential for it to do so is clearly there.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think we can now call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Is the noble Lord there?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We can hear you: carry on.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I think, perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, cannot hear us, we will have to call it a day. I am sorry about that. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has withdrawn, so I now call the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that I will contact him and hear what he has to say. We have heard from the South Downs, Somerset, Northumberland, Cumbria, and we would have heard from Suffolk—that range of great landscape and food production. I am reminded by the two noble Baronesses talking of late nights that of course there are late nights of harvest as we try to ensure we get as much in before the weather changes or before the moisture rate gets too much. There are also early mornings, which is so much a feature of livestock farming. I know very few farmers who think that late nights are a very good idea. So there has been some stamina about our deliberations, and that is something I admire in this House. We really get stuck in and we take to these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, with his very great experience, used the word “reshaping”, but there are some great constants as well. It is essential that we provide good food in this country. It is essential that we have good husbandry of the animals that we are the custodians of as farmers, that provide food as well.
I also reflect on the experience of your Lordships and, as I have said before, being a Minister in the House of Lords is a very different concept to the other place. I know that there are many noble Lords who know far more about the subject than I do. That is not the case, I suspect, in the other place, and it sometimes does help to raise one’s game.
On ELMS, I well understand the importance of the test and trials. That is why I have been very straightforward with your Lordships that across the piece, in every part of the country, with all land tenures and different topographies, the tests and trials are in place so that this works for the farmer and the land manager. Whether it is tier 1, 2 or 3, it is designed to be their scheme too. I look forward to keeping your Lordships involved and engaged in those matters.
I have to warn your Lordships that obviously Defra will bring forward a programme of statutory instruments; I understand that three will arise from this legislation. However, clearly, in the months and years ahead, statutory instruments will be engaged as we move forward, and I look forward to working with your Lordships on them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we have of course found a lot of consensus, and where we have disagreed and there have been civilised collisions, I utterly respect the views that have been expressed. I say to the noble Lord that I think I am grounded, and I know jolly well that my ministerial colleagues are. We are acutely aware, as we go through a period of change, that we need to work with each and every farmer up and down the land and to work collaboratively with them, because this is a joint venture. I am not very good with IT systems—I am always nervous of them. I have taken that point and I have already made that point, but it is helpful to have that on the record. [Interruption.] There must be a farmyard somewhere in the House.
We have all worked extremely hard on the Bill and it has been a privilege to serve your Lordships.
Fire Safety Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 September 2020 - (7 Sep 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to bring this Bill before the House today for its Second Reading. While short, it introduces important measures designed to keep people safe from the risk of fire.
None of us will ever forget the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in the early morning of 14 June, nor will we forget the 72 people who lost their lives in the most appalling circumstances. Our thoughts today are very much with the victims’ families, the survivors and fellow residents, who have had to rebuild their lives over the past three and a half years. Yesterday evening I was privileged to visit the Grenfell Tower site and tour the Lancaster West Estate at the invitation of the Lancaster West Residents’ Association. I thank its members for a constructive meeting thereafter.
A full independent inquiry was established in the aftermath of the fire, which is being led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, to understand what happened and make recommendations to ensure it can never happen again. The Government also commissioned an independent review of building regulations and safety, led by Dame Judith Hackitt. Her findings have underpinned our unprecedented programme of building and fire safety reform.
We are resolute in our commitment to delivering change, and significant steps have already been taken to address building safety and fire safety risks. The Bill is just one part of that wider programme. There is considerable experience across the House and, as we take forward the Bill, we will be listening, as well as working with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue.
Before I go further, I take the opportunity to thank our fire and rescue services for their incredible response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the nation, around 4,000 firefighters and staff are now helping in the broader Covid-19 efforts. The National Fire Chiefs Council very quickly agreed a framework with unions and employers for firefighters to support the vulnerable and their emergency service partners. This has enabled firefighters to provide support to the NHS and ambulance trusts, the most vulnerable people, and coroners: at one stage, 300 firefighters were helping ambulance services in London alone. As the Minister with responsibility for fire, I am incredibly proud of the way they have responded to the crisis.
As soon as possible after the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government started working with relevant authorities and building owners to identify the risk and prevalence of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding and set up a comprehensive programme to remediate buildings of 18 metres and above with unsafe ACM.
We have since taken many other steps. These include setting up an independent expert panel on building safety, chaired by Sir Ken Knight, a former London Fire Commissioner and Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, to provide advice to government and building owners, and making £600 million available to social and private sector landlords to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres. Progress by building owners has been far too slow. However, as of 31 August 2020, of the 458 high- rise residential buildings identified as having unsafe ACM cladding, 74% of them have either started or completed works to remove it.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget that the Government are providing a further £1 billion to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems for both the social and private residential sectors on buildings of 18 metres and above. Those who registered for the £1 billion fund are now able to submit their funding applications.
Every single person in this country, no matter where they live, has the right to feel safe in their own home. Alongside the risk it posed, ACM cladding placed an enormous psychological and emotional burden on residents of high-rise buildings, each wondering whether their home would be next. It is right that we act to remove this danger.
In addition to the removal of ACM cladding, the Home Office has also provided £30 million of additional funding for fire and rescue services. Some £20 million of this is to allow them to increase their capacity and capability, while £10 million has been allocated specifically to the National Fire Chiefs Council—to strengthen its protection activity—and to the building risk review programme, which will ensure that all high-rise residential buildings in England are inspected or reviewed by December 2021. A further £10 million has been made available via a protection uplift fund so that fire and rescue services can increase their focus on other high-risk categories of buildings, and £10 million has been provided to build the NFCC’s central capability and ensure that it can implement the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy in local services contained in the phase 1 inquiry.
The Queen’s Speech committed the Government to bringing forward two Bills on fire and building safety. The first is this short, technical Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The second, the building safety Bill, will later be led by me in this House, and was published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny on 20 July. The draft building safety Bill proposes to put in place an enhanced safety framework for high-rise residential buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. It will bring about a fundamental change in both the regulatory framework and industry culture, creating a more accountable system.
The proposed Bill will put in place an enhanced safety framework for higher-risk buildings, taking forward the recommendations from Dame Judith’s review. This framework will include a new regulator, clearer accountability and duties for duty holders. The Bill will also ensure that the residents of high-rise buildings have a stronger voice, alongside giving them better access to safety information about their building, clarifying their rights and providing recourse to raise safety concerns directly to the building safety regulator. The pre-legislative scrutiny for that Bill is currently under way. I am determined that we will bring forward as soon as possible after that process concludes a Bill that reflects views and expertise from across this House and expert advice from beyond.
At present, there are differing interpretations of the existing fire safety order on whether the external walls and, to a lesser extent, the individual flat entrance doors fall within the scope of the order. This ambiguity is leading to inconsistency in operational practice. This is unhelpful at best; at worst, it means that the full identification and management of fire safety risks is compromised, which could put the lives of residents at risk.
This Fire Safety Bill clarifies that the fire safety order does apply to the structure, external walls—including cladding and balconies—and individual flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings. This clarification will also ensure that fire and rescue services can confidently take enforcement action and hold building owners or managers to account if they are not compliant with their duties under the FSO. Clarifying the scope of the fire safety order through this Bill will also pave the way for the Government to bring forward subsequent secondary legislation to deliver on the Grenfell recommendations. I will return to this later.
I wish to clarify a couple of detailed points about Clause 1 before I explain Clauses 2 and 3. First, Members in the other place and industry representatives have raised as an issue the express inclusion of “structure” in the Bill. The concern is that this term will mean that structural assessments should more routinely be carried out as part of fire-risk assessments. I assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The intention, as set out in guidance, is that this should be a visual inspection of the construction and layout of the building on the basis that it will have been built to resist early structural collapse in the event of a fire.
As such, although dependent on the circumstances in any particular case, intrusive surveys of buildings are likely to be required rarely and only on the basis that the fire risk assessor has serious concerns about the risks that the structure of the building could pose. Otherwise, non-intrusive surveys should normally be carried out. This will be set out in a fact sheet that we will publish and will be reflected in the industry-recognised guidance.
Secondly, some fire and rescue services have also asked for clarification on what is meant by “common parts” in the Fire Safety Bill. The fire safety order applies to all premises and to all parts of premises unless they are expressly excluded by Article 6. One such exclusion is for “domestic premises”, for which the definition includes parts of the domestic premises that are
“not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling”.
This has led to some confusion about which parts of the overall building are covered by the order. I can clarify that walls and structure are expressly within the scope of the FSO, and that “common parts” applies whether they are “used” by residents or not. An example of a common part that could be routinely used by residents might be a communal area that is immediately outside flat entrance doors. An example of a common part not frequently accessed by residents could be a boiler room.
Clause 2 provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to amend or clarify the premises that fall within the scope of the fire safety order. Through this, we will be able to respond quickly to any further developments in the design and construction of buildings and our understanding of the combustibility/fire risk of construction products.
The territorial extent of the Bill is set out in Clause 3. The fire safety order extends and applies to England and Wales. The order, and therefore the Bill, relates to matters within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru, or Welsh Assembly. This matter will be put before the Welsh Assembly for a legislative consent Motion in relation to these provisions on 6 October.
Finally, the Bill will provide a power to commence the provisions of the Bill on “different days for different purposes”. This acknowledges the operational implications of this Bill, in particular the potentially significant number of responsible persons who will need to review and update their fire risk assessments. For many, that will require specialist knowledge and expertise from competent professionals who can advise on the fire safety risks for external wall systems.
In recognising these operational implications, the Home Office established a task and finish group, which is chaired jointly by the Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs Council. It includes representatives from local authorities, private sector housing developers, the fire sector and fire and rescue services. We are currently considering their advice, which we received earlier this week, and I intend to set out the Government’s position on how they will commence the Fire Safety Bill to this House in Committee.
As I just mentioned, we recognise that there are capacity issues relating to fire risk assessors and concerns around competence. It will be helpful to touch on the measures that we are taking to address them. Significant work has been undertaken within the MHCLG-led building safety programme by the industry-led competency steering group—in particular, its sub-working groups on fire risk assessors and fire engineers—to look at ways to increase competence and capacity in the industry, which proposes recommendations in relation to third-party accreditation and a competence framework for fire- risk assessors. The final report from the CSG will be published next week, and MHCLG, the HSE and the Home Office will consider the recommendations of the report in detail.
It is extremely welcome that there is a shared commitment across all parties to implement the recommendations of the inquiry and legislate where necessary. That commitment bears repeating: we will honour the memory of those who died in that appalling fire and implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations in full.
On 20 July, the Government launched a consultation that included proposals to implement the recommendations and further strengthen the fire safety order. The consultation closes on 12 October 2020.
It is important to deliver the Fire Safety Bill first, then subsequently the secondary legislation taking forward the outcomes of the fire safety consultation. This is a matter of sequencing to ensure that we consult the relevant parties appropriately on the measures we propose, which in a number of areas go further than the inquiry’s recommendations. It will mean that the legislation will be informed and properly enacted. It is in everyone’s interest that we get this right. The Government will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation as early as practicable following commencement of the Fire Safety Bill.
Nothing can bring back those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy. Nothing can undo the errors that led to their deaths. Yet, if anything is to come from this disaster, let it be the lessons we have learned from those errors and our solemn determination to ensure that they can never happen again.
I spoke earlier of how proud I was in taking this Bill forward. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but this, the first Bill since the Grenfell fire, will, I believe, make a significant contribution to protecting residents in multi-occupancy buildings from the dangers of fire. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have direct personal experience of this area of local government responsibilities. Following the tragedy at Grenfell, not only was I the leader of Newport City Council at that time but Newport was the only council in Wales that had social tenants in high-rise buildings covered in ACM cladding, and one of those tower blocks was in my ward.
The tragedy at Grenfell has prompted extensive inquiries, research and debate about the steps that might be needed to minimise the risk of such a tragedy happening again. Much of that has concentrated on the fabric and construction of high-rise residential buildings because the materials and techniques used in constructing and renovating Grenfell Tower have been implicated in allowing the fire to spread so rapidly. That in turn will mean changes to the system of building control, which regulates how and with what materials buildings must be constructed.
I commend the actions in the Bill because I have first-hand experience of the benefits that can be secured when registered social landlords, such as Newport City Homes, act appropriately and respond to their responsibilities to manage and reduce the risk of fire in multi-occupied buildings. Within six months of the tragedy at Grenfell, the three tower blocks clad in ACM in Newport had sprinklers installed and, within a year, the work to remove and replace the ACM cladding had begun. This was achieved through pragmatic partnership working between the council, the housing association Newport City Homes, Senedd Cymru and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service.
Responsible landlords should already be conducting regular inspections of buildings with the local fire and rescue services, ensuring that evacuation plans are reviewed and regularly updated and personal evacuation plans are in place for residents, providing fire safety instructions to residents in a form that they can reasonably be expected to understand, and ensuring that the building complies with current standards. That is why I agree with the Fire Brigades Union that the Bill is the first—long overdue—piece of primary legislation that seeks to rectify the failures identified after the Grenfell Tower fire. The FBU has raised concerns with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 since it was imposed. It is clear that many “responsible persons” who own and manage residential premises have not assessed the fire risks in their buildings, nor introduced sufficient measures to keep people safe in their homes.
It is the Welsh Government’s intention to bring forward a White Paper for consultation by the end of this current term and the analysis of this consultation will be available to inform any new Government bringing forward primary legislation in this vital area. These reforms build on the work set out by the Welsh Government’s Building Safety Expert Group in its report, A Road Map to Safer Buildings in Wales. The remit of the group was to identify the parameters of a Welsh response to the issues raised by Dame Judith Hackitt’s report, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety.
In the immediate aftermath of Grenfell, the primary focus was on aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding systems, which had been implicated in the propagation of the fire. In Wales, we have made good progress in relation to remediation of buildings with ACM cladding. There were 15 buildings with non-compliant cladding, all of which have been remediated or have plans in place. We have been able to develop and maintain relationships with building owners and managing agents to ensure an open and honest dialogue about progress. No leaseholders will have to pay for remediation works in relation to ACM cladding. In addition, the Building Regulations 2010 have been amended to ban the use of all combustible cladding on residential buildings over 18 metres in height. The ban applies to combustible cladding on all new residential buildings and where renovation works take place, including flats, student accommodation, care homes and hospitals over 18 metres high. The ban ensures that ACM and other potentially dangerous cladding cannot be used on tall buildings in the future.
The Welsh Government have worked closely with the Home Office on this Bill. It significantly expands the fire safety order’s coverage of blocks of flats, in particular to include the external walls and internal doors that were so clearly implicated in the spread of the Grenfell Tower fire. They have also been working with the social landlord sector through Community Housing Cymru to develop and trial work in relation to resident engagement and sharing of building safety information. Safety First in Housing intends to support those managing buildings to put in place helpful measures ahead of legislation that will allow genuine engagement with residents, and I urge the UK Government to follow this lead in resident engagement.
Newport City Homes had to take the original contractors of the cladding to adjudication to recover its costs to make the building safe. The reality is that flammable material should never have been put on the outside of buildings, and the contractors and developers who allowed this to happen should rectify matters.
The Welsh Government intend to take the opportunity to establish two new regulatory regimes for Wales. The proposed fire safety regime will build on the existing fire safety legislation and will cover all residential buildings containing more than one dwelling. That goes significantly further than the Home Office proposals for England. It intends to establish a new regime focused solely on fire safety in domestic dwellings, unlike the current fire legislation that blurs the focus of workplaces and residential buildings. The Welsh Government also intend to establish a building safety regime for purpose-built high-rise blocks of flats. This will incorporate the fire safety regime but will look across the whole life cycle of buildings, putting in place additional requirements on those designing and constructing high-rise residential buildings, all the way through to the way in which they are managed and maintained during occupation.
Dame Judith Hackitt’s review identified competence issues throughout the system. It found that there was no clear set of competence standards or expectations for many of the professionals involved in the design and construction of fire-safe buildings or the maintenance of fire safety in occupied buildings. Her recommendations apply across the UK. Building industry action to develop more robust approaches is welcome, in order to make the improvements necessary to ensure that competence is clearly embedded within the professions that make up the construction industry.
Dame Judith was clear that information, from inception to occupation, is key to overseeing the ongoing safety of buildings. It allows buildings to be constructed safely and managed appropriately when occupied. Her proposals for a “golden thread” of building information not only are the basis of the information and data required during the gateway process as buildings are designed and constructed but flow through to the occupation stage. The golden thread will be comprehensive and include full as-built plans, a construction control plan and a fire and emergency file, and culminate in the safety case, which articulates how structural and fire risks will be managed and mitigated against. The safety case identifies the potential hazards in the building and considers how these might be reduced and mitigated against. The findings of these considerations should be recorded and acted upon. Evaluating and reviewing the success of mitigating actions should be monitored, and the processes of reviewing and assessing hazards undertaken on an ongoing basis. The golden thread is a live document—in effect, the user’s manual for the building.
Buildings must be designed and constructed in a way that ensures they are as safe as they can be. This is more than health and safety on a building site, and more than ensuring that there is fire-fighting equipment in an emergency. It is not only about ensuring that the design complies with building regulations safety requirements but that the intention is delivered in the finished product. This means making sure that safety features are properly installed in the right places, using the right materials and standards, by persons who are competent.
In conclusion, the Bill goes a good way to redressing the gaps in controls and provisions that led to the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower but I ask the Minister to ensure that no positive opportunity is overlooked when reviewing the steps available to get the Bill absolutely right for the future safety of our citizens, wherever they live in the UK, and to acknowledge and learn from the stronger steps that other Governments are putting in place for public safety.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is right that we should remember the 72 victims of the Grenfell fire, their families and neighbours. It is right that we should remember the first responders, the emergency services, the public servants and volunteers, who came forward to help and have been helping in the weeks, months and now years since. We also need to remember the righteous anger and deep frustration of that community as more time has passed and more compelling evidence has come to light about the institutional and corporate failures that caused this fire. We must make sure that it never happens again.
I know the Minister takes this issue deeply seriously and I very much welcome his remarks in introducing this Bill. I know that his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, did so as well and I look forward to hearing his words in a few minutes’ time. I thank the Minister for reaching out to those on the other side of the House to gain a broad consensus for this Bill and to make sure that the foundations are firmly laid and progress made briskly. We support the Bill, but it is a matter of regret that it has taken 38 months since the fire to bring it to your Lordships’ House. It will be another four months at least before the building safety Bill reaches us.
Meanwhile, that compelling evidence of failure mounts up. I give just two illustrations from the last couple of weeks of Grenfell inquiry evidence. Last week, the project manager of the cladding subcontractor told the inquiry that he had no knowledge of the existence of key product safety regulations relating to the cladding he was installing. Yesterday, the senior building control officer at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea told the inquiry that he had received no training in technical industry guidance and had not considered at all the lessons about the fire risks of cladding systems. The brutal reality is that the only people who noticed what was going on were the residents of Grenfell Tower and they were dismissed as malcontents and trouble- makers. That must never be the case again.
That is the context in which the Minister has brought forward the Fire Safety Bill today. I thank him for setting out so clearly what it is intended to do when it comes into force and for making the point very clearly that it is a start, not the finished product. I thank him too for the letter that he circulated to your Lordships today that sets out other measures that the Government have taken and plan to take.
The Liberal Democrats certainly support the Bill’s intention and will be supporting it in its passage through your Lordships’ House. It plugs some gaps and removes ambiguities and, crucially, it makes a named individual responsible for fire safety reports in every building in England and Wales, regardless of its height. There will be a formal assessment.
This Bill has thoroughly good intentions, which we support, but we should also be quite clear that it would not have stopped the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That would require not only this Bill but also the building safety Bill to come into force urgently. It will require a complete change in the culture of building safety from the construction industry, clients and building owners, designers and contractors, national and local regulators and building users too. It is going to require a massive investment in the training of fire engineers and fire assessors and of all those in the industry who, up to the night of the Grenfell fire, had just been winging it and keeping their fingers crossed. At every step of design and procurement and every level of contracting and subcontracting, there have turned out to be fatal gaps in knowledge and skills that must be plugged. The Government have a serious responsibility to enable, facilitate and drive that process relentlessly.
In considering this Bill, I and my colleagues will be urging the Minister not to confine himself simply to the routine task of steering an uncontroversial Bill on to the statute book, but to undertake to put a rocket booster under the process of delivering a complete package of reform. I hope that he will take back to the Government the intense concern from right across your Lordships’ House on all the progress needed to make sure that things happen “at pace”. That catchphrase has been used repeatedly over the last three years from the Dispatch Box and we need to see it happening, not just in the Home Office, where this Bill sits, but also in MHCLG in relation to regulations, in BEIS in relation to the Construction Leadership Council and the work it is doing, and, indeed, in the Department for Education on apprentice training and graduate training to fill some of the gaps in knowledge and manpower.
The reform the whole building regulatory system, the proper staffing and training of qualified personnel to operate that system and the restoration of confidence of local communities caught in the eye of the storm all remain to be done three years after the fire. We take this Bill as some evidence of progress but it is also, to some extent, evidence of delay so I hope the Minister will convey the sense of concern in this House and the anger of local communities right to the very highest level of government, to which, I know, he has good personal access.
I have some questions. Will the Minister undertake to provide your Lordships with a detailed report on the number of fire engineers the Government estimate will be needed to properly deliver the regulatory system set out in the Bill? Can he tell us what estimate he has of the current shortfall and the steps he is putting in place to overcome it? Does the Minister share my fear that the implementation of the Bill will have to be delayed because of that shortfall? Has he taken note of the fall in the number of fire safety officers employed by fire and rescue services in the last 20 years? Does he believe that the current number is sufficient to take on the new duties that the Bill sets out? Perhaps he can say a little more about that. Can he confirm that there is to be a publicly accessible register of all fire assessments?
I know that the Minister will want to honour the often-repeated promise that tenants and residents would be at the heart of the new post-Grenfell regulatory system, with their concerns and their practical experience of day-to-day life in their own home being taken seriously. Does he agree that every one of them should be able to read a copy of the assessment for their block and be told exactly who is responsible for monitoring the risks and delivering the necessary changes? That needs to be a person with actual responsibility, not a distant corporate body registered in the Cayman Islands or an anonymous helpline. We must never again have residents’ legitimate concerns ignored or simply dismissed as troublemaking. We shall certainly want to return to this in Committee.
I am sure the Minister will have read the useful briefing prepared by the LGA, setting out its concerns about some of the practical matters of implementation. It is not at all surprising that, in view of the cuts local authorities have suffered to their income because of Covid-19, they have also raised serious concerns about where the cost of inspection and enforcement is planned to fall. No doubt other noble Lords will expand on that point in the debate.
The Bill is wholly silent on the question of costs and the impact assessment is vague too. The struggle to safeguard leaseholders and tenants who face huge bills directly arising from the replacement of ACM shows just how easily the individuals with no prior knowledge or professional background get left carrying the can, while the contractors and the paid professionals just move on to the next job.
What are the Government’s intentions when it comes to meeting the costs of any remediation that the Bill shows is necessary? Has the Minister any assessment of what those costs are likely to be? How does he intend to safeguard leaseholders against being saddled with yet another huge bill caused, as they might see it, not by them doing something wrong but by a new piece of well-meaning legislation dumped on their heads?
The Minister may feel that these are small details and that we should focus instead on the bigger picture, but I say, as a former Minister, that it is often the small details that trip up and spoil the big picture. Even more to the point, if we look at the big picture, this Bill is not the big picture; it is a small part of a much bigger picture, where reform and challenge is urgently needed to put right past wrongs and prevent future tragedies.
So we do welcome this Bill, but it has to be seen as only a small step in a long journey, one that has taken a long time to get started, where the pace is still too slow and the urgency to bring forward legislation seems to have been somewhat lacking. Those 72 Grenfell residents and their families and neighbours have waited far too long to see justice and to see meaningful change and action. I very much hope that the debate today can put some extra energy back into the campaign to achieve that change.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the very greatest honour to have been appointed to your Lordships’ House and to be speaking here for the first time. I express my thanks to the Prime Minister for nominating me and to the doorkeepers, the staff and all those who have made me feel so welcome over the last two weeks. They are very special people who are working here for us, especially given the circumstances and the current risks that everybody faces, and we should be very grateful to them.
I am very proud that three of the last four Members of Parliament for Arundel are, or have recently been, Members of this House. I am proud to be joining my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs, my noble friend Lord Flight, and sad that my predecessor but two, Lord Luce, retired from this House just before I joined it. I was hoping that the three of us might be able to be photographed together: how many other parliamentary constituencies can claim such a record?
I have taken the title Lord Herbert of South Downs because my constituency, which I was proud to represent for 15 years, is called Arundel and South Downs. I still live in Arundel and still enjoy, every week, the beauty of the South Downs, one of the finest parts of this country and the most beautiful landscapes. It expresses the great love I have always had for the countryside, a passion that I will continue to have, and I hope to promote its interests while a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, a position that I have noted in the register. It was there, or at least in its precursor organisation, that, a very long time ago, I met my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who was my lead supporter when I was introduced in this place. It was he who insisted that I should wear robes, pointing out that that was provided for under the Standing Orders of the House. It is a practice that I understand has taken place since 1621, and I was very proud to do so.
I met my other supporter, my noble friend Lord Hill, in my first job, when I became a member of the Conservative Research Department just after leaving university. I was given the job by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I think he was and remains surprised that he gave me the job, and he seemed similarly surprised that I had arrived in your Lordships’ House, but I owe him a very great debt in that, 35 years ago, he had the confidence in me to launch me on my political career.
I arrive in your Lordships’ House to discover that, of course, it is very different to the other place; but it is also very different to the place it was just a few months ago, because of the way proceedings are conducted. I am full of admiration for the way your Lordships are grappling with new technology so as to speak remotely and vote electronically. Indeed, I remarked to a friend in the United States, a former ambassador, that he might see it as a double constitutional outrage that I had been appointed a legislator for life and that I was now voting remotely, not even present in the Chamber. He nodded and smiled and said, “Yes, that is what we fought the War of Independence about.” I hope that it will not be long before we are able to return to the previous practice of being present in this House.
Of course, one should not believe that age is any impediment to using new technology. My elderly parents, in common with many others of their generation, have become fiends in the use of personal phones and iPads. We encouraged my mother to begin texting and she started to do so voraciously. I recall sitting on the Front Bench in the other place when I received a message from my mother to say that I should call her urgently. I texted back to say that I was sitting on the Front Bench and therefore unable to do so. “Yes”, she replied by text, “I can see that you are on the Front Bench. I am your mother. I would like you to call me now.” I made my excuses and went out of the Chamber, expecting that something terrible or dramatic had happened. I called, only for my mother to ask if I would be there for lunch on Sunday. These are the imperatives of life.
It is a very great pleasure to be able to rejoin the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT Rights, which I founded, along with many Members here and in the other place, and had the honour to chair. I will be chairing the Government’s international LGBT+ conference, which has unfortunately been postponed because of Covid but will, I hope, be held in some form next year. I continue to chair the Global Equality Caucus of parliamentarians around the world who are united in the belief in the importance of equality and ensuring that everybody is treated with dignity and respect according to their fundamental human rights.
I have also rejoined the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis and will now be resuming my co-chairmanship of that group. I also founded that group when, 15 years ago, I visited Kenya and learned about a disease called tuberculosis, the orphan of diseases, in that it is so little talked about, yet it is still, despite Covid, the world’s deadliest infectious disease. Tragically, Covid has now killed 1 million people worldwide, but tuberculosis still kills 1.5 million people every single year and will do for many years to come unless we find a vaccine, unless we find new tools and unless we renew our determination to beat it. We do not face a choice between tackling these infectious diseases; we must learn the importance of global health security. I will also continue to chair the Global TB Caucus, trying to mobilise parliamentarians from around the world to take action to ensure that people can beat this terrible disease.
I was appointed a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice. It is not always easy to be a Minister in two departments, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister is discovering. I soon realised that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are very different places. One notable difference was the lifts. Ministry of Justice lifts are much smarter than Home Office lifts; I will make no comment about them. But I was shown a button by my private secretary and given a code to key in. If I did so, the lift would immediately come down or up to me to ensure that I could get in it very quickly and rush off to vote.
I thought that I would try out this process when no one else was around. I keyed in the code and the lift hurtled down to my floor. The doors opened and out stepped the then Lord Chancellor—now my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—my boss, who said that a sign had come up in the lift saying, “This lift is now under ministerial control”. However, it was not under his control, and indeed we discovered that very little was when we were in the department. He asked me what on earth could have happened and I suggested that he took the matter up with the Permanent Secretary. I did not own up that I had seized command of his lift.
I will continue to take the closest interest in matters to do with policing and criminal justice. I have recently set up a Commission for Smart Government, whose members include noble Lords from all sides of this House. It is focused on how we can make government more effective. One thing that we want to do is to look at how any Government can ensure that they are able to deliver. In the end, that is the imperative for Governments. I am reminded of one thing that a previous Lord Herbert—Lord Herbert of Cherbury, a poet, soldier, Member of Parliament and brother of the poet George Herbert—said in the 16th century:
“The shortest answer is doing.”
That is a motto that any politician, and certainly any Government, would do very well to remember. In the end, people will judge us not by what we say or promise but by what we do and are able to deliver. There can surely be no more important task for any Government than to make their people safe, and that is why this Bill is so important and why I am so pleased to be able to speak at Second Reading today on this short but important piece of legislation.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say something about the Bill and the Grenfell disaster. The tower was built in 1974—it is, or was, younger than almost every Member of your Lordships’ House. It was not an old building but a relatively new one. The truth is that many wealthy people around the world live in tower blocks, but it would be surprising if they had faced the same situation or the same risk, because the towers in which they live would have been equipped in a very different way. That is the truth of the matter. It is right that we now take every step to ensure that no tragedy of the kind that we saw at Grenfell, in which 72 people lost their lives, could ever happen again.
At the root of what happened, an injustice was revealed—a social injustice about the conditions in which some people were living and in which others would never have considered living. That, in the end, is why there is a wider agenda to level up in this country. It is an agenda that the Prime Minister has fully committed himself to, and it is one that I will proudly support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have been treated to a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs of great weight and great good humour. It had valuable insights on many issues—for example, on the countryside, on new technology and, indeed, on my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
My noble friend comes to us with a distinguished and formidable record in the other place, particularly on rural issues, on policing and on criminal justice. Indeed, he was a Minister for policing and for criminal justice in the other place. I am sure that we all look forward to him participating fully in the activities of the House. I know that he will take a particular interest in issues involving the countryside, equality, the operation of democracy and combating tuberculosis. We all wish him well in his future here. I am sure that it will be a long and distinguished one. On a personal note, I also wish him well with my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham when he catches up with the debate.
Turning to the Fire Safety Bill, first, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I know that he takes matters concerning Grenfell and fire safety more widely very seriously. I also know that he was the leader of an adjoining council, so he knows the local situation very well.
We all recall the early morning of 14 June 2017 very well. It is seared on our memories. It represented, in human terms, the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since World War Two, with the loss of 72 lives— 72 lives that should not have been lost. Our thoughts are always with the families and survivors, and with the people who, since the fire, have consistently offered, in human terms, their all. I refer to the public services, particularly the fire service, people in the local community and in faith communities, and officials from government, particularly from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I was a Minister in the department at the time, so I have awful, but very clear, recollections of that night, as, I know, do many noble Lords who are participating in this debate.
It is right that we say that there will be a memorial on the site of the Grenfell Tower in due course and that the local community—Grenfell United and others—will be leading on that. It is also right that the greatest memorial that we can offer the people of Grenfell and those who have fought since the fire to right that wrong is a legacy that ensures that this can never happen again. The Government have, quite rightly, moved in many ways—with the independent inquiry under judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick and with the regulations review of building safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt. We still await news on criminal prosecutions. Although I recognise that this is, in a sense, quite separate from government, we have given—and I was able to give—information and publish how many people had been interviewed under caution in relation to this matter. The Minister might not have details of that to hand. If he does not, I would appreciate it if he were able to write to me saying something on this matter, with a copy being sent to other participants in this debate and placed in the Library. Understandably, responsibility for what happened that night remains a very real concern.
The Government have also moved to put in place fire protection measures, and the use of combustible ACM has, quite rightly, been banned. The remediation of unsafe buildings is happening, but herein lies the rub. I suspect that we all agree on what needs to happen —I cannot imagine that there is any great difference on that—but the issue is the speed with which it is happening and needs to happen.
Understandably, there was a time when interim safety measures needed to be put in place—but that surely was only for the interim. The very use of the word “interim”, which we continue to use as a Government and as a country, indicates that we are not there yet, so I shall press the Minister on this. The key issue here is speed in remedying what needs to be remedied. I think that he mentioned that 74% of building remediation had been started or completed in relation to the removal of ACM. Is he able to give the percentage for the amount that has been completed, rather than started or completed? That would be a very useful statistic for us look at.
The Queen’s speech quite rightly committed the Government to two Bills. We have heard quite a lot from the Minister about the draft building safety Bill, and we have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, about remediation measures in Wales put in place by Senedd Cymru. I again emphasise to the Minister that it is useful to work alongside the devolved Administrations, particularly in this instance with Wales. I am sure that is happening, but it would be useful to know what lessons and partnership work are going on with Wales, so that we can tackle these scourges together—because I am sure that the aim is one of unity in terms of what we need to do.
Unsurprisingly, I am a strong supporter of the Bill. I am pleased that we are dealing with the ambiguity of what is covered by the term “building” and that it will cover external walls, and therefore cladding, flat entrance doors, balconies and so on. It is obviously right that we have that clarity. I also very much support there being a responsible person for each building to take forward responsibility for this and to make sure that we act in the right way. These are aims that I am sure we can all support. But I come back to the issue of speed. We keep saying “at pace”, but it needs now to be not a moderate pace but a fast pace. I am sure that we all have that haunting thought that we do not want to see anything like Grenfell ever again. The way that we can prevent that is by moving at a fast pace in terms of removal of cladding, and in the admirable array of things that the Government are doing. The only thing they need do now is accelerate that.
One issue that has not been touched on yet was discussed in the other place when my honourable friend Sir David Amess moved an amendment on electrical safety. I thank Electrical Safety First, which has provided me with a valuable briefing on this. It is important to note on this issue that, although our focus is quite rightly on ACM cladding, which certainly led to the spread of the fire—there is no doubt about that—nevertheless the trigger for the fire, as it has been in many other fires, was an electrical fault, as it was at Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, where there was another serious fire, although thankfully not one that led to fatalities. Over 14,000 fires a year are caused by electrical faults, so I will be pressing the Minister on what we are doing with regard to checking the safety of flats in tower blocks, of which there are hundreds of thousands, to ensure that electrical appliances are periodically checked for safety. That will minimise the risk of electrical fires, and it is something we could usefully do. I look forward to looking at this in more detail perhaps in Committee. In the meantime, I would be interested in what the Minister has to say.
In short, I strongly support the Bill, as I am sure I will the building safety Bill. My one real concern is pace. It needs to be fast, and we need to accelerate now. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said, it is now some 34 months since the fire, and we must move quickly. Otherwise, I will be pressing the issue of electrical safety. But I know that the Minister is totally committed to this, as is my right honourable friend in the other place James Brokenshire. I look forward to working with them and others to make sure that we have a piece of legislation of which we can all be proud and which I am sure we will improve in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and welcome him to this House. I look forward to his future contributions. It is also an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. When he was a Minister he took very seriously the responsibilities which arose following the Grenfell fire, some of which we are debating today.
The fact remains that it is three years since Grenfell and 11 years since Lakanal House, and this is the first piece of substantive legislation that has been before Parliament. It is needed. We need to resolve the ambiguities in the fire safety order and clearly define responsible officers, their work and the parts of the building which will be subject to their responsibilities and to professional inspection.
I know that the Minister tried to do this to some extent in his opening remarks and in the letter that we received today, but we needed a report on the totality of progress on all of these issues post Grenfell, so that we could see where this Bill fits in with other initiatives. We have referred to the building safety Bill, which is still in very early draft form. Some people are saying that there is a clash of definitions of “responsible person” between that draft Bill and the Bill before us today. We must be clearer about how this all fits in with the Government’s consultation Building a Safer Future, the related safety strategy proposed by the Minister’s department, the implementation of the inquiry’s first stage and of the Hackitt report, and the progress on the proposed new regulator.
Specifically in the Grenfell case, we also need an indication of progress on potential prosecutions of the managers of the building and the suppliers. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to the evidence reported in the press today about the person who would be deemed to be something like the responsible officer in Kensington and Chelsea, who clearly did not have a clue about their responsibilities and the regulations. The same applied to the representative of the major supplier. This is not an overregulated industry but a seriously underregulated industry, and those regulations that exist are not properly enforced. We need to look at all these aspects together, and some others as well.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to sprinklers and the progress there. The case is not the same in Wales as it is in many authorities around England. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred to electrical safety, and rightly said that the majority of domestic fires are caused by electrical faults. Inspection and enforcement of regulations in that area are also necessary. Whereas with gas there is a mandatory responsibility on landlords to inspect the gas installations, there is not one for white goods and other electrical installations within multi-occupied buildings more generally.
There is also some obscurity as to which pieces of legislation apply to which buildings. This Bill apparently applies to all multi-occupied buildings, whereas some of the other proposed legislation and regulation applies to buildings over 18 metres high, and that limit has been queried. We are also unclear as to how many buildings and landlords we are referring to. In the impact assessment for this Bill there is a pretty wide range of figures for buildings—2.2 to 3.2 million individual flats—and for the number of landlords, both private and social. So the House deserves a much more strategic report from Ministers on this whole area.
There are also wider issues. At the end of the day, whatever regulations come forward must be professionally enforced, and we must have adequate numbers of professionally trained inspectors. Regrettably, in the fire service there has been a cut of over 20% in recent years. That cut needs to be reversed. In particular, there is nowhere near a sufficient number of qualified and experienced fire inspectors to fulfil the clearer responsibilities in this and the other Bill. The Fire Brigades Union has indicated that there are fewer than 1,000 people who are even remotely qualified to carry out such inspections, which is about half the number there were a decade ago. We need a training programme and a recruitment programme to train up firefighters and others to fulfil these professional roles.
Of course, this may grow, because while in the Bill we are talking about tightening restrictions, the proposed new planning changes will allow, for example, conversion of office blocks to residential use, and adding storeys to existing buildings. If we are not careful, and do not have a robust and effective system of enforcing the use of safe materials and the safe design of the structure of the buildings, that will increase the potential danger of unsafe buildings.
The problem is not only with the fire service and fire inspectors. One of the other areas most drastically cut by many local authorities in the past decade has been building regulations enforcement, and the numbers employed there. The enforcement of standards of materials and the application of materials, as well as of the design of buildings, is clearly inadequate in almost every local authority.
With regard to materials and equipment, it is not just cladding that we should be worried about. There is also, for example, the issue of fire doors. In its briefing for the Bill, the LGA—I declare my interest as one of its vice-chairs—claims that thousands of non-compliant doors have been delivered to local authorities and housing associations in recent years. It estimates the replacement cost at £700 million. That is an absolute scandal. I know of nobody who has been prosecuted for failure to supply compliant doors.
The impact assessment on the Bill makes no mention of the significantly increased resources for both personnel and training that will be required to make it, and related measures, effective in carrying out their job. So there is a significant number of wider questions that we need to address in this context. I will support the Bill; I think it is necessary. But we need a clearer indication of how it fits in with other such measures.
Even in this limited Bill there is a serious omission. We need to mention the role of residents—tenants and leaseholders—and the need for them to be informed, and to have their concerns taken seriously by building owners, managers and suppliers. Let us remember that Grenfell residents were warning of the dangers of the refurbishment years before the tragedy happened—in terms of the cladding, the loss of firewalls and the increasing space for a fire to spread, and also of the potential dangers of the “stay put” evacuation advice. All were pointed to by the residents, and all were ignored.
More widely, the effects of the uncertainty about the safety of the buildings in which they live is causing widespread anxiety among all residents. Leaseholders also face potential substantial economic loss, as the value of their property falls and the availability of affordable insurance recedes because of safety fears. Tenants and leaseholders need to be listened to, and their role needs to be reflected in this Bill and in related legislation.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He said that we needed to see the totality of what the Government are proposing, and also to listen to residents. In both respects, I entirely agree with him. I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. May I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech? We look forward to hearing more of his contributions in the months ahead.
I support this Bill. It brings extra clarity to defining who is responsible for managing the reduction of fire risk for residential buildings in multi-occupation. The proposed clarification of the scope of the 2005 fire safety order is to be welcomed, as it will clearly include building structures, external walls and common areas. I strongly welcome, too, the wish to address problems caused by less resistant entrance doors on some residents’ flats. The proposals in the Bill are measured and proportionate, and while we may wish to examine in Committee issues debated in the House of Commons that were not progressed, it is my view that the Bill should pass.
My noble friend Lord Stunell raised a number of important issues, particularly in relation to the rights of tenants and occupiers of flats in high-rise blocks to be listened to. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the same point a moment ago. My noble friend also talked about the financial burden faced by many leaseholders through no fault of their own.
As my noble friend also said, this Bill has to be seen in the context of the forthcoming building safety Bill. And may I say that I think it will prove beneficial to have placed that draft Bill into pre-legislative scrutiny? These two Bills are related. Both seek to address systemic deficiencies identified after the appalling Grenfell Tower fire, and to prevent such a tragic ever happening again.
The revelations that we have heard from the inquiry hearings are worrying. They have shown that cost cutting has been too dominant a consideration in building construction of high-rise blocks, and that there have been major failures in the testing of materials and in the enforcement of fire regulations. This Bill is a start in addressing that deficiency. In all respects, public safety and the minimisation of risk must come first.
So the aims of the Bill are very important. But is the Minister confident about delivery? Once this Bill and the building safety Bill are in place, will local government and the fire services have sufficient powers to make this Bill effective? Has there been confirmation of this from organisations affected? I am concerned about, for example, entrance doors in tower blocks. How will responsible persons have enough power to ensure that individual flats owned by leaseholders have adequate fire safety protections, given that their doors join common areas?
Responsible persons are rightly required to review their fire risk assessments, and in buildings with no cladding there is likely to be sufficient professional capacity to assist in undertaking those reviews. But how are responsible persons to get the expert resource necessary to update the fire risk assessments of all buildings that do have external wall cladding systems? Are there enough qualified people to do the job? If not, what are the plans to increase training and, following that, numbers of staff?
I hope that the building safety Bill will be properly integrated with the amended fire safety order, to establish a building safety system that is easy to understand and easy to implement. Doubt about responsibilities must be avoided. For example, it has been suggested that there are differences between the fire safety order’s concept of a responsible person and the proposals for an accountable person and a building safety manager contained in the Government’s response to the Building a Safer Future consultation response. Will the Minister confirm that such differences in interpretation will be avoided, and that clarity will be paramount in the Bill and in regulations?
Since the Grenfell fire, the Government have allocated money to alleviate some of the critical problems related to ACM and other cladding, and they created a building safety fund worth £1 billion in June this year. Despite this, overall spending is low and there is confusion over entitlements. In addition, many owners of flats can face a lengthy wait to sell properties, because surveyors need to get evidence required by mortgage lenders on the construction of their flats, on whether there is external cladding, and on whether there is an external wall survey—which often may not exist.
The situation is not helped by the sheer amount of work to be done, and by the complexity of the responsibility chain, with so many different organisations and tenures involved across the public, voluntary and private sectors. I hope that the Minister understands the urgency of resolving this problem.
I have one final point, which my noble friend Lord Stunell also talked about. I have raised before the issue of whether there should be a public register of fire risk assessments. There is a very strong case for having one, and I raise the issue again, in the hope that the Minister might take a further look at it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I welcome my noble friend Lord Herbert to this House.
On the face of it, this is a straightforward Bill that will clarify the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to better identify and enforce against fire risk in multi-occupied residential buildings. In reality, of course, the situation is far more complicated, for lying behind this piece of legislation is the devastation of the Grenfell Tower fire and the knowledge that 72 people lost their lives simply by virtue of the fact that they were at home at the time. By definition, a home is somewhere that should provide protection, not sow the seeds of a person’s death.
I welcome the Bill, as it will significantly improve the safety of millions of people around the country. It is, however, only one part of a raft of measures to improve standards. There is the building safety Bill, and another key element in this process is the fire safety consultation, which closes in less than a fortnight and includes proposals to implement all the recommendations made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick in his excellent phase 1 report.
I am afraid I do not agree with the argument put forward in the other place that a number of those recommendations should be included in the Bill. As they should, the recommendations incorporate significant change. Sir Martin himself said that it was
“important that they command the support of those who have experience of the matters to which they relate.”
It was therefore essential to consult, not least because the Government are legally obliged to do so, given that the vast majority of the recommendations will require implementation in law.
However, I completely understand the anger and frustration at the lack of pace. As has been mentioned today, it is more than three years since the fire and nearly 12 months since the recommendations were first made. I ask my noble friend the Minister to give a clear timeframe for when and how the recommendations will be implemented. When will the Government respond to the consultation, and when can we expect the regulations that will enable many of the recommendations to be put in place? When does he expect the building safety Bill to be introduced?
Together, these measures will significantly improve fire safety standards. I pay tribute to all those from the Grenfell community, particularly Grenfell United, whose members spend their time campaigning on this issue solely so that what happened to them does not happen to anyone else. At the very least, we owe them some reassurance as to when these much-needed changes will be brought about.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has withdrawn so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, on his excellent speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We all know the frightening power and effect of fire. It can cut through the natural and physical environment like a knife through butter, leaving a trail of destruction and devastation, whether in the bushfires of Australia, the forests of California or the ruthless way that it burnt through Grenfell Tower, leaving families mourning loved ones. As the Minister said, we still remember those individuals who so tragically lost their lives.
It is important that we all know the value of fire safety and take necessary precautions to prevent fires. As a head teacher, I would educate the children about the danger of fire and carry out regular fire inspections, even unannounced. The Merseyside fire service was invaluable in coming to talk to children and carrying out fire safety inspections. I fear that reductions in local government finances meant that this was drastically scaled back. Could the Minister inform the House whether it is a statutory responsibility to carry out fire safety checks at schools and colleges, and does that still take place annually?
I welcome the Bill, as I am sure we all do; each and every measure that improves the safety of people who live in high-rise blocks has to be welcomed. However, with its narrow focus on cladding and fire doors, it must be obvious that there are a series of other fire safety issues. Those of us who have followed the painfully slow response to the Grenfell tragedy will have been shocked at the state of a block that had been refurbished and the finger-pointing that is now going on as the inquiry continues.
The excellent Library briefing sets out the exact scope of the Bill. It will
“amend the Fire Safety Order 2005 to clarify that the responsible person or duty-holder for multi-occupied, residential buildings must manage and reduce the risk of fire for … the structure and external walls of the building, including cladding, balconies and windows … entrance doors to individual flats that open into common parts”.
While those two aspects are welcome, they are just two of the many aspects of building safety that need urgent attention.
As I am sure we will hear, the Bill will also enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation. We will also be told of a task and finish group that has been be established to provide a recommendation on how the Bill will be commenced. That the Government are taking advice is welcome, but I urge them to act more quickly than they have in implementing those recommendations in the Hackitt report that do not lead to lengthy consultation. How many of the recommendations have already been implemented? When do the Government plan to implement the Bill once Royal Assent has been granted? What is the timeline for publication of the secondary legislation that will flow from the Bill once it is on the statute book?
During the debate in the other place, the Government referred to the draft building safety Bill, which is partly through the pre-legislative scrutiny stage by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. That Bill, with many clauses and nearly 200 pages of Explanatory Notes, proposes a major reform of building safety, which is welcome, but it will take many months to reach the statute book and many years to fully implement. The residents of high-rise buildings cannot be expected to wait for years before they are able to go to bed confident that they are safe and sound. When might we expect to be debating that Bill? What is the Government’s schedule?
Fire safety is not restricted to tower blocks, of course. This building, although only three storeys high, represents a particular challenge to the excellent fire safety team that we have. I am aware of the comprehensive work that they are doing to keep us safe. The House of Lords must be unique, not only for the quality of the debates that we have but because of the age of the building with its national treasure status, its amount of wood and the rabbit-warren nature of its many passageways. It demands a high level of planning to prevent a fire or emergency but also to deal with one should such a situation occur.
The Members along my corridor include those who use wheelchairs and guide dogs. Other Members would require varying degrees of assistance to evacuate the building. This Bill, with such a narrow focus, will have no direct impact on us: there is no external cladding other than the scaffolding—which seems to be a permanent feature—and there is no problem with our fire doors, but these are just two elements of a safer building. However, we are all working in a building that requires many safety measures, not simply in order to comply with the law but to keep us safe in the event of fire or emergency.
In concluding, I will make a point about the safety of electrical appliances. The Minister is on record as stating:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that the electrical products that people buy are safe”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
More than 500,000 Hotpoint and Indesit appliances have been recalled, with more machines added as recently as April 2020. As Lesley Rudd, the chief executive of the charity Electrical Safety First, said,
“It is alarming that five months into this recall, we are only now hearing of these extra models which pose a threat to owners.”
This new discovery throws into question the robustness of the original investigation.
Finally, I endorse what the Minister said in his opening remarks. Clearly, he takes this matter seriously. As he says, it is in everybody’s interests to get this right.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs on his excellent maiden speech. We will greatly benefit from his expertise in so many areas. I should also congratulate him on his good fortune in choosing a debate where there is such a relatively generous time limit. I remember well showing him around the other place when he first arrived there in my capacity as a senior Whip. If I were still in that capacity, I might have gently pointed out that he pushed that time limit to the boundaries. However, I am sure that he will be delighted not only to know that your Lordships’ House is a far gentler place but to discover that I am more likely to be a member of the awkward squad these days than an enforcer. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton on such a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech.
I welcome this Bill, and although I am aware that it is not strictly the vehicle to address the very serious issue of electrical safety, I would like to highlight my concerns and those of many others whom we have already heard from—including my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth in an eloquent speech and the noble Lord, Lord Storey—about the fires caused by electricity. Of course, this Bill addresses what happens if a structure is on fire, but we must look at what causes the fire in the first place. Some 57% of house fires are caused by electrical faults. As we have already heard, my esteemed colleague Sir David Amess brought forward an amendment in the other place that seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Over the past three years, accidental electrical fires in high-rise buildings have risen consistently year on year, which is frankly shocking. It is important to state that these fires are not all caused by the appliances themselves but by misuse. In a previous life, I ran my family retail business, including an upholstery department. Noble Lords might well remember that there was rightly a lot of concern about the smoke and danger of certain foam within upholstery. The fires were not caused by the sofas or the chairs themselves; they occurred for other reasons, such as people falling asleep with a lighted cigarette or faulty electrical equipment. Educating people about the dangers is paramount.
We must do whatever we can to avoid the chance of another Grenfell tragedy reoccurring. With the newly created role of responsible person for any high building, that person should also be given the task of compiling a register for all white goods in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs—and sometimes they occur a little late, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just said—anyone with a defective appliance could be quickly alerted and the safety risk resolved. My noble friend told us that he would be bringing forward more measures in the draft building safety Bill. I earnestly hope that this issue will not be ignored there. I cannot think of a better person than my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh to be taking this through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in that, in my long stint at the TUC, I worked closely with the Fire Brigades Union on many issues, including fire safety. I commend to the House today the notes of evidence that have been widely circulated by that union. Some of the points that I will make—and many others have already made them—will reflect some of those made in the FBU’s evidence.
Grenfell, of course, exposed many failings about the fire risks in buildings. Very worryingly, we know that there are plenty of other potential Grenfells still around. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, in his excellent address, got it dead right when he hit upon the issue of inequality: there are plenty of apartment blocks around the world that house the better off in which these problems have never existed. The inequality of the two types of provision is rather stark. This Bill is a welcome step to improve matters, and I am among all those who have spoken so far in support of it.
I want to touch on a number of issues with a view towards improving the Bill. I hope that the Minister will have an open mind to the constructive suggestions that are being made in this debate and will no doubt come up again in Committee. The first concerns resources, as a number of speakers have already said. The number of firefighters has fallen in a decade by 20%. When the Bill’s measures come into force, I pose the question: will there be enough staff and other resources available to cover the new amount of extra work? There are around 4,000 tower blocks for the inspectors and advisers to cover. Looking at the landscapes of many of our cities at the moment, I suggest that there are many more going up, even despite the recessionary period we are in at present. Will there be enough people around with the necessary expertise to handle this increased workload? The FBU is obviously worried about that, and I am interested to learn what the Government think about it.
My second point concerns the impact assessment. It took into account the views of the National Fire Chiefs Council and individual brigades, as I still call them. However, it missed out the FBU, and I would like to know why that was the case. It is in the front line when these fires occur. Like the tenants, its voice needs to be heard and respected. Related to that, can the evidence submitted by the fire and rescue services be published?
Does this Bill cover all houses and other buildings converted into flats, and how will the inspectors prioritise their visits? Will they visit the high rises first? There will also be some conversions around that are in need of some regulation if things are to go well. At the moment, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, there are relatively few fire experts to take on what could be an enormously complex and highly skilled task. What are the plans to recruit and train on a bigger scale?
The impact assessment seems to estimate that the additional cost of the Bill could be up to £2.1 million. Really? Is that the cost of the additional fire safety regime proposed in this Bill? Have I got it right? Do I understand the figures correctly? It certainly seems to be very low, given the enormity of the challenge that people inspecting buildings are likely to have. What are the fire and rescue authorities saying about costs and how they will be apportioned?
Finally, I hope that the Government and the other fire authorities will learn quickly from Grenfell the need to talk to tenants about problems. Residents are as likely as anybody else—and more likely than most—to uncover problems and hazards. They live with them and, unfortunately in the case of Grenfell, they die with them.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches this afternoon; I will keep my remarks brief and try not to duplicate too much what has been said. First, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, to the House. His was an entertaining and erudite speech and I know that we all enjoyed it.
Poor building regulations and a hopeless inspection regime led to the awful Grenfell tragedy. It is now clear that so many buildings could have suffered a similar fate, with a dreadful loss of human life. Nine out of 10 blocks are failing cladding checks. Here I declare an interest as part owner of one flat in a block still awaiting a test. But how many blocks have been inspected? Today the Minister repeated that all high-rise residential buildings will be inspected or reviewed by the end of next year; that is many months away, and much could happen between now and then. This is not a speedy enough response to an issue that is putting lives at risk. Can the Minister explain why there is such a lack of urgency on this? Also, can he clarify the distinction between inspections and reviews?
There are, as others have said, just 1,100 fire safety inspectors. The number of firefighters has fallen hugely—by 12,000 in just a few years. With the Covid situation meaning that many people’s jobs are in jeopardy, surely this is an opportunity to invest in reskilling people to take on those valuable roles.
Many of the people in these high-rise buildings wish to move, not just because they are fearful for their safety. Growing families needing more space and the pressures created by working from home, meaning that another bedroom-cum-study is required, are just two of the reasons why people living in high-rise flats may wish to move. But they are finding it impossible to sell. As others have remarked, those who normally lend on such properties are refusing—mortgages are simply not available. People could be trapped in their unhappy situation for years if there is not more action to get these buildings cleared or dealt with.
The Government have provided funds to help put right these faulty buildings, but is £1.6 billion ever going to be enough? We know that it will not be. Will the Minister consider how the Australian state of Victoria is dealing with this issue? There have been significant state loans and a new fund, backed by developer levies, to enable owners to put their blocks right. The state government is determined, in pursuing the developers and builders responsible for these faulty buildings through the courts, to get them to pay for their bad work. The state is also making sure that every high-rise building has been inspected. It is then able to prioritise the way in which putting things right is done. Perhaps we in this country could, through local authorities, train up a new battalion of inspectors so that these buildings could be examined quickly, work prioritised and a new fund set up to fund that work, with the Government chasing the guilty through the courts to get them to pay the bills.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and also as co-president of London Councils, the body that represents all 32 London borough councils and the City of London.
I join with other speakers in welcoming the Bill, which is long overdue, and I share their questions and interests. For the sake of brevity, I will not repeat them, but I am looking forward very much to the Minister’s response and to learning a little more about the future proceeding of this Bill and, more particularly, the timetable and consideration for the Bill that will follow it in due course.
I declare another interest today, as a patron of Electrical Safety First, the charity that takes a particular interest in this area. In that context, I welcome very much the points that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, my noble friend Lord Storey, and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is a subject that I am sure we will return to at a later stage, quite probably when we consider the building safety Bill.
I want to say a little more about the subject because it is important here. As others have said, electricity causes more than 14,000 house fires a year. The Grenfell Tower fire was caused by faulty wiring to a fridge-freezer. In 2016, a flaw in a tumble dryer led to a fire at Shepherd’s Court in west London, which ripped through five storeys. The fire at Lakanal House has already been referred to—it was also caused by electricity. There are around 4,000 tower blocks in the UK with nearly half a million flats, so probably more than a million residents live in those tower blocks throughout the United Kingdom.
Electrical Safety First’s analysis of government data shows that accidental electrical fires in high-rise blocks have been steadily increasing between 2006 and 2019. In an excellent article in the Times this morning, the chief executive of Electrical Safety First referred to what she described as
“tenure lottery on safety in tower blocks”,
with
“a mixture of tenure types from privately rented homes, owner occupied and social housing that leaves individual flats bound by different regulations.”
She went on to point out:
“Unless every unit is subject to the same safety regime, the entire block and all those living in it can be put at risk from a single flat.”
Tenants living in the private rented sector are now protected—or soon will be—by mandatory five-yearly electrical safety checks. Indeed, I recall that that provision —the ability to make those regulations—was introduced by amendments from the Government during the Lords stages of the Housing and Planning Bill. I mention that as a hint to the Minister that these opportunities arise and should perhaps be seriously considered and sometimes taken. Surely now is the time, and this Bill the opportunity, to introduce five-yearly mandatory safety checks in tower blocks, regardless of tenure.
As I have already said, the fires at Grenfell Tower, Lakanal House and Shepherd’s Court, all in London, were caused by faulty white goods. Despite the efforts of manufacturers and retailers, consumers are reluctant to register their white goods and to respond to any recalls. This poses an obviously high risk in tower blocks and needs to be addressed. Electrical Safety First has therefore proposed that the newly created role of responsible persons for any high building should be given the task of compiling and maintaining a register of every white good in the building. This would ensure that when a recall occurs, anyone with an affected appliance could be quickly alerted to the recall and encouraged to act on it. This Bill, although intentionally limited in its purpose, provides an appropriate opportunity to do that.
On 7 September, during the Report stage of the Bill in the other place, amendments to give effect to these proposals were moved by the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group, David Amess, to whom reference has already been made. Those amendments received warm support from Members of all parties taking part in that debate. In his reply, the Minister referred to the provisions of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020, to which several noble Lords, including me, have already referred. However, he clearly recognised that this did not fully meet the concerns expressed in the debate and went on to say that
“we will look across Government at whether there are any gaps in the current regime and proposals to strengthen accountability in this area … if there are still gaps, we, like so many Members, want to see those filled effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/20; col. 442.]
I and other speakers today have highlighted at least two such gaps and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. The comments in the other place were made over three weeks ago. Can the Minister today give us an update and tell us what gaps the Government have identified so far? When will the Government take the opportunity offered by this Bill and the building safety Bill that will follow to bring amendments to fill those gaps?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
May I first join with others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs? He is someone I did not have the pleasure of being contemporaneous with in the other place, but who I did have many connections with when he was operating as the public affairs officer for the British Field Sports Society and when he was setting up Countryside Alliance. I am sure that background will be useful in the work he will be doing in our House. His speech was excellent, and I congratulate and welcome him.
I am sure this Bill—though short—is necessary. It follows the terrible events of Grenfell Tower, which other Members have spoken about. It is also a response to the still unacceptable number of fires that occur disproportionately in buildings of over two floors in height—about twice as many as in ordinary homes. Interestingly, where there is the permanent presence of a caretaker or the installation of fire prevention equipment such as sprinklers, as is the case in sheltered housing, the incidence is fortunately much less. This is particularly significant because of the preponderance of more vulnerable and accident-prone residents in such accommodation. I am therefore pleased the Bill places an emphasis not only on the structure and fire resistance of buildings but on the responsibility of individuals.
Whatever such responsibilities are placed on individuals, it becomes necessary for them to be as focused and precise as possible. For instance, identifying and recording accurately and continually who is a building owner or manager is something which will prove a test. How will this be achieved and established, and by whom? This legal liability emanates from the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018. However, I am not sure it has been shown to be sufficiently robust and reliable. Local fire and rescue services are under pressure at the best of times, especially with the levels of paperwork and administration now required, so the obligation to share information about the design of external premises— walls, for instance—is open to misunderstanding and misapplication if the resources are inadequate.
The responsibility of building owners or managers to undertake regular inspections of flat entrance doors must be rigorously followed up to be of real effect. Deciding who exactly is responsible is critical at all times. I appreciate that leaseholders are excluded from liability, but that simply places a greater priority on being certain of the identity at all times of those who are liable. Again, we come back to proper, easily accessible records being available so that, if it is necessary to pursue matters, this can be done quickly and effectively to ensure something is done to put things right.
I know of the concerns that have already been touched on, from the Fire Brigades Union among others, about the enforceability of these new provisions and how we obtain accurate knowledge of the number and location of premises affected. Sometimes establishing responsibility is tricky, because records are not always clear as to how many landlords there are who should be accountable. Even with the new powers, we will need to train and retain sufficient fire safety officers to carry out the important inspections that are necessary.
In 2018, combustible materials were banned from the construction of high-rise homes. However, as we know, there are many buildings constructed before then where tenants are presently very concerned about when the necessary safety work to restore them will take place. In the meantime, some problems have been identified in refinancing or marketing those properties. I hope that those concerns can be alleviated before too long. While we are discussing the building safety Bill today, it is worth saying that, once that is law, we will have a more substantial and joined-up approach to safety in high-rise residential buildings.
I also appreciate that, as the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry are pursued, we will need a number of pieces of secondary legislation in place. The Minister has already indicated that. I hope that they will deal in particular with matters that have come from the first part of the inquiry. These include: more regular inspections of lifts and lift mechanisms; regular reviews of evacuation plans for buildings and policies in place; educating and informing residents in a clear and understandable fashion, because misunderstandings for residents have led to them being put in extra danger; and of course enforcement of standards of internal flat entrance doors.
At the start of the Second World War, my late father was, for a while, a proud member of the National Fire Service. I have always admired firemen and firewomen and I am still very proud of them in the duties they pursue, which are so much more complicated today. They save lives, sometimes placing themselves in great danger. I know the Minister shares my view and his opening remarks demonstrated his admiration for the fire services. We must in this Bill, and in other attached legislation, do our very best to give those people the appreciation and support that they truly deserve.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, fire safety has become a serious subject in recent times. The Grenfell Tower disaster has shone a light on the subject. The LGA has been calling for councils and fire services to be given effective powers and meaningful sanctions to ensure residents are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. This Bill will be an important step in the right direction. However, there are concerns about the practicalities of the Bill: for example, how it will align with building safety proposals from the MHCLG and the costs imposed on councils and other building owners.
The most important part of the Bill is whether it will protect lives. Local Government must be reimbursed for any additional costs arising out of the changes mandated by this Bill. The Bill is created by the Government and local government and their tenants must not be made to pay for the changes. If the Government do not provide funding, local government will have to raise local taxes.
It is important to state that members of the fire service do heroic work, often putting their own lives in danger. We must not forget the builders who do not follow the rules and use unreliable material which causes fires. Every building must follow the fire officer’s advice and the building rules provided by the local authorities. There must be a close relationship between the fire department and the local authority before planning permission to build is given.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
I too welcome the Fire Safety Bill and thank the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward. At this stage, I have more questions than answers after reading it. Perhaps the Minister will bear with me as I go through them: I have five.
The first is on scope and the definition of premises. Clause 1 refers to when
“a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises … the building’s structure and external walls and any common parts”
and
“doors between the domestic premises and common parts”.
In reality, does that apply to an HMO? Many of us who are politically active will now be used to knocking on the doors of terraced houses which housed one family but now house a family in each room, so that there are five or six families. We are all very worried about the safety of these premises. A second HMO-style point is about the growing numbers of houses in multiple occupation through the changes to “Supporting People”. When cuts came to the housing benefits of people with severe physical and learning disabilities in 2011-12, we saw more private landlords housing people with those disabilities in HMO-style properties. They would be vulnerable, so will the scope of the Bill apply to them?
My second question is about impact assessments. My noble friend Lord Monks also asked about this. All legislation is framed and depends on the research put together and the impact assessments. I have found it difficult to find the external impact assessments that went into writing this legislation. It might be that I have not looked in the right places. Can the Minister point me to them and, if they have not yet been published, whether they can be?
My third question is about the number of properties this legislation will apply to. The two assessments I have seen from government are that there could be 1 million properties, or 2 million. I have a bit of an issue with that if we are building capacity for a service. I understand a fluctuation of 5% but not one that can fluctuate by 50%.
My next question, the fourth, is about scaling the number of fire inspectors. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Whitty both asked questions relating to this area. How are these numbers of fire inspectors to be trained and scaled? Can the Minister tell us whether his department envisages that this training will take place via the fire service? Will it be done in large part by firefighters or by the private sector? This matters because it would require us to put standards and training into the Bill if a private-sector supplier, with little experience in this area, was to take on such a responsibility for all our costs. I am not being an ideologue about these matters but we understand that if we get these things wrong, they can go very badly wrong. I know that the Minister will understand the problems there were when the Government privatised the probation service; that service had to be brought back in-house.
We know, too, in this country that outside the public sector few private sector organisations have trained people over time. This is why we have a skills problem in many areas. For example, if I looked for qualified electricians who could work underwater, there are very few left in this country—and they will all be in their late 50s and early 60s, because virtually none have been trained since the Coal Board was disbanded in the 1980s. How we train and supply people will matter.
My last and fifth question is around Grenfell. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I very much agree with the sentiment he expressed due to the tragedy at Grenfell. However, the Bill will not change now the temporary nature of properties that have such inflammable cladding. I absolutely concur with all the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. Three years on, I do not understand how this matter has not been dealt with or how these premises still have a waking watch. That is a medieval term, from a time when buildings were much more flammable. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the City of London did away with flammable materials such as thatched roofing. It feels incredibly difficult to understand how this has not been addressed after three years. When the Minister comes to address the points that many of us are raising, can he give us a little more detail about the landlords who have not removed the cladding? What type of landlords are they—social, local authority or private sector landlords? Please can we have some more information?
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I too extend my warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert and thank him for his excellent maiden speech. I acknowledge, as others who spoke earlier in the debate did, that along with other major proposals by the Government the Bill is a major step, aimed at preventing disasters such as the horrors of the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the Bill’s introduction and its aims.
However, I have some concerns, which I know others share, regarding the practicalities surrounding it—in particular, how it aligns with the MHCLG safety proposals that are being prepared. I also have concerns, as many others have, at the cost that it may impose on councils and other owners of residential buildings. It would be helpful if my noble friend could provide some comments or thoughts on the possible cost of all the proposed works. The Government should not make councils and other freeholders responsible for issues which are beyond their control. To ensure that the aim of the Bill—to protect lives—is successful, national government must reimburse local government for additional costs arising from operational changes mandated by the Bill.
The Bill makes duty holders responsible for fire doors, even if they are owned by leaseholders. Requiring councils to inspect fire doors is likely to prove unworkable in some cases and extremely costly. Duty holders, as referred to in the Bill, are required to review their risk assessments. This task is unlikely to be onerous where buildings do not have external cladding but there is a worry, which my noble friend has acknowledged, that there is insufficient expertise and expert resource to update fire risk assessments for all buildings that have external cladding.
As my noble friend the Minister also mentioned, the Government have set up a task and finish group to look at this issue specifically. We look forward to seeing the results of its deliberations. I believe that there is a severe national shortage of fire engineering expertise. What plans do the Government have to alleviate this problem?
The Government are holding a consultation, which will conclude in October this year, before amending the 2005 fire safety order. MHCLG is preparing the building safety Bill. The Government must provide assurance that that Bill will be fully aligned with the amended 2005 order to create a workable building safety system. There is concern that the effectiveness of the Fire Safety Bill could be undermined by subsequent reforms in the building safety Bill.
There is uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the fire service and the new building regulator to be established under the building safety Bill. The establishment of a national regulator may take staff away from the fire and rescue service. The building safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill may become overly bureaucratic. Can my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that any new arrangements will not hamper the fire service’s role in ensuring safety in residential buildings?
Earlier in the debate, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and others raise the issue of the safety of electrical appliances and white goods. I share these concerns and hope that my noble friend the Minister can tell the House whether the checking of appliances is being considered for inclusion in legislation.
Other noble Lords have mentioned an important omission in the Fire Safety Bill: the rights of residents. Nothing in the Bill supports the rights of residents to make complaints or receive a copy, in layman’s language, of the fire risk assessment for their building. Can this important point be addressed?
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as recorded in the register: I am a councillor in Kirklees and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today to discuss the Bill, which is an important step forward in righting the cavalier practices of some of those involved with the construction industry. It is a step in the direction of putting people’s safety first and foremost. We on these Benches welcome it. We welcome the fact that some of the bitter lessons of the Grenfell tragedy, as exposed in the estimable Hackitt report and phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry, are being learned and acted on, albeit that it has taken far too long to get this far.
It is a pity that the Bill is not as detailed in its response as I would have hoped. I appreciate that further secondary legislation is expected, but people who live in potentially high-risk buildings need action now, as many noble Lords have said. As my noble friend Lord Stunnell so rightly said, residents need to be at the heart of these changes. While the construction industry builds and moves on, it is the residents who are left carrying the can—and the significant costs of the errors, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out. That is not right and must be put right.
As we have heard, this short Bill seeks to extend the powers of the fire safety order 2005 to include outside walls, including cladding, windows and balconies. This therefore gives a clear duty to responsible persons to assess and manage the fire risk. It provides for powers of enforcement to be given to the fire and rescue authorities. All that is positive. However, as my noble friend Lord Stunell explained, this lack of detail leaves many questions unanswered.
Who will do the fire risk assessments, given that there are so few trained personnel currently? The Fire Brigades Union estimates there are fewer than 1,000 fire safety officers. How will standards be regulated? Will there be a register of fully trained and certified fire assessors? Third-party accreditation of assessors is a vital part of this new regime, and the rapid development of skills courses in colleges and universities is urgently needed to fill the gaps. What do the Government intend to do about that? As many noble Lords across the House have pointed out, this is a deficiency in the Bill. Lives literally depend on accurate and informed fire assessments. I am sure that the Minister will want to demonstrate how this requirement is to be met.
Then there is the question of the building materials used and construction techniques employed. The Hackitt report exposed the lamentable standards that applied prior to Grenfell. How can residents in flats be assured that materials do not breach combustible standards and are thoroughly and completely tested before being deemed fire safe for use? Who will make sure that gaps in ill-fitting window replacements are not filled with inflammable filler? Who is going to make sure that doors opening on to communal areas are fitted properly and not altered?
This Bill gives us the answer as to who will be responsible and accountable but it does not give us the answer as to how this will be achieved, with so few fire assessors and with fire and rescue authorities that have faced budget cuts of 28% in the past 10 years. There is a cost to fire safety. Grenfell brutally and tragically exposed the consequences of cutting safety corners. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that the costs of fire safety enforcement will be fully covered?
My noble friend Lord Tope and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, raised concerns about electrical safety, which surely must be considered closely and could have been included in this Bill. Why have the Government failed to respond to the cause of the Grenfell tragedy at the same time as responding to its building failures? I say this to the Minister: if not now, when?
There is a huge task facing fire assessors. Many millions of buildings need to be reassessed. The question then has to be: what guidance will the Government provide to help with prioritisation? Official government guidance will surely be of help to those residents who are trapped in buildings with cladding that does not meet fire standards. Their fear is that they will be unable to sell until they are able to produce a fire safety certificate. I suspect that mortgage providers will similarly be reluctant to provide a loan until the essential work is done.
The building safety Bill, currently in draft form only, refers to buildings over 18 metres high. This Fire Safety Bill includes all dwellings. This is a recipe for confusion when clarity must be at the heart of all safety legislation. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider reducing this confusion before that Bill is considered?
I hope the Minister is able to provide answers to satisfy those of us who think that this may well be a lost opportunity to deal with the implications of improving fire safety requirements in all buildings. There is consensus across this House that the Bill will be supported. Unfortunately, there is also consensus that there are omissions and that there is a lack of detail.
The direction of travel is supported, but the route being taken is too slow. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and my noble friend Lord Stunell, raised the importance of accelerating change to show that lessons have been learned, and implemented, from the tragedy of Grenfell. Let us put Grenfell residents at the heart of our thoughts as first steps towards greater safety are taken.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives in Grenfell Tower in the fire on the night of 14 June 2017. I pay tribute to the firefighters, and to other emergency services, who acted so bravely on the night of the fire, as well as other contractors, civil servants, local government officials and the wider civil society, including the faith communities who came together with the local community after that terrible night. I join the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in paying tribute to the work that firefighters and other emergency services have done in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as follows. I am vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and non-executive director of MHS Homes.
At the start of my contribution this afternoon, I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, on his excellent maiden speech. I never served in the other place, but I was able to get a photograph taken here, with the instruction of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, including myself as Lord Kennedy of Southwark from the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, from the Conservative Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, from the Lib Dem benches. The local paper reported, “Southwark’s got all benches covered”.
The noble Lord brings a wealth of experience to the House with his time as a Home Office Minister in the other place and his career outside Parliament, which will prove to be invaluable in our deliberations on this Bill and many other measures. I agree with the noble Lord’s comments about the conditions some people have to live in and the need to tackle that social injustice. I welcome the noble Lord to the House, and I look forward to getting to know him in the coming weeks and months and to his further contributions to our debates.
I want to place on record my thanks to several organisations for their briefings, which have proved so helpful to me in preparing for this Second Reading debate. These include the Fire Brigades Union, the Local Government Association, the National Housing Federation, Electrical Safety First, the Association of British Insurers and the House of Lords Library.
I also want to make clear, at the start, that the Official Opposition are supportive of this Bill. Our only issues are that we should be going further with greater speed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, made reference to, and that since the fire at Grenfell Tower over three years ago this is the only legislative action that has been taken so far, as my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out in his contribution. The pace of change in relation to the enormity of the challenge is disappointing. As we seek to make changes to the procedures and the mechanisms in place, a quicker pace is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, asked important questions about the timing of much-needed changes. When are they going to be introduced? She also recognised the frustration of many with the pace of change. Professionalism and being properly qualified, certified and accredited to the job have to be themes running through the new regime being put in place. These are not matters that can be done on the cheap or by unqualified or inexperienced people. Those are points I have been making consistently since that terrible night, and I will continue to do so.
We also need a complete change to the attention given by the authorities when residents, tenants and leaseholders raise concerns about safety, so that they are not ignored, as they often are, and as they were by Kensington and Chelsea Council when Grenfell residents raised many times their safety fears. When we get to Committee, I, and other colleagues on these Benches, will propose amendments that we think will make improvements and strengthen the good intention of the Bill.
When the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, responds to the debate, can he please tell me how he sees the Bill, the fire safety order and the building safety Bill all working together effectively to improve building safety when both Bills are Acts of Parliament? We want clarity with respect to roles, responsibilities, duties, liabilities and enforcement, because without that we have the risk of further problems and complications undermining the good intentions of the Government.
One example I would give the noble Lord is that there must be no confusion between the roles and responsibilities of the fire safety order’s responsible person, the new accountable person and the building safety manager, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about. Where we have confusion and a lack of clarity, we run the risk of buck-passing, a failure of process and procedure and a risk to people’s safety and their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is right about the need for a complete change of culture, to plug gaps and to be relentless in the pursuit of delivering a complete package of reforms, which are urgently needed.
Turning to the specifics of the Bill, Clause 1, as we have heard, amends article 6 of the fire safety order, and it will apply to premises where the building contains two or more domestic flats. This extension covers the structure and external walls, including doors and windows in those walls and anything attached to those walls, along the common parts of the building, and to the front doors of people’s properties. This is an important clarification, which I welcome.
Some concerns have been raised about when access is needed to inspect the front doors of residents’ properties, along with the windows or possibly balconies, and, when access is not given willingly, the power for the building owner to get access to the property. Will the only process to seek an order from the court? That can be lengthy. I am not convinced it gives the urgency needed for the inspection to take place. For example, you could have access to 50 flats in a block with no problem whatsoever. All the external walls and communal areas are inspected, but there are two flats where access is refused despite repeated requests, so the building cannot be regarded as compliant until a court-granted order is executed, the inspection takes place and everything passes. There must be a better, quicker way to deal with that problem.
This is also a problem for social landlords any type of landlord or building owner. The issue was raised in the other place by the honourable Members for Orpington and Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Bill also provides for fire and rescue authorities to take enforcement action against responsible persons if they have failed to comply with their duties under the fire safety order, which risks getting bogged down if occupants in one or two properties are not being co-operative.
That also brings me back to a point that I mentioned at the start of my contribution today. Fire inspectors must be professional and properly qualified; there is no doing this role on the cheap. This is a key role in the compliance and enforcement of legal obligations for fire safety duties on responsible persons.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, is right about the need to keep records, so that liabilities are clearly established and it can be demonstrated who has and who has not done their job, and action can be taken to ensure that they do it. We want proper processes and procedures to ensure that residents, tenants and owners are properly aware of all matters with regard to their safety in their home.
The Bill will increase the workload of fire and rescue services. The impact assessment does not specify how many inspectors carry out fire audits and enforcement action in England, but in 2019-20 only 963 staff were competent to carry out full inspections, 706 to serve an enforcement notice and 546 to serve a prohibition notice contract—but we had 1,724 fire safety inspectors two decades ago, as my noble friend Lord Whitty referred to. Clearly, that is a great diminution in the number of people who are able to do this work.
My concern here is that, to bridge the gap between the resource we have at present and the resource we need to deliver the compliance and enforcement orders, corners will be cut and less-qualified or unqualified persons will be given roles that they are not competent to do, instead of proper investment and training to deliver competent officers. If would be good if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, could assure me that that is not the intention, that only properly qualified people will be used, and that action will be taken to increase the number of qualified inspectors. Can he also assure me that he and his colleagues have a clear understanding of the complexity of the inspections that need to be undertaken?
I suggest that there should be a recruitment programme to increase the number of operational firefighters and fire safety officers in respect of premises covered by this order. There will be an additional cost for these additional inspections and these enforcement actions. Can the noble Lord in his reply to the debate confirm that these costs will be fully funded by the Government and there will not be any fudging on this? It would be wrong to place extra burdens but not fund them or expect the council taxpayer to pick up the costs through a precept levied on them.
Clause 2 provides for a delegated power whereby the Secretary of State in England and the relevant Welsh Minister can change or clarify the types of premises falling within the scope of the order. I am fine with that, and it is good to see that we will be using the affirmative resolution procedure to approve the regulations.
My one area of concern is Clause 2(5), which states that
“the relevant authority must consult anyone that appears to the relevant authority to be appropriate.”
Can the noble Lord give me an assurance that that will include all the fire authorities in England, bodies such as the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and relevant local authorities, and not just the National Fire Chiefs Council? I would also want the relevant Welsh Minister to consult with the fire authorities in Wales and bodies such as the Welsh Local Government Association.
My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the consultation process and how the view of the Fire Brigades Union will be taken into account. They are the hero firefighters we all praise, so we should be asking them what they think. They are the people who run into Grenfell Tower and other burning buildings when everybody else is trying to get out. Can the noble Lord confirm when he responds to the debate that the FBU will be fully consulted by the Home Office when drafting the appropriate regulations?
My noble friend Lady McDonagh raised important questions about the scope, impact assessments, training and who will do the important work of these inspections, and, like other noble Lords, she raised the speed of the reforms which are needed. I also concur very much with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in that regard.
I have a few other issues to raise which I hope the noble Lord can respond to shortly but, if not, I hope he will be able to respond to the points in a letter to me and copy it to other Members of the House.
In the weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire, the Government conducted industry fire safety tests known as BS 8414 tests on external wall systems using ACM cladding of different levels of combustibility, in conjunction with different types of insulation. The tests were also conducted on glass-reinforced plastic composite fire doors following the discovery that those used in Grenfell Tower were not fit for purpose. While some of the test information has been made public, the Government have not published the full test reports. If testing programmes are to continue, they need to be published so that everyone can see the full reports. In that way, the building owners will be able to see and quickly identify defective doors and take remedial action much more quickly and cost effectively. Can the noble Lord agree to look at that issue and come back to me?
In 2013, Wales was the first country in the world to require sprinklers in all new-build homes from October 2013, and in January 2016 it further upgraded that to include all new care homes, sheltered housing and other rooms for residential purposes. My noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport set out how urgent action was taken in the aftermath of the Grenfell tower fire in Newport, whose council she led. The work done there was to the credit of the council, Newport City Homes, the Welsh Government and Senedd Cymru. The Government are making moves in the right direction in respect of sprinklers, which is to be very much welcomed, but they should seek to do what has been done in Wales and introduce sprinklers in all new buildings that are built in England.
It is a fact that very few people have ever died in a fully sprinklered building. When looking at fires, Home Office data confirm that almost half of the accidental fires in England are due to electrical accidents and incidents, and that those who lose their lives are disproportionally the elderly and the vulnerable. In Committee we should therefore spend some time looking at what can be done to improve the regulations in this respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, said in his contribution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, said, Sir David Amess, the Member for Southend West, raised this issue and proposed amendments in the other place. We should examine these issues in detail and see whether we can make sensible, proportionate improvements that improve the safety for residents in high-rise blocks. It would be very welcome, and I associate myself very much with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in that regard.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to have gas into high-rise residential buildings. I remember that, when my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley was a local councillor in Lewisham, there was a serious gas leak under a tower block in Brockley, which she represented. Thankfully, it was dealt with by the London Fire Brigade and British Gas, but the whole block had to be evacuated and urgent work done to remove the build-up of gas under the building. An explosion would have been devastating.
In conclusion, this has been a good debate, with lots of agreement and a genuine desire on the part of all noble Lords who spoke to improve safety, protect people and property and to get this right. I suspect that we will have a few differences of opinion, but I really want to improve the Bill, as do all other noble Lords in the House. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone across the Chamber for contributing so constructively to this Second Reading debate. There have been a number of powerful contributions, but it is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken today have rightly focused on the safety of residents. Ultimately, what matters is saving lives from the terrible impact of fire. I will address many of the points raised, although time will likely preclude me from providing a substantive response to all of the questions raised by noble Lords. Prior to that I will make a few comments.
As Members know, I have only relatively recently started in this post, but it underlines the importance that the Government place on building and fire safety that we now have a Minister working across two departments with the aim of driving forward these important reforms. I commit today that the package of reforms that has been mentioned will be driven at the fastest possible pace.
There have been a number of criticisms today about the lack of action from the Government since the Grenfell fire. I have outlined in the all-Peers letter and in my opening speech the measures the Government have undertaken, which have been supported by an unprecedented level of funding that has been made available, not just to support remediation of cladding but to improve the fire safety capability of fire and rescue services.
We are driving forward a once-in-a-generation change. The Bill is the first legislative step in this process and, as noble Lords can already see, we are committed to delivering the Grenfell recommendations through regulations following on from the fire safety consultation. As I have said before, the building safety Bill, which is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, will deliver extensive and much-needed building safety reforms.
I extend my personal and sincerest welcome to my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs and offer my congratulations on his fine maiden speech. He brings formidable intellect and a first-class record of delivery as a Minister. I look forward to his contributions and to working with him in future. He was very eloquent about the social injustice involved in the Grenfell fire tragedy.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope asked how individuals or businesses can determine whether they are a responsible person under the fire safety order. The order clearly sets out who is a responsible person, and their duties. To make it easier for individuals to confirm whether they are a responsible person, we are looking at ensuring that easy-to-understand guidance is available to aid self-identification.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sanderson for highlighting the importance of implementing the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations in full. We have made that commitment, as I said in the all-Peers letter. We have a statutory duty to consult on the proposals to deliver these recommendations, and the responses to this will help us get the legislation right. I reassure all noble Lords that this Government are and have always been committed to implementing, where appropriate, legislation for the inquiry’s recommendations, as was set out in our manifesto.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, asked whether HMOs are in scope. They are clearly in scope, except for the domestic premises within that. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Whitty, also raised the issue of scope. This is for all multi-occupied residential buildings, not just buildings over 18 metres, which is a difference from the building safety Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, also asked about impact assessments. An impact assessment has been carried out for both this Bill and the fire safety order consultation. I can direct her to that if necessary.
My noble friend Lord Bourne wanted some statistics, and I am happy to give him some. So far, 50% of the 458 buildings have completed remediation or removed the unsafe ACM cladding.
My noble friends Lady Sanderson and Lord Bourne, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, all raised the need to get the package of reforms right. I will provide information on the implementation of the fire safety consultation and the building safety Bill as far as I can, because that package of measures—together with the creation of a new regulator, which already exists in shadow form in the Health and Safety Executive—is how we will coherently reform the system needed to ensure we never see this tragedy happen again.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Sanderson that we are committed to delivering the reform and bringing the legislation forward to underpin this. The fire safety consultation, as she mentioned, will close on 12 October. Following on from this, we aim to publish a response in early 2021. Where these proposals require legislative changes, the intention is to deliver those through regulations in spring 2021 where appropriate, and, where amendment to the fire safety order is required, through primary legislation in the draft building safety Bill. That Bill is currently subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which should conclude by the end of the year. We will look to finalise it for introduction to Parliament as soon as practical.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the subject of access to information for residents. This is covered in our proposals in the fire safety order consultation: responsible persons have to provide comprehensive information to residents, including sharing fire risk assessments with new responsible persons. There is always a golden thread of continuity in providing that information.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, wanted information on the timing for the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill. Recognising the operational implications that the Bill could have, we have established a task and finish group made up of operational experts in fire safety. Its role is to advise the Government on the most optimal way of commencing the Bill. The Home Office received the group’s advice earlier this week. Its broad recommendation is to implement the Bill’s provision all at once and to take a risk-based approach to do that. We are considering a number of more detailed policy and operational issues; I intend to set this out in more detail in Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, all mentioned the burden that could fall on leaseholders in many cases. We recognise this issue and are working on measures to address these concerns as part of the process of finalising the building safety Bill as it passes through the other place and this House.
The noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked what funding had been provided to support the fire and building safety reforms. I mentioned in my opening speech that £30 million of additional funding will be provided to fire and rescue services and the National Fire Chiefs Council this year in response to the Grenfell Tower fire, and I have gone through the elements of that funding package.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Monks and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, all mentioned the concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union on this Bill, particularly on capacity issues and funding. Fire and rescue services have the resources they need to do their important work. It is the responsibility of each fire and rescue authority to assess the risks in its area and determine how best to allocate its resources effectively across all its prevention, protection and response functions to mitigate the risks facing its community. This includes deciding the number of fire safety officers needed to deliver its fire safety enforcement duties under the fire safety order. As I have stated, the Government are investing £30 million of additional funding to help with this approach.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady McDonagh, and the noble Lords, Lord Stunell, Lord Whitty and Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, mentioned issues around shortfalls of fire engineers and fire risk assessors. We are working with the sector to develop a plan and a clear approach. We are also funding the British Standards Institution to develop guidance and work with professional bodies on training.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on the speed of carrying out these fire risk assessments, I say that we will take a risk-based approach. That is the advice we have received. I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that there is no intention to have anything other than properly qualified fire safety officers carrying out the fire risk assessments. Indeed, we are also looking at plans to build the capacity to carry out the assessments needed for high-risk buildings, as we recognise that there is a shortage of fire engineers. There are plans afoot to work with professional bodies to do this.
My noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised electrical safety and the importance of thinking about the causes of these fires and how we respond to them once they have occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked what the Government were doing with regard to electrical equipment and appliances. The Office for Product Safety and Standards was created in 2018 to lead and co-ordinate the product safety system, including responding to incidents and recalls. The Government have also provided £12 million a year of additional funding for product safety regulations since 2018.
The new Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 are now in force and will apply to new tenancies from 1 April 2021. These regulations require that electrical installations be inspected and tested by a qualified person at least every five years. Social landlords are expected to comply with the decent home standard by the Regulator of Social Housing. This includes homes being free of hazards, including electrical hazards, as set out under the housing health and safety rating system. In the social housing Green Paper, we asked whether new safety measures in the private rented sector should be extended to the social sector. We are considering responses to the consultation and will bring forward a social housing White Paper soon.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope: let us work together and see whether there are specific gaps that we can address through appropriate legislation. The building safety Bill may be a vehicle in which to address some of the gaps that we may be able to plug. I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters. We are happy to meet Electrical Safety First at officer level and discuss further our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned flat entrance doors. Regarding entrance doors to communal areas, under the fire safety order, the occupier of any private domestic premises should co-operate with responsible persons to enable them to carry out their duties, which include assessing the full fire safety risks for flat entrance doors. Our fire safety consultation seeks views on whether the provision under the fire safety order ensures the effective co-operation between the occupier of any domestic premises and the responsible person. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also raised difficulty of access. Most of the powers in that area come under the Housing Act 2004.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, gave a characteristically positive overview of what is happening in Wales. I make a commitment that we will work with all the devolved Administrations in ensuring that our approach takes in all the best practice that we can learn. I noted her point that a White Paper will be published. However, the context in Wales is different from that in England. There are only 147 high-rise residential buildings in Wales and well over 11,000 in England. The sheer scale and magnitude of the issue is much greater here. However, I make a genuine commitment to her and my noble friend Lord Bourne that we will learn lessons from the Welsh Assembly.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the progress of the path to justice and asked about the number of people interviewed under caution in relation to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I shall have to write to noble Lords on that matter. We all want to see justice done for the 72 people who lost their lives.
I have not been able to respond to all the substantive points raised by noble Lords. Where that is the case, I will make sure that I respond in writing. Noble Lords should feel free to contact me. Although I appreciate that some would wish us to go much further, I welcome the cross-party support for the provisions in the Bill. Where noble Lords wish to go further, in most instances it is not the case that we disagree but that we see it as something we are seeking to address either through the fire safety consultation or the draft building safety Bill, already published.
This Government are steadfast in their determination to see this Bill enacted and implemented as quickly as practicable. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Bill read a second time.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Thursday 1st October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 1 October 2020 (PDF) - (1 Oct 2020)