House of Commons
Prayers
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
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The NHS’s recovery approach is restoring urgent cancer referrals and treatment to at least pre-pandemic levels and building capacity for the future. Latest data from July suggests that urgent two-week-wait GP referrals are back to over 80% of pre-pandemic levels.
James Cartlidge
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that if we are to deliver better outcomes in cancer and all areas of care, our clinicians need the best possible infrastructure? Is not that why it is so important that the Prime Minister confirmed last week that we will deliver our manifesto pledge of 40 new hospitals? Does my right hon. Friend share my delight at seeing on that list a new rebuild for West Suffolk Hospital, to deliver even better outcomes for our constituents?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. I share my hon. Friend and neighbour’s enthusiasm for the rebuild of the West Suffolk Hospital. For treating both patients with cancer and patients with all other conditions, the West Suffolk is a brilliant local hospital that is much loved in the community; however, its infrastructure is getting very old and it needs to be replaced. I am delighted, along with the Minister for primary care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), in whose constituency the hospital is and will be rebuilt, that we are able to make the funding commitment and get this project going.
Felicity Buchan
I understand that we continue to requisition private hospitals. Given that there are patients who are nervous about attending hospitals, could those be used as covid-secure environments for cancer analysis and treatment?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The private hospitals of this country have played a very important role in responding to covid, and we have a contract with them to be able to continue to deliver much needed services, including cancer services. Because by their nature they rarely have the pressures of emergency attendance, we can ensure that they are part of the green part of the health service—that they are as free as is feasibly possible from coronavirus—and therefore safe to carry out all sorts of cancer treatments. They are an important part of the recovery plan.
Jo Gideon
In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, patients being treated for cancer at the Royal Stoke University Hospital were relocated to Nuffield Health in Newcastle-under-Lyme. That is an example of practical measures that hospital trusts across the UK have taken to limit the spread of coronavirus since the outbreak in March. As we approach the winter pressures on the NHS, will my right hon. Friend outline the precautions the Government are taking to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments and appointments are not put to the back of the queue and do not suffer from undue delays?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Royal Stoke Hospital has performed brilliantly during coronavirus, and I thank everybody who works there for the efforts that they have gone to. It is critical for everybody to understand that the best way to keep cancer services running is to suppress the disease; the more the disease is under control, the more we can both recover and continue with cancer treatments. I believe that it behoves us all to make the case that controlling this virus not only reduces the number of deaths directly from coronavirus, but enables us as much as possible to recover the treatment that we need to for cancer and other killer diseases.
Angela Richardson
Following an online meeting with the manufacturer, I am excited to visit the Royal Surrey County Hospital on Friday to see up close the robotics that are used in many soft tissue cancer operations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these clever robots, operated by talented surgeons, help to reduce the size of the incision site and therefore trauma, meaning a swift discharge and recovery for cancer patients, and that they are crucial to ongoing success in hospitals such as the Royal Surrey, which is a world leader in cancer treatments?
Matt Hancock
I know the Royal Surrey and I enjoyed visiting it, albeit in the rain, in December last year with my hon. Friend. The Royal Surrey is carrying out some of the most cutting-edge treatments for cancer. We have put extra funding in—a more than £200 million fund—for the use of advanced technology for treating diseases such as cancer, and she will have seen that I announced to the House yesterday that we are engaging with the best regulators around the world as we leave the European Union to ensure that we get cancer treatments to the frontline as fast as is safely possible.
Julian Sturdy
York Hospital, like a lot of others, experienced a fall in cancer referrals at the height of the pandemic as a result of residents having stopped going to consult their GP. There is real concern among health professionals in York about the knock-on consequences of that and the rise in the backlog of cancer referrals locally. What steps can the Secretary of State bring forward to assist NHS trusts such as York’s to ensure that the backlog does not lead to late diagnosis of cases, worsening cancer outcomes?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As I mentioned in response to the first question, we now have referrals back up to over 80% of pre-pandemic levels, but we need to get that up further, because we all know that early diagnosis saves lives. I am also very glad to be able to report that in July, on the latest data, over 90% of patients saw a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral from a GP, and 95% of patients receive treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat, so those referrals are leading to the action that is necessary. It is very important that the message goes out that the NHS is open, and anybody with a concern over cancer should come forward and they can get the treatment in a safe way that can help to save their lives.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
In June’s departmental questions, I pressed Ministers on the cancer backlog that has grown so greatly under covid, so it was alarming that despite those ministerial assurances, between August and September, with infection rates being much lower than they are today, the waiting list to see a specialist grew by 16%. Things will only get harder now that infection rates are rising and with the NHS facing winter pressures, so will the Secretary of State give us a categorical assurance that he has a cancer recovery plan, and that it will drive down the waiting lists each month for the rest of the year?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. I think we agree right across the House on the importance of this agenda. The first and most important part of it is to bear down on the long waits, because the longer that people wait, the more dangerous cancer can become. That is happening, and we also have to make sure we bring the referrals forward, because we do not want to have fewer people referred for the diagnostics. At the same time, we are expanding the diagnostics that are available, both in hospitals and increasingly in community hubs, which are safer from a covid point of view and, for the long term, will mean that diagnostic centres for things such as cancer can perhaps be on a high street or in the places where people live, so that they do not necessarily have to go to a big, acute hospital to get the diagnostics part of the pathway done.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is vital that non-covid treatments are restored as quickly and safely as possible. That is what the NHS is doing. It is working to have them restored, by October, to around 90% of last year’s levels.
Dr Johnson
Thankfully, children are relatively robust in the face of coronavirus. However, children’s services, like other hospital services, were understandably reduced during the pandemic. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that paediatric services are now 100% up and running and will not be affected by a future wave of the pandemic? What is he doing to support NHS trusts in dealing with the backlog of appointments delayed by the coronavirus?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her service to her constituents both as their MP and as a paediatric clinician. She is right to raise this important issue. Restoration guidance has already been published by NHS England and NHS Improvement, setting out a framework to fully restore services in this area, which I agree is vital. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
We are working closely with the Department for Education to support children and young people’s mental health, and we remain committed to implementing the proposals in the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper putting mental health support teams in schools and colleges, otherwise known as trailblazer schemes.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Schoolchildren have had their education interrupted. They have been separated from their friends and face continual threats to their daily lives. The Government knew schools were to return. Why did they not put adequate measures to provide mental health provision in schools for students and teachers?
Ms Dorries
I am afraid I have to say that, actually, the opposite is the case. We have just completed the wellbeing for education return “train the trainer” scheme. The trainers have been trained by the Anna Freud Centre and are ready to go out into schools across the country. It was always the position that schools should be open and the best place for children to receive help and support, for exactly the reasons that the hon. Member described: separation from their routine and their friends, and school being a place of safety.
Train the trainer has now completed. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and I worked hard on that over the summer to ensure that the £8 million was there and the training was in place, ready to provide mental health and wellbeing support to children when they return to school. I am pleased to say that the last “train the trainer” scheme happened last week, and those involved are now ready to move into schools across the country.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It has been six months of uncertainty for our country’s children and their parents, with schooling cancelled, the exam results fiasco and now students trapped in uncertainty in their university accommodation. Despite the Education Secretary recognising that there was a serious impact on young people’s mental health, yet again it seems that the Government have no plan. Children and young people are being failed. When will the Minister finally address the pending mental health crisis in our schools, colleges and universities?
Ms Dorries
I just do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady has presented. We are investing at least £2.3 billion in mental health support and mental health provision. That investment translates to 345,000 children and young people who will be able to access mental health support via NHS-funded health services and school-based mental health support teams. Spending on children and young people’s mental health services is growing faster than the overall spend on mental health, which itself is growing faster than the overall NHS budget. Children and young people’s mental health is our priority, and we are showing that by investing in it. The picture that she paints is, I am afraid, completely not the case.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
NHS Test and Trace launched in May. Four months later, more than 150,000 people who have tested positive for covid-19 have been contacted, and 450,000 of their contacts have been reached so that they can self-isolate. We have tested more than 7 million people at least once and many, such as care home workers, more than once. Rapid expansion brings with it challenges. Working with local authorities, we will continue to improve test and trace, as it is an important part of our armoury to defeat this virus.
Helen Hayes
As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, I meet weekly with a working group drawn from across the care sector. Providers on that group report that they are still experiencing delays in receiving weekly test results, still have no routine access to weekly testing for domiciliary care workers or staff working in supported living environments and urgently need regular testing for family members to alleviate the terrible isolation of care home residents from their loved ones. When will the care sector have all the access to testing that it needs on a reliable basis to stop the second wave of coronavirus delivering the utter tragedy and devastation of the first to the care sector?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for her question and for the work that she does with the APPG, which I joined recently for a very valuable conversation. Supporting care homes through the pandemic and in the months ahead is absolutely our, and my, priority. One part of that is ensuring that they have the testing that they need. We are getting regular repeat testing to care homes. I acknowledge that the turnaround times have not been what we would have liked them to be, but those turnaround times are coming down and we are seeing a rapid improvement in performance.
Mary Kelly Foy
This week, the president of the Association of Directors of Public Health said that the funding is just not there for local authorities to effectively run local contact tracing. Where it has been done, at a cost to the local authority, evidence shows that local teams were more likely to be successful in contacting people compared with the national tiers 2 and 3. Can the Minister tell me why the Government keep insisting that the current track and trace system is working when public health professionals are telling them the opposite?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for her question. I am sure she will know that local authorities received £400 million to support them with local outbreak management. It is really important to have this coming together of the national system and the local system, where local authorities are indeed playing an important part, using their local knowledge to follow up with contact tracing, particularly for some of the contacts that are proving harder to reach.
Karl Turner [V]
Schools in my constituency are having to close, disrupting children’s education and the work of their parents. Serco’s test and trace has been an unmitigated disaster. It is more than an extraordinary waste of public money; it is a public health crisis. To make matters worse, Ministers signed off on a wholly inappropriate Excel spreadsheet, blowing billions and leaving thousands of contacts untraced. When I asked the Secretary of State last week when he was going to take personal responsibility, he simply boasted that the system was working brilliantly. When does the Minister think her boss, the Secretary of State, will begin to take personal responsibility for this fiasco?
Helen Whately
There was quite a lot in that question. One thing I will say on schools is that enabling our children to continue to go to school is very much part of the whole strategy that we are using to tackle and suppress coronavirus, because education is so important. On the specific test and trace system to which the hon. Member refers, the Secretary of State spent an hour and a half in the Chamber yesterday answering colleagues’ questions about the performance of that system.
Rachael Maskell
In the light of the fact that infection levels in York have risen from 63.1 cases per 100,000 to 143.9 cases per 100,000 in just the past seven days, the local public health team is working with the university and local labs, and together they have put together a programme where they can test, process the testing and do contact tracing. This is a testing service that works for York, with test results the next day and tracers who understand local population flows. Will the Minister put the necessary resources in place to enable them to do their work and allow this to happen, because this is surely the game changer we need to beat this virus?
Helen Whately
Well, it is very good to hear of the set-up in York that the hon. Member describes, and what I can do is take away from here and follow up to ensure that there is joint working, which we know is a really effective way to bring together national resources with the local resources, expertise and knowledge that are so important in tackling this virus.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
With covid, speed is of the essence, but people are struggling to get a test due to limited capacity at the Lighthouse labs. New labs were due to open in Newport in August and in Loughborough last month, but both are delayed. As NHS labs are having to take on more testing, can the Minister say what additional funding will be provided specifically to increase NHS lab capacity?
Helen Whately
The context is the huge increase in the testing capacity of our system that we have already seen, going from in the order of 2,000 tests a day back in March to well over 200,000 tests a day now and building up to 500,000 tests by the end of this month. I recognise also that there is both the Lighthouse labs—what is known as pillar 2 testing system—and the important part that NHS testing facilities play in the pandemic. And of course the hon. Member will know that a huge amount of money has been and is going into the NHS to support its response to covid.
Dr Whitford [V]
Scotland’s public health-based tracing service has reached over 95% of contacts, yet four months on, the Serco system in England has still only reached 61%. As finding contacts and getting them to isolate is critical to reducing covid spread, should not tracing in England now be based more on local public health teams?
Helen Whately
It may be helpful to say that, since the NHS Test and Trace system started, it has contacted 78.5% of those who have tested positive, and then 77% of their contacts have been reached. There is an important part of the system where the national contact tracers are handing over to local authority contact tracers who are able to access the same system and are supported in contact tracing but, critically, are also using their local knowledge of the local area to increase the success rate. It is really important that people are reached wherever possible and advised to self-isolate.
May I also say how much I appreciate and thank all those who are doing the right thing by self-isolating, both those with symptoms and those who have been contacted by contact tracers?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am not going to ask about the current problems with test and trace, because it is clear from what we have heard already that the Government have no answers on that. Instead, I will ask about the so-called moonshot tests and Dido Harding’s comments that some people will have to pay for them. When the Prime Minister was given a chance in the Chamber, a fortnight ago, to deny that was on the table, he did not take it. We have real concerns about creating a two-tier system for tests where some people have to pay. It undermines a fundamental principle of the NHS and will do nothing to stop the spread of the virus. Will the Minister give us a definitive answer today? Are some people going to have to pay to access the moonshot tests, yes or no?
Helen Whately
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there could be a two-tier system. What we have in place is a universal system where everybody who has symptoms is able to access a test. As he well knows, where we know there are particular risks, such as for those in care home settings, there are also tests for those who do not have symptoms so that we can pick up outbreaks early. A huge amount of resource and investment is going into developing new technologies for testing—easier testing, quicker tests and tests that can be done at greater scale—because this is all part of building up our testing capacity, so we can suppress this horrid virus.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Education, health and care plans identify the support needs of children and young people across those three areas. Local authorities and health bodies are required to jointly commission the services. The Government are currently undertaking a review of the special educational needs and disability system, and I am working on this with my ministerial counterpart in the Department for Education.
Chris Loder
I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for their focus on Dorset County Hospital in the recent investment announcements, but in my West Dorset constituency, I have totally unacceptable waiting times of up to two years for EHCPs for children and their parents. That is totally unacceptable. They face the most difficult of situations and, I am afraid, are losing hope. Will the Minister help me in supporting these desperate children and parents who need to get their EHCPs done?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how we need to see children and young people getting in place, as soon as possible, the support that can help them and about how there are waiting times for these plans. There are two things I can say in response. First, in the context of covid, NHS England has made it clear to NHS organisations that they must restart and restore services that support children and young people with EHC plans and in the assessments for those plans. Secondly, in the review of the SEND system, we are indeed looking at how we can address some of the problems in the system and achieve better integration across health, care and education.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Women at greatest risk of breast cancer continue to be prioritised for screening. The NHS has worked hard and has significantly reduced the backlog of delayed breast screening appointments from over 468,000 in June to under 52,000 in September. All services have now been restarted and, in Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the message is clear: when you get a screening invite, please attend; if you are worried about anything, contact your general practitioner.
Kim Johnson
Breast screening appointments were paused during the height of the pandemic. Breast Cancer Now has estimated that 986,000 women across the UK missed their mammograms, and it estimates that, as a result, there could be 8,600 women living with undetected breast cancer. With this being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the gaps in specialist breast cancer nurses recently highlighted by Macmillan Cancer Support?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Cancer nurse specialists are a particular interest of mine, and the long-term plan identifies that everybody deserves to have personalised care from a cancer nurse specialist. We did see the rate decline from 91% in 2018 to about 89% in 2019, and we are focused on making sure that everybody has a cancer nurse specialist. We promised it in the long-term plan and it is our ambition to deliver that personalised care to every woman. As I have outlined, the backlog of breast cancer screening has gone down but, again, I urge women who are called for screening to come forward. It is safe and, as with me, it could make all the difference.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I chair the Government’s local action gold committee, which considers the latest data and advice from experts, including epidemiologists and the chief medical officer, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Through this process, we consult local leaders and directors of public health. We have seen local actions in some parts of the country bring the case rate right down and we need to make sure that we are constantly vigilant to what needs to happen to suppress this virus.
Bill Esterson [V]
Yesterday, the Health Secretary told me:
“we have been putting the extra money into…councils”—[Official Report, 5 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 637.]
What money is that? He announced £7 million, split between nine councils, as compared with £12 billion for Serco. That is not putting the extra money into councils, is it? So may I ask him to show respect for Members of this House and, more importantly, for our constituents, and answer the question: when is he going to stop relying on the outsourcing giants and to support local public health teams with the funds they need, because that is how he and this country are going to fix test, trace and isolate?
Matt Hancock
We are, as the hon. Gentleman said in his question, putting money into local councils in areas where local action needs to be taken. We have an open dialogue with councils and local mayors about what needs to be done. But I urge him, on behalf of all of his constituents in Sefton, that it is better to support the whole effort to control this virus, not just part of it.
Owen Thompson
The Mayor of London has warned that the virus is now spreading widely again across London, although vital knowledge is being hampered by the problems with test and trace. Are the Government now looking at introducing wider restrictions across London? As a matter of interest for this House, will the Cabinet Secretary, as a part of that, commit to reintroducing a hybrid Parliament in such a situation?
Matt Hancock
I discuss these matters with the Cabinet Secretary and other colleagues across government all the time, and I also speak regularly to the Mayor of London. We maintain vigilance over the transmission of the virus right across the country.
Judith Cummins
Can the Secretary of State answer a very simple question: what rate of infection means that a local authority needs to go into local restrictions and what rate means that it can leave them? Of course I accept that there will sometimes be very specific circumstances, such as workplace outbreaks, that would need to be considered, but surely it is not beyond his level of competence to do both, because my constituents deserve to know when they can see their families.
Matt Hancock
Of course the hon. Member’s constituents and all those who are under local action restrictions yearn to see their families. We all yearn to be able to get back to the normal socialising that makes life worth living, but I am afraid that the answer to her question is in the question: because of specific local circumstances, such as outbreaks in a workplace or a halls of residence, it is not possible to put a specific number on the point at which a judgment is made to put in place local restrictions, which we do in consultation with the council, or to take an area out of them.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Universities have a duty of care to support students who are required to self-isolate. The Department for Education is working with universities to make sure that where an outbreak occurs, support is in place. That includes ensuring that students with cystic fibrosis and other long-term health conditions who are self-isolating have access to the food, medicine and medical care they may need.
Lilian Greenwood
Self-isolating students throughout the country, and their understandably worried parents, are reporting problems with accessing food, drinks, exercise and other support. That is completely unacceptable for any student, but for those with cystic fibrosis, who often need high calorie requirements to stay well, access to regular food supplies is absolutely essential for their health. What is the Minister doing to ensure that students with CF who are required to self-isolate at university and have previously shielded are able to access priority supermarket delivery slots? Many will have relied on their parents’ accounts when they were at home. What other action is she taking, in partnership with universities and the Department for Education, to ensure that every student with CF who finds themselves in lockdown is supported on their healthcare needs?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady asks a really important question. Clearly, it is a difficult time for students starting university now, but particularly for those with long-term health conditions such as cystic fibrosis. Overall, as she knows, the context is that we are prioritising education. We do not want students to put their life on hold, but we do want them to be supported by their university, particularly if it is harder for them to self-isolate because of health conditions. I am in regular contact with the Minister for Universities and will take up with her the specific questions about support for students with cystic fibrosis and access to supermarket deliveries. If the hon. Lady would like to raise any specific case with me, she should let me know and I will take that up with the Minister for Universities to address the specific issues.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
As part of the drive towards the capacity target of 500,000 tests a day by the end of October, we have announced additional Lighthouse labs as part of the national lab network, and work is ongoing to expand the UK’s lab capacity inside the NHS.
Gordon Henderson
The Lighthouse labs do not appear to be delivering sufficient test results. Schools and care homes in my constituency are still having to wait an unacceptably long time for covid-19 test results, and the delays are making it difficult for them to operate properly. What is my right hon. Friend doing to make better use of the many life science companies in Kent, including those at Discovery Park in Sandwich and at the Kent Science Park in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey? Those companies have laboratories in which some of the tests taken in Kent could be analysed.
Matt Hancock
We are increasingly contracting with labs like the ones my hon. Friend mentions—as well as the Lighthouse labs, which have huge capacity—to make sure that we can both increase capacity and reduce the turnaround time. I am glad to say that the latest figures for the past week showed that the turnaround time is coming down, which is important in Kent and right throughout the country.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
As I said in an answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), we are committed to spending on children and young people’s mental health services, which is growing faster than the overall spend on mental health, and the overall spending itself is growing faster than the NHS budget.
Ian Lavery [V]
See, Hear, Respond, a new service managed by Barnardo’s in response to covid-19, to provide early intervention support for families and children in crisis, has received more than 11,000 referrals since June. The majority of children and young people referred need support for their mental health and wellbeing. What early intervention measures have been introduced? Are they enough? Does the Minister agree that early intervention measures are key to tackling the increase in children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing needs?
Ms Dorries
I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more. The Government’s £8 million Wellbeing for Education Return programme, which is to support staff to respond to the emotional, mental health and wellbeing pressures that some children have experienced during the pandemic, is in place. As I have said, the last train the trainer session took place last week and those trainers are ready to go into primary schools to assist both teachers and parents to recognise when children display early signs of emotional distress or mental health issues as a result of the pandemic. I have been working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), to ensure that this programme is in place to address exactly the needs that he has highlighted.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome yesterday’s announcement that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network will work with the Royal College of General Practitioners to develop guidelines to support patients and practitioners in the treatment of and recovery from the disease. This follows on from the NHS launch in July of the Your COVID Recovery service, which provides personalised support for individuals. In addition, we are funding research into covid-19, including a study of 10,000 patients who were admitted to hospital with covid, building our understanding of the long-term effects and helping direct those improved treatments that are needed.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive answer. If she has not already read it, may I commend to her the most recent edition of The Doctor, the British Medical Association magazine, which outlines several compelling case studies of GPs who are still suffering, some up to six months, after they first contracted covid? There is a growing body of evidence that a number of people continue to suffer with this months after it has been contracted, in a quite debilitating way. Will she build on the work that she is already doing and make the case to the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions in particular to ensure that all those who suffer from long covid get the support that is necessary for them?
Jo Churchill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement and I will read the document that he mentions with interest. It is a new disease on which we are still gathering evidence and data, so that we know how we can best support the individual in their recovery and, arguably, in their new covid-tinged life. I assure him that that is precisely what I shall be doing—looking at the evidence base and making sure we work with the colleges and general practitioners to ensure that we get the right answers.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We have sweated blood and tears to support the sector through this pandemic. Last month, we launched the adult social care winter plan, with regular testing for care home staff and residents, free personal protective equipment and mandatory infection prevention and control measures for care providers, supported by £546 million of Government funding. I am enormously grateful to all those on the frontline in social care. I recognise the challenges that they have faced and how many feel daunted by the winter ahead. I say to care workers: “I cannot thank you enough for what you do and I am with you every step of the way.”
Miss Dines
I have been contacted by Ann Penrose, who is 91, in good health and in a care home in Ashbourne, Derbyshire Dales. She asked her family to contact Boris, but sadly she got me. Does the Minister agree that the time has come to look very carefully at what is happening in care homes to review the existing measures, routines and guidelines, bearing in mind that we are testing so much now? We need to have a bit more humanity. We are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These people need their families, yes, in a safe environment, but they do need to have access to families and, at times, to their pets.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance of visiting both to the individuals living in care homes, and to their family and friends. Achieving the balance between protecting care home residents from the risk that covid might be brought into the care home, where it is so hard to control, and giving them access to visitors, has been one of the hardest areas to get right over the past few months. That is why in the summer we issued guidance on safe visiting and gave more freedom on the decisions about visiting to local authorities, with directors of public health working with care homes. I want us to continue to support and enable safe visiting for care homes.
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to get through this grouped set of questions, and it is going to take us well into topicals time; the Minister really does need to speed up on the answers.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for the social care winter plan announced two weeks ago. Can she tell me when this half a billion pound infection control fund will be released to councils covering constituencies such as mine in Congleton, in order to help protect residents and staff over the winter?
Helen Whately
The infection control fund is being distributed in two equal instalments, the first of which has already been paid to local authorities. My hon. Friend’s local authority, Cheshire East Council, will be receiving £4.7 million in total, so it should already have received £2.35 million to go towards the extra costs for care providers and others in infection prevention and control.
Scott Mann
As always, I commend the Department and the Secretary of State on their work during the pandemic. Although not every part of the response has been perfect—and we never expected that it would be—I am convinced that the Department has done its utmost to protect the public. I do have some concerns, however, about the transmission between care homes. What measures has the Department taken to prevent cross-contamination of covid between care homes, particularly from staff who work in multiple locations?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but most of the credit should go to those working in social care, who have been looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society in such difficult circumstances. He is right that it is really important that we ensure that there is no transmission between one care home and another, which is why we are requiring care homes to make sure that their staff work in only one setting and are providing additional funding to enable them to do this.
Danny Kruger
Care homes are rightly the focus of our attention at the current time, but I know that the Minister is reviewing the future of social care. Does she agree that our focus in that regard should be on more community-based services, not solely on residential provision? Will she also set my mind at ease by ruling out the creation of a new national care service run from Whitehall?
Helen Whately
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent report on levelling up our communities? As he said, care homes have indeed been the focus of our social care response to the pandemic, but I would not want anyone to think that that was the limit of our support for social care during the pandemic; the winter plan also includes support for domiciliary care, supported living and others. I agree with him that as we look to the future, we should support the aspiration that most people have to live independently, with their own front door, well into their old age. There are no plans to create a national care service run from Whitehall.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Families with loved ones in care homes are desperate to start visiting again, but are banned from doing so in swathes of the country with extra restrictions. The Government’s own carers advisory group says that visits are essential for residents’ health, and that, to make them safe, relatives should be treated like key workers—with regular testing. Will the Minister now please put that testing in place and lift the blanket ban on care home visits in lockdown areas, so that we can help to bring all families back together again?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member makes an important point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) a moment ago, about the importance of visiting for those in care homes, and for their relatives and loved ones. We are striking the difficult balance between protecting those in care homes and ensuring that they have visits wherever possible, but these visits must be done safely. I have heard from the sector about the aspiration for some family members to be treated as care workers—for instance, if they visit the care home regularly. As we expand testing, I very much intend that we should test some visitors—and am making the case for doing so—but it is all part of how we expand and use our testing resources.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On Friday we confirmed the 40 hospitals we will build by 2030 as part of a package worth £3.7 billion, with a further eight new schemes also invited to bid, all to ensure that we protect the NHS long into the future.
Tonia Antoniazzi [V]
All I want from the Secretary of State today is a simple yes or no answer. It has come to light that the Northern Ireland authorities have taken unprecedented action and committed to pay for private prescriptions for medical cannabis for severely ill children. Will he do the right thing and follow the example set in Northern Ireland in supporting other children with intractable epilepsy by paying for their private prescriptions—yes or no?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady has long been a campaigner on this subject. We have made significant progress in terms of expanding access where it is clinically safe to do so. On this, as on so many things, I will make sure that I constantly follow the clinical evidence.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows that for every person who tragically dies from coronavirus, at least one other person has long-term symptoms lasting more than three months, meaning that they have breathlessness and chronic fatigue and often cannot go back to work normally. In his letter to me of 14 September, he said that clinics were going to be set up so that they could get mental health support, face-to-face counselling and rehabilitation. Have those clinics been commissioned, and when will those long covid sufferers be able to access them throughout the country?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I know very well the impact of long covid; it is something that I understand deeply. We are in the process of setting up those clinics and there will be further information on this very shortly.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the Office for National Statistics has said today that deaths have increased three weeks in a row, and given the rising prevalence of the virus, can the Secretary of State understand the upset and the anger over the Excel spreadsheet blunder? Can he tell us today what he could not tell us yesterday: how many of the 48,000 contacts—not the index cases, the contacts—have been traced and how many are now isolating?
Matt Hancock
We have obviously been continuing to contact both the index cases and the contacts. The total number of contacts depends on how many contacts each index case has. That information will of course be made available in the normal way when it has been completed. However, we cannot know in advance how many contacts there are because the interviews with the index cases have to be done first.
Jonathan Ashworth
So essentially thousands of people who have been exposed to the virus could be wandering around not knowing they have been exposed and infecting people, and the Secretary of State cannot even tell us if they have been traced.
Let me move on to something else. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about a vaccine yesterday in light of the news that the Government are aiming to vaccinate about 30 million people—just under 50% of the population. There has been an expectation that the whole of the population would be vaccinated, not least because he said at the Downing Street press conference that he “would hope, given the scale of the crisis, we would have the vaccine and everyone would be given the vaccine.” Those are his words. We accept the clinical guidance. However, can he tell us how long it will take, for the 50% of people who will not be vaccinated, for life to return to normal for them?
Matt Hancock
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, decisions on the distribution of any vaccine have not been taken. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is the body that advises the Government on the appropriate clinical prioritisation of vaccines. It has published an interim guide, which he well knows about and we have discussed. That sets out the order of priority as an interim measure, but we await the data from the clinical trials of the vaccine before we will come to a clinically validated full roll-out plan. We are putting in place the logistical plans now, but on the decisions as to the clinical order of priority, we will take the evidence from the Joint Committee.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say to those on both Front Benches that these are meant to be short and punchy topical questions, not full debates?
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks well for her constituent. I am very sorry that her constituent had that experience, and of course GPs should be sensitive, as the large majority are.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the group that the hon. Lady mentions. I have put a huge amount of effort into supporting social prescribing, including with funding, and I encourage her CCG to engage with such bodies to make sure that we can get funding to support them on the frontline.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Matt Hancock
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) has committed to consult on the subject to make sure we get to the right outcome.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Matt Hancock
Of course I have met and continue to meet the families of those bereaved through coronavirus. With this particular group, I am afraid that when I last looked into it, they were in legal action—in pre-action protocol—with the Government, so I am advised that I should not therefore meet them.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Matt Hancock
The level of cases matters, but so too does the direction of travel, and when the number of cases is falling—especially if it is falling rapidly—that is the sort of indicator that we will look at. One example is the action we took in Leicester a few months ago now, where we removed some of the most restrictive measures when the numbers were coming down sharply.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Matt Hancock
I am very worried about the rates of transmission in the north-east, as I am about parts of the north-west of England. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from across the regions affected to take the action necessary to suppress this virus and to support the economy, education and the NHS right across this land.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Matt Hancock
The covid-19 app has now been successfully downloaded by around 15 million people, including my hon. Friend’s father. Every extra person who downloads it helps to keep themselves safe and keep others safe. I urge everybody in this House to download it—I hope you have, Mr Speaker. It is one of the tools in the armoury, and everybody can play their part in keeping this virus under control by downloading the app.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The testing facilities are one example of that. Testing facilities across the UK work very closely with the Scottish NHS, to ensure that people can get a test as close to them as possible. I think we have reduced the problem of people being sent to Inverness, but we continue to work to increase the capacity in Inverness and right across the country.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Matt Hancock
We are making good progress in validating the tests and in doing what needs to be done to be able to use them effectively. I have seen some of these reports from around the world, and I talk regularly to my opposite numbers about how we can get this sort of next-generation testing going.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
I am a strong supporter of the work we have done to look at that approach. The hon. Lady is right to raise it, and I will write to her with a timetable for that response.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course I would. I would underline some news announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), which is that the breast screening backlog from the first peak, which was 450,000, is now down to just over 50,000. I pay tribute to the NHS and all those involved in screening who have done so much work to bring that backlog down, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this subject.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
A huge amount of work is under way to ensure that we are fully prepared for all eventualities this winter. It is an important piece of work across the Department.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Matt Hancock
We have ended where we started this questions session: with my delight at a new hospital that has been funded and announced by the Prime Minister on Friday—Newgate in Northumberland. That is a very important development. My right hon. Friend makes a wider point about the importance of community hospitals, which are local to where people live. With modern advances in technology, we can deliver more services closer to people’s homes and in people’s homes, and then in community hospitals, while of course needing to build those superb hubs of science and care that our great hospitals are.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Areas with Additional Public Health Restrictions: Economic Support
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support available to individuals and businesses in areas of the country subject to additional public health restrictions.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The decision to extend tighter lockdown measures to Liverpool city region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough was based on the latest health evidence, including advice from the chief medical officer and local public health authorities. The resurgence of the virus has demanded further action to minimise harm to health and wellbeing, while preserving the ability of people to work and businesses to trade in the areas affected. That is why, throughout this crisis, we have sought to strike a balance between minimising the burden faced by businesses and protecting public health. To that end, we have provided one of the most generous and comprehensive packages of support for people, businesses and public services, totalling £190 billion by July.
As the path of the virus and the threat to the economy have become clearer, we have taken further decisive action. Last month, the Chancellor announced the winter economic plan—a package of targeted measures to protect jobs and businesses, including the job support scheme to support the wages of employees in viable jobs and an extension of the self-employed income support scheme to the end of April 2021. We are also continuing the temporary reduction in VAT for hospitality until the end of March 2021 and the Government-backed loan schemes until the end of November this year. We are also providing an additional £100 million in surge funding to support the hardest-hit areas in containing covid-19. That is on top of the £300 million provided through the test and trace programme. We are offering grants to businesses that have been required to shut because of the new measures, worth up to £1,500 for each three weeks of closure.
Throughout this pandemic, we have prioritised a flexible and adaptable approach to economic support. We will continue in that spirit, and we stand ready to evolve our policies as required.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your courteousness and patience, as always.
Seventeen million people—one in four of us—are living under additional covid-19 restrictions. That was not inevitable: experts agree that it is linked to the continuing failure to deliver a functioning test, trace and isolate system. That failure has profound economic consequences and puts businesses and jobs at risk. Today, nearly 1 million people are still on furlough in the areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions or are on the watch list.
Support for local areas has only ever come after restrictions have been imposed—for example, a month later in Leicester’s case. There are leaked suggestions that the Treasury will be involved in decision making around restrictions, potentially to prevent such delays. When will the Government finally be in a position to deliver support hand in hand with the imposition of restrictions, not trailing them?
The response has been inconsistent: £3 million for Leicester, £7 million for Liverpool city region, an undefined funding package for the north-east of England and nothing for Greater Manchester or the west midlands. What criteria determine the allocation of support to areas under local restrictions? Will they be published? If not, why not? Do they truly reflect the needs of areas subject to restrictions? I note that the Chief Secretary did not talk at any point in his statement about support for areas with economic needs, not health needs. He referred to the local restrictions support grant, but can he confirm that no area currently qualifies for that grant because of current restrictions?
The millions of people living under local restrictions deserve better. When will the Government grasp the scale of the challenge and act to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild businesses?
Steve Barclay
The shadow Chancellor almost implies that the resurgence of the virus is unique to the United Kingdom, yet anyone who looks across the continent will see that many other countries, as we come out of the summer period, are seeing exactly the same trend and are dealing with it in in many of the same ways as we are in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady says that support has not been offered to those suffering from economic harm, but that ignores, for example, the announcement that I made in the Chamber some weeks ago about the £1,500 of support for businesses for every three weeks of closure as the result of a local lockdown—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should let me answer, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.
The hon. Lady also ignores the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has extended many of the measures that we introduced in our initial response, including the package of loans, the tax deferrals and pay as you grow. Those are universal offers to support businesses, irrespective of whether they are in areas of acute lockdown or otherwise.
As I said at the start, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we will keep listening, and we will keep striving to be creative in response to the challenges that we face. Where we can, he will act. That shows our willingness to adapt. The package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor brought to the Chamber just a few days ago, with the winter plan, illustrates that willingness to listen, to evolve and to respond to the virus, as the economic needs of the country dictate.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
Local restrictions are inevitably impairing many thousands of businesses in those areas, but some businesses are not just being impaired: because of the regulations, they are simply unable to trade. I am thinking about many companies in the hospitality sector—events companies, hotels, nightclubs and many more. Would my right hon. Friend recognise that and come forward with a specific set of support packages for those businesses, which the regulations basically stop dead in their tracks? In that way, the many thousands of jobs in those businesses, which are otherwise entirely viable, can be saved.
Steve Barclay
The Chair of the Treasury Committee raises an extremely pertinent point, which I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard loud and clear. That is why we have seen repeatedly in the measures that the Chancellor has brought forward a targeting—particularly, as the Chair of the Select Committee says, in areas such as the hospitality sector, which have been acutely hit—with a package of measures, such as the cut in VAT and the package over the summer. For specific areas such as the independent cinema sector, there has been the £30 million of funding for the British Film Institute. That is an individual measure, but it does not address the much wider part of the cinema sector and the major chains. It is about looking at targeted measures of support in response to the issue that the Select Committee Chair raises.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Local lockdown is a reality, and there is a potential for a national lockdown of some kind as we go into the months ahead. Livelihoods have been disrupted once again and the viability of businesses is being threatened by these restrictions, which are necessary to protect public health.
Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality told the Treasury Committee this morning that sector-specific restrictions require sector-specific support. What sector-specific support is the Minister going to bring forward for sectors such as hospitality, events, tourism, funfairs, culture and the arts? The Chancellor earlier seemed to suggest that people should just go and get another job, which is deeply offensive to many in those sectors.
Failing to support and sustain businesses right now risks putting those businesses over the edge so that they will not be there for a recovery in the future. The Minister must speak to the Chancellor today, extend the furlough in the self-employment support scheme and fill the gaps for those who have not had a single penny from the Government since lockdown began. People are depending on this UK Government, with the economic levers that they have. The Government are failing in their duty to protect those jobs and livelihoods right now. They are letting millions of people down and accepting the harm of mass unemployment that will follow.
The Scottish Government are limited in how much they can spend and in how much they can borrow, which is very limited. They do not even have the certainty of a UK Budget to know how much they will receive in the months ahead. If Scotland needs to lock down on public health grounds, how much money will come in support?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady says that she seeks targeted measures, but then seems to ignore the £1.57 billion that the Chancellor announced for the arts—exactly the sort of targeted package that she was referring to. She then says that that is not enough, but it is unclear how long the SNP would want to extend schemes such as the furlough, how targeted that would be on specific sectors and what that would mean for the supply chains for those sectors. We think that it is right to be honest with the British public and ensure that we target support beyond the eight months of the furlough, in the way that the Chancellor set out, with the job support scheme and the extension of the self-employed income support scheme.
On certainty of funding for the Scottish Government, I have had regular discussions with the Scottish Finance Secretary. I would have welcomed the hon. Lady’s acknowledgement that we had done something unprecedented in guaranteeing the Barnett consequentials in order—as the Scottish Government had requested, and responding to their wishes—to give them confidence in the funding pipeline. That had not been done before. The Government did it to give the Scottish Government confidence on the Barnett consequentials. An acknowledgement by the hon. Lady of that point would have been welcome.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Although I am clear that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Treasury have done a Herculaen job in bringing forward schemes to support jobs in the economy, like the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I remain concerned about those sectors that are unable to operate because of Government restrictions. I cite particularly the events industry and our aviation sector—I think especially of the regional airports, which will be affected by regional restrictions. May I ask my right hon. Friend to look with colleagues across Government at ways in which we can get those sectors at least partially working again, with proper social distancing rules? I cannot believe that it is not possible to do that. If it is possible to go to a supermarket, surely it is possible to have airport testing, and socially distanced trade shows and similar to get some of those sectors moving again.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right that it is important, as we live with the virus and accept that it will be with us for longer, that we constantly learn from that and see what lessons there can be, not just in terms of, for example, regional air travel, but how that reads across into other matters such as non-pharmaceutical interventions. My right hon. Friend’s point is exactly why the Chancellor said yesterday that he will keep listening and striving to be creative. His track record has demonstrated that. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend as we learn those lessons.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Many businesses may not have to close because of local restrictions, but they have seen a drop in footfall and a decline in their business. I am thinking of many small family-run businesses that have approached me in Lancaster in Fleetwood. Will the Chief Secretary outline what support will be available for those businesses and what they can expect when local restrictions are put in place?
Steve Barclay
For exactly that reason, the Chancellor set out the package of measures in the winter plan. We recognise that there is a balance, and we have sought to strike one that enables many of those businesses still to trade—so restrictions have not led to closure of certain businesses, as full lockdown did. However, we acknowledge that there has been an impact, particularly on cash flow. That is why the Chancellor set out the furlough bonus and the job support scheme and extended what is, by international comparisons, one of the most generous self-employed income support schemes. We recognise that there is a balance between the health measures that we are taking and the hon. Lady’s legitimate concern about the impact on businesses, particularly their cash flow.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
There is no crystal ball that will tell us how bad the virus will be in various areas. I thank the Chief Secretary for his assurance that the Government will be flexible and continue to offer targeted support in areas of high coronavirus rates. Will he also assure my constituents in Wolverhampton North East and people in the Black Country that the Government’s levelling up agenda will not be forgotten in the coming months?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance about levelling up. It is at the core of the Government’s mission. It is a key priority of the Prime Minister and consequentially of all Ministers. We are actively working in the Treasury to accelerate under Project Speed our infrastructure investment to ensure that it is better targeted in terms of place as well as scheme.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
London, which is now on a watch list, is not only our financial centre but our cultural capital. [Interruption.] I believe so. It is the nation’s beating heart. Despite the £1.57 billion arts rescue package, freelancers and the self-employed in the sector in my constituency have not seen a penny since March. Established venues such as The Questors in Ealing face a record loss this year because the panto is off—oh yes it is! Will the Chief Secretary not be a villain and sort this out now?
Steve Barclay
I shall resist pursuing the panto theme, although I am not sure too many villains have allocated £1.57 billion to the industry in addition to the other package of support that the Chancellor has announced. The hon. Lady speaks of a real concern, which we are acutely aware of. The House has debated at length the issue of that subset of the self-employed who were beyond the date of the initial package and I do not think we need to rehearse that argument, but I recognise that it is an issue of ongoing concern. By international standards, the self-employed income support package that we have put in place is extremely generous, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor extended it further in the winter plan.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Hyndburn and Haslingden have been in local restrictions since 31 July, and were only removed for a short period beforehand. My local authorities are playing a huge part in supporting my community, to support the most vulnerable people and keep vital services running. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to support them and what further support is being considered if further restrictions are imposed?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is quite right to single out the huge amount of work being done by local authorities up and down the country to assist us in our response to the pandemic, and I am sure that I join many hon. Members in paying tribute to that work. She will be aware that my right hon Friend the Chancellor announced £3.7 billion of grant support for councils, an extra £1.1 billion of support for social care providers, and on top of that £300 million as part of our enhanced track and trace. In addition, £100 million was announced for the surge, in our response to local authorities. It is an important point; we work very closely with local authorities as part of our response.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
We now have local lockdowns on top of the threat of further national restrictions, warnings daily from various sectors, and the threat of mass unemployment. Many companies are under threat because they are being responsible and following restrictions, so, bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said about flexibility, will the Government now accept that an extension to furlough into June 2021, which experts say could protect more than 1 million jobs, is absolutely vital to those companies?
Steve Barclay
I am very proud that, as a result of our ability to act as one UK, the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom have enabled us to protect almost a million jobs in Scotland, supporting nearly half a million through the furlough scheme, and 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from the UK Government loan scheme. The ability of the Treasury and the Government to act and support businesses and jobs in Scotland has been enhanced by our ability to act as one United Kingdom.
On what further measures are taken, I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the solution would be to extend the furlough scheme indefinitely, because I think that would hold out to people the expectation of a job that may never return, and do so at very significant cost. That is why we need to support those jobs that are viable, and, in addition we need a training package to enable people to get the skills to re-enter the labour market when they are needed.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that while some parts of the Labour party see this as a good crisis to exploit, we have actually managed to ensure that our response has helped the least well-off the most, proportionately?
Steve Barclay
It has been a time when most people have come together and worked together to respond to the very legitimate concerns that we all have on behalf of our constituents. The more we can work together across the United Kingdom and with local authorities and other stakeholders, the stronger the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The further restrictions announced on 1 October will have a huge impact on the Liverpool city region’s retail, hospitality and leisure sector—a sector that accounts for 20% of the city region’s economy. The end of the furlough scheme and the 20% below self-employed income support scheme will impact thousands of jobs and hundreds of businesses. The £7 million to be shared with other areas is not enough. The city region has therefore called for a support package totalling £710 million, in order to ensure that we have an economy to revive. Will the Chancellor make a statement on what financial support will be made available to the Liverpool city region?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady says that there should be a package for the Liverpool city region of £700 million of additional funding. That would equate to over £23 billion if applied evenly on a per head basis across England. It is important that we are proportionate. Of course, the £7 million is not in isolation; it sits alongside the many other things that have been announced, including £130 million of un-ring-fenced funding to the Liverpool city region in March; but I am happy to continue to work with colleagues across the House in considering our wider response.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
May I return to the sectors that are effectively closed by the lockdown rules? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Chancellor is looking at what support he can give, he thinks about companies in the supply chains to those sectors, which have lost all their orders but so far have not had the benefit of some of the help, such as the business rate reliefs?
Steve Barclay
One of the difficulties when people talk about extending the furlough is that those supplying particular sectors do not simply supply one sector; they usually supply across sectors. In the wider discussion about extending the furlough, not only is there the question of how long, because we do not know how long it will be until a vaccine arrives, but it is often unclear from those seeking an extension which sectors it would apply to and how it would apply to the supply chains of those sectors. The reality is that people do not simply supply one sector; supply chains reach across many sectors.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Minister knows that the Rhondda has not just had to contend with coronavirus this year; we have had the worst flooding of any area in the whole of the UK—nearly a quarter of it was in one constituency—and we have had a major landslide from a coal tip. In February, the Prime Minister promised this House that the money would be “passported” from Westminster to Rhondda Cynon Taf to pay for the repair work. In June, the Prime Minister told me that the work had to be done and that he would be looking at making sure it happened. The Minister wrote to me in July to say that we should be applying to the reserve fund. I cannot underline more strongly how serious this is for the local community. We are one of the poorest communities in the whole of Europe. The local authority will be bankrupted if we do not get the money. There are families who are fearful that they are going to be flooded all over again, and many more who are even more worried that there will be another Aberfan. Please, please, please, just say the money is going to come.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman has raised this before and I discussed it with the Secretary of State for Wales. As a result of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will ask for an urgent update to clarify with the Secretary of State what the latest is on that. Because of the emotion that I think everyone feels around the national tragedy of Aberfan, we recognise the specific issue in that regard, and I know that the Prime Minister is very sighted on it. To be fair, I think the issue has more aspects to it than simply the individual site that is of most concern; there is a wider discussion with the Welsh Government around flood protection and where that funding is, but I am very happy to follow up. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue before, let me follow it up, and I will write to him following today’s exchange.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Welsh Government have imposed movement restrictions in four north Wales counties, an area where tourism and hospitality are the mainstay of the economy. That has had an immediate adverse effect on local businesses, some of which have closed, maybe never to open again. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Welsh Government have been in touch with the Treasury to outline what financial measures they intend to put in place to compensate the businesses that have been so badly affected by this action?
Steve Barclay
I am not aware of any specific representations in respect of the individual case that my right hon. Friend refers to. The wider point I would make is that it is important across the United Kingdom as a whole that decisions on local lockdowns are shaped by the Joint Biosecurity Centre so that we have a consistency of approach that is led by the medical science, and then, on the basis of that, the Treasury can have discussions about any individual issues that arise from that advice from the Joint Biosecurity Centre.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Last Friday, in an interview with the BBC, the Prime Minister said that additional resources would be available for Northern Ireland in the light of restrictions due to alarming covid numbers, which are now twice the UK average. There are local restrictions in place, hundreds of students are isolating, and businesses are struggling but have to keep the doors open to pay the bills. With furlough ending and an extra 89,000 universal credit claimants just in the second quarter of this year, people cannot afford to wait and see. When asked whether extra funds would be available, the Prime Minister said, “Absolutely.” When will those funds come?
Steve Barclay
We have provided significant funds to Northern Ireland—an additional £2.2 billion—to cope with the pressures of the pandemic, and that has enabled 300,000 jobs in Northern Ireland to be protected through the furlough scheme, along with an additional 78,000 jobs through the self-employed income support scheme. Indeed, the package of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his winter plan applies in terms of additional support for Northern Ireland as it shapes its response to the pandemic.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the best way to help business is to let business get on with the job, as free as possible from Government control? Will he note that when the Treasury argues against further lockdowns for business, scores of Tory MPs and tens of thousands of businesses cheer it on? After all, to quote the Chancellor, is it not our “sacred” duty to “balance the books”? What is the point of solving this problem by borrowing money? Is that not the socialist way? What would be the point of a Conservative Government if we did that?
Steve Barclay
As a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend is quite right to focus on the importance of value for money and protecting the interests of the taxpayer. He knows me well enough to know that I share that sentiment. On our wider response, it is important that we get the right balance between responding to the virus and doing so in a way that is supportive to the economy. It is a false choice to see this as a choice between health and economics; they are clearly intertwined and we need to work together in shaping our response.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a horrific irony that while we risk 1980s levels of unemployment, the Chancellor was busy reminding his party conference that Tory values are old and timeless. I appreciate that not every job can be saved, but many more jobs can be saved by a proper extension of the furlough scheme and targeted support for aerospace, aviation, travel, tourism, hospitality, the night-time economy and those excluded to date. If the Treasury is not going to step up, does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government need borrowing powers so that they can provide targeted sector support and localised support where local restrictions might be needed for public health measures?
Steve Barclay
The slightly puzzling thing is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept yes for an answer. When I was asked by the Scottish Government Finance Minister whether I would give further guarantees on Barnett consequentials, we agreed that, thereby enabling the Scottish Government to make spending commitments with that guarantee, yet that point is not recognised at all. The reality is that it is because of our broad shoulders and ability to act across the United Kingdom that we have been able to protect 930,000 jobs in Scotland at the peak in July, and 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from our loan schemes. Our ability to act across the United Kingdom enables us to better protect jobs.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend not to forget areas like the High Peak which, although not under local restrictions themselves, are impacted economically by the local restrictions next door in Greater Manchester. I wish to highlight specifically the events industry, which, if it is allowed to trade again, could be a crucible for economic recovery. The situation is imminent—lots of fantastic events, such as Buxton International Festival, are having to make decisions now about when their event can go ahead next year—so I urge my right hon. Friend to look urgently at measures for the industry.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is quite right that the impact on business is not constrained to those areas most acutely affected by the virus; there is a wider displacement effect on businesses, including in neighbouring constituencies. We very much recognise that issue, which very much shaped the approach that the Chancellor set out in the winter plan, particularly in respect of the cash-flow pressures faced by those businesses. Together with the job support that he brought forward, the package recognises the very real pressures businesses face and will provide comfort as we go through the winter period.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) [V]
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he would be willing to work with MPs from all parties because of our concerns about the vulnerability of the hospitality, retail and live entertainment industry. In the light of that invitation, may I suggest that he agrees to meet local MPs from our city region, together with council leaders and the Metro Mayor, for a constructive discussion about how a comprehensive package for those sectors and others can be put in place as a matter of urgency?
Steve Barclay
As I think colleagues across the House would recognise, I have always been open to meeting MPs from all parties, and I am happy to give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman to meet MPs to discuss these issues. On the Liverpool city region, the point I was making in response to the previous question is that the request for £700 million that has come in will equate to an additional funding commitment of £23 billion. There is a responsibility on all of us, not just on Government, to have a view of the wider value for money of schemes, because £23 billion, in addition to the other packages, is a very significant amount.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
Some of those worst affected by local lockdown measures will be our young people, who are left isolated or worse still, trapped in unhealthy home environments, and there will be long-term implications for local services that stem from that. Youth groups and organisations that can offer support need help, and the youth investment fund is vital to their sustainability. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to end the delay to that funding and get that help to the young people who need it?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right that the youth investment fund is a very important allocation—£500 million was allocated in September 2019 under the fund. However, he speaks to a more fundamental point, which is that many of those most affected by covid’s economic consequences are the young, who tend to concentrate in areas such as hospitality that are most impacted. That is why the Chancellor has set out measures such as the £2 billion for the kickstart scheme, the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprentices and the doubling of work coaches. We recognise that it is not just the number of young people whose jobs go, but the length of time that they are out of the labour market that is absolutely crucial. Both of those are key areas of focus and I look forward to working with him in our response on them.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) [V]
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), what consideration have the Government given to the impact of local lockdowns on businesses and supply chains located beyond the lockdown areas? What support will be made available to businesses that are materially impacted by restrictions imposed elsewhere?
Steve Barclay
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), it is absolutely valid for colleagues across the House to raise the wider impact. That is partly why we gave the guarantee on Barnett consequentials, which has meant that the Welsh Government have benefited to the tune of £4 billion. It is why we are engaging very closely with the Welsh Government, among others, on shaping our response, and why the Chancellor set out, through the winter plan, the package of additional measures, building on his plan for jobs—the £30 billion that was announced in July. We recognise that it is not only the areas most affected by lockdown that have pressures in terms of retaining jobs or cash flow challenges; the winter plan spoke to the issue much more widely across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
There are 660 closed and shuttered nightclubs and live entertainment venues across the west midlands. I understand that they are not eligible for any help from the local restrictions support grant. Why not?
Steve Barclay
First, all businesses are able to benefit from the universal elements of the support package put in place by the Chancellor, whether that means loans, tax referrals or schemes such as the furlough. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the nightclub sector is affected acutely, among all businesses affected. That is not just because it has been shut down from the start of the lockdown, but because it is very unclear when the end will be in sight, in terms of that sector and our ability to reopen. That is why the Chancellor has said, extremely reluctantly, that we are not in a position to save every single job. I think that around a third of nightclubs have repurposed by becoming pubs or reshaping their offer, but I absolutely accept that not all nightclubs will be able to do that. We are trying to target the very comprehensive measures of support on areas where jobs can be saved, but we recognise that not every single job will be saved.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, more than 11,600 jobs have been protected so far through the furlough scheme and more than £50 million has been made available to businesses to bounce back through various loans and grants. Recently, Stoke-on-Trent was removed from the watchlist and avoided a local lockdown, thanks to prompt local action; however, we are geographically close to many local lockdown areas. I ask my right hon. Friend for reassurance that those businesses in Stoke-on-Trent most economically vulnerable to any local lockdown will continue to be able to access financial support.
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the package of support that the Chancellor set out in his winter plan will assist businesses in Stoke and elsewhere, bringing back jobs that are viable and supporting them in terms of their cash flow. Furlough has already seen more than half the jobs—from a peak of 8.9 million—come back, so it has served a key part of its purpose. I know that my hon. Friend is also a keen champion of the wider levelling up agenda, so as those businesses bounce back, it will also be important that we work together on that agenda, which I know areas such as Stoke should benefit from very strongly.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
In the leisure and entertainment industry in my constituency, Cineworld shut its cinema, Hollywood Bowl has written to me about the problems that it has, wanting a further cut in VAT because of the impact of additional restrictions, Peller Agency has had virtually no work for any of its artists in live entertainment venues since March, and Central Travel and Linburg Travel were offered no help by the Government at all because, perversely, coach companies are not seen as part of the leisure industry. Those are effects on the constituency without additional restrictions; it can only get worse if additional restrictions come into play. Will the Government introduce a comprehensive range of measures to help the leisure and entertainment industry? Ultimately, if measures are not brought in, such products and offerings will not be available for all of us to enjoy once the restrictions are lifted.
Steve Barclay
I gently take issue with the point about coaches not having support. One of the areas where coach firms have been able to benefit hugely from our response, and to work with the Government, has been in school transport. We were able to secure the additional capacity that we needed in part through the willingness of coach companies to adapt as part of our response. It is not the case that coach companies have been unable to get any business during the pandemic.
On more comprehensive measures, the hon. Member is right that the cinema industry has been hit hard. We were all concerned to see the announcement from Cineworld at the weekend. Together with Odeon and Vue that is 75% of the market, but as he knows it is not simply down to one issue. With cinemas, there is the supply of films—the delay of some of the blockbuster films has had an impact—and consumer confidence. Attendance is significantly down compared with last year, and there is also the impact of the non-pharmaceutical interventions. There is not one single factor, but we continue to work with the cinema industry in shaping our response.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health for Blackburn and Darwen said that some of the more economically challenged boroughs are
“being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their…case rate trajectory. This has the effect of exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus in those areas.”
Why are some areas being treated differently from other areas, and can the Minister not see the need to have greater transparency and equity across the board?
Steve Barclay
The pace of those medically driven decisions is more, perhaps, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I know has been to the Chamber and answered such questions. I am willing to flag the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the transparency of that process.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the generous and timely support that businesses and workers across Aberconwy have received during this pandemic. Sadly, the same businesses and workers, mainly in tourism, are struggling now under fresh local restrictions that have been brought in by the Welsh Government. I noted the Minister’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). Will he press the Welsh Government, when they introduce local restrictions that are stricter than those in other parts of the UK, and do so at lower thresholds than in other parts of the UK, to also provide the funding that the businesses and workers struggling under them need?
Steve Barclay
As I said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), it is important that these decisions are shaped by the Joint Biosecurity Centre and that it takes a consistent approach throughout the United Kingdom. That helps not only with the consistency of support that can be offered to businesses across the UK, but with communication to constituents and the clarity of that message.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) to meet local MPs, local leaders and the Mayor to talk about what is happening in the Liverpool city region. The Minister will know that £7 million between nine different local authorities as extra money for the much more severe restrictions being imposed is not nearly enough, so will he promise to keep an open mind about the extra support we need in a region where 20% of our economy is the visitor offer, hospitality and tourism, and where 50,000 jobs and 4,000 businesses are at stake?
Steve Barclay
As I said to colleagues earlier, I am happy to meet Members of Parliament across the House, and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady, who brings considerable experience to these issues from her time in government. However, as I pointed out earlier, it is not the case that it is only £7 million of support. It is important to look at the wider package of support that has been offered, but of course we can discuss that in due course.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
There is no doubt that a number of businesses in Birmingham, Northfield and across Birmingham, especially in hospitality, would not exist now if it was not for the support packages put in place by the Government over the past several months. Will my right hon. Friend please commit to looking at as many ways as possible of supporting businesses, especially those affected by the local restrictions and the 10 pm curfew?
Steve Barclay
As I said in an earlier reply, the Chancellor was very clear yesterday that he continues to listen and to strive to be creative in our response. I refer my hon. Friend to the comprehensive package that has already been announced, including the winter plan that the Chancellor has announced, which provides considerable support to businesses through the furlough bonus, the jobs support scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, the tax deferrals, the loans and so on, all of which support businesses in his constituency.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The fact is that more and more people are struggling just to put food on the table, as the Trussell Trust and others have highlighted, so with furlough being wound down, will the Government end the five-week wait for universal credit? Will they also make the £20 uplift permanent and extend it to legacy benefits? These measures are desperately needed.
Steve Barclay
We always keep these things under review. That was a temporary set of measures brought in by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but the hon. Member is right to point to the wider package of support that the Government offer. Following the package of support that was set out in March for individuals, public services and businesses, he will recall that the Chancellor has continued to revise that, with the most recent iteration being the winter plan that he announced in the Chamber a week or so ago.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
A theme of many of the questions, and of some of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s answers, is predicated on the assumption that some of these economic support measures will be needed only for a short period. My right hon. Friend referred to the potential for a vaccine to solve the problem. Is it the Treasury’s assumption that these measures will be needed only for a short period and that a vaccine will come along and solve everything, or is it more likely, as I believe, that we will see permanent changes to our economy that will require us to accept that a significant economic transformation is required?
Steve Barclay
The significant fiscal measures that we have put in place will clearly have longer-term consequences for the public finances. The Chancellor has been quite clear about that in terms of our response to the future fiscal event. In terms of the timing of a vaccine, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, things have changed since March, when there was perhaps a sense initially that these measures would be needed for a shorter period, and it is now clear that we will be living with the virus for a longer period—at least for a further six months. I know, however, that through the work of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a huge amount of work is going on in the vaccines taskforce, because that is clearly the best way to limit the longer-term damage. However, we cannot guarantee the timing of when any vaccine would arrive.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will no doubt appreciate just how precarious the future of many businesses is and how desperately worried they are that they could face further restrictions and more local lockdowns. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), will the Minister please outline the additional and specific support that businesses that do not have to close but are facing significantly lower demand can expect to receive?
Steve Barclay
One of most important areas of support is avoiding, if at all possible, businesses closing in the first place. That is why, in response to the measures brought forward by the Secretary of State for Health, we have drawn the balance between businesses being open for the majority of the evening and addressing the risk—outlined by the chief medical officer and others—that social distancing tends to be weaker later in the evening. This addresses the concerns of the Department of Health about the increased risk, while protecting the ability of businesses to stay open. It is important that we keep this measure under review and ensure that the modelling and the data evolve so that we get the balance right for businesses.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Many of the areas that have been hit hardest by covid are those that relate most to the Government’s levelling-up agenda and that, like Stoke-on-Trent, will be vital for unlocking productivity. Will my right hon. Friend prioritise ensuring that we continue to see a refocusing of investment into these areas as we build a stronger recovery, so that no part of our country is left behind again?
Steve Barclay
There are few stronger champions of the levelling-up agenda in this House than my hon. Friend, and rightly so. I share his determination to ensure that our levelling-up agenda speaks to the people of Stoke and to many other places across the United Kingdom. I look forward to continuing conversations with him as we take that important work forward.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
From 1 November, the job support scheme will only be available to firms that can offer their staff at least a third of their usual working hours. For businesses forced to close as a result of local restrictions, that will not be possible. What do the Government suggest such businesses do in these circumstances to retain their staff who are skilled and who have been trained by these businesses?
Steve Barclay
As we covered earlier, there are specific measures for areas with local lockdowns, such as the £1,500 support for businesses that are closed for three weeks or more. The Chancellor announced a package of measures in the winter plan, including tax deferrals, loans and other cash-flow support, alongside the self-employed income support and job support that he announced in the same statement.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Harrow so that Bob Blackman can glide his question in.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, ground control.
I thank my right hon. Friend for explaining the current position. He will know that we are currently experiencing an increase in the infection rate in virtually every borough in London. What we do not know is whether lockdowns or further restrictions will take place covering the whole of London or on a borough-by-borough basis. In either case, there will be a huge impact on business, so will my right hon. Friend set out what measures will be in place to support London and each London borough in the event of local lockdowns or a London-wide lockdown?
Steve Barclay
As I have said in reply to a number of colleagues, we will continue to listen and evaluate the circumstances, including as applies to London. The Chancellor has set out a comprehensive package of support that applies to businesses within the London community, assisting them in their ability to retain what is most prized within a business, which is the talent of its own staff, and in addressing particular cash-flow pressure. We responded very much to the feedback that we have received from business leaders, including business leaders in London, as the winter package was shaped.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The International Monetary Fund has encouraged Governments to spend on infrastructure. In London, the infrastructure is the west end and the suburban theatres. What urgent plan will the Government put in place to protect the workers—whether the technicians, the actors, the divas or the stars—to keep our desperately loved theatre going?
Steve Barclay
On the specific point about the theatre, it is sector championed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I referred earlier to the £1.57 billion package that the Chancellor has set out. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of infrastructure as a whole. Theatre is one aspect, but there is a much wider piece that includes Crossrail, High Speed 2, the acceleration of our road schemes, and broadband in particular to areas of poor connectivity. There is a huge agenda for infrastructure, and delivering that at pace is a key focus of the Chancellor and the Treasury team.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The hospitality sector has benefited from an incredible and innovative package of support, and I hope that will continue in a targeted way to mitigate the impact of local lockdown. But if we do not rethink the 10 pm curfew, we could see bars, pubs, restaurants and breweries call last orders for the final time. Will the Government back Britain’s boozers and breweries and reconsider their approach to the 10 pm curfew?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important that we act in a targeted way both in terms of our economic measures and in our health response to the pandemic. It is about getting that balance right.
On the 10 pm curfew, it is worth reflecting on the fact that we are not alone in that. The Netherlands and parts of Spain, such as Madrid, have taken a similar approach, but it is all about getting the balance right and ensuring that we act in a targeted way, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Live music professionals in my constituency saw an average income drop of 97.5% during the initial lockdown. If further local restrictions come into force, the situation is likely to become even bleaker. Given that the sector employs 589,000 people nationally and that their skills are in demand worldwide, will the Chief Secretary extend the remit of the £1.57 billion arts support package to cover live music?
Steve Barclay
We keep all packages under review but, to address the very legitimate point that the hon. Lady raises about particular impacts within the economy, we have extended the self-employed income support scheme as one of the vehicles of assisting many of her constituents and those affected particularly in the arts. It is the case that certain sectors have been acutely hit and where we are not able to save every job in a sector, it is extremely important that we are able to get the support, the skills and the training package in place to people from such sectors in the wider economy.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
We can all agree that the Government’s economic support has been a lifeline for millions of hard-working people but in local lockdown areas, such as those across the north-east, hospitality businesses are really struggling with restrictions such as the 10 pm curfew and households not being able to meet for a meal and a pint across Bishop Auckland. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look at how he can offer additional economic and financial support? Some of these businesses have seen their takings drop through no fault of their own.
Steve Barclay
I know that the 10 pm curfew is an issue that a number of colleagues across the House have raised. As I said a moment ago, it is about getting the balance right. We have striven to ensure that venues are able to continue to be open most of the evening rather than, as we saw in the initial lockdown, having to close. It is about protecting the majority of the evening and getting the balance right with the later night socialising that the chief medical officer and others are most concerned about in terms of the risk to public health. It is something that we continue to keep under review and learn from other countries around the world. As I have said, other countries are addressing similar issues.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Last week, one of my constituents who owns a bridal store contacted me in desperation. Because of the coronavirus restrictions in the north-east, brides-to-be can no longer take a relative or friend to their dress-fitting appointments, a special time for any bride. Ultimately, this has led to numerous cancellations. To echo my hon. Friends, will the Minister commit to providing support for businesses, like my constituent’s, or will the Government allow them to fail through no fault of the owner?
Steve Barclay
This is one of those sectors that has been hit hard both emotionally and economically. One can see the human distress and the impact of the virus in such cases, at what is a pivotal moment in people’s lives, and also the economic distress. It is certainly not the case that this is about the Government letting businesses fail in that regard. The consequences of the pandemic hit particular sectors more acutely than others. We have put in place, as I said earlier, a comprehensive package of support, but it is also the case that not every single job will be protected. Where that is the case, we need to work with people to ensure that we are able to support them back into the labour market.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend’s response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about restrictions in London. I have heard from a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises in Wimbledon that the business rate support grant—the relief that the Government made available—was the lifeline that has kept them going. If there are further restrictions to be imposed, may I ask him to look again at that as the way to help SMEs, a vital part of our economy, to keep going?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority when it comes to the business community. I know that he engages extensively with it and understands the issues closely. I am very happy to relay the issue that he raises to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have put in place a comprehensive package of support. It will not address every job, and the Chancellor has been honest with the public in that regard, but it is right that we keep the situation under review. I will take my hon. Friend’s representations on that issue.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
With the Health Secretary reportedly considering further restrictions on hospitality in areas of local restrictions and with 19,000 people in Bradford still on the furlough scheme that comes to an end in just 25 days, will the Treasury bring in a local furlough scheme to save those very viable jobs, which are now under threat as a direct result of this Government’s decisions?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises a legitimate concern, but I do not see the panacea to that being an extended furlough for an indefinite period. What has never been clear to me from those who seek to extend the furlough indefinitely is for how long they would extend it, and how many sectors would be included. We have taken a different approach, as the Chancellor has set out, through the winter plan, the job support scheme and the self-employed income support scheme to support those jobs that we are able to support. I say respectfully to the hon. Lady that I do not agree that the panacea to this would be an open-ended furlough.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I think there is a growing understanding that we will be wrestling with this crisis for perhaps many more months to come—far longer than any of us had perhaps hoped at the beginning of the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential we have a longer-term framework in place—a framework of support for families and for businesses through periods of rolling on-off lockdowns and through periods of self-isolation and sickness—and that, underneath that framework of support for society and for business, we need a strong safety net of social security, which is the hallmark of a decent society?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that our response to the pandemic needs to evolve as our understanding of the disease improves but also as we get a better understanding of how long we will live with the consequences of the pandemic. That is at the heart of the Chancellor’s strategy. In the initial phase in March, we locked down to protect the NHS to build our capacity. There was a shift to the second phase in July, with the plan for jobs and more recently with the winter plan as we look to move people from being furloughed at home to being brought back into the workplace. The more tailored approach of which he speaks is shaped by things such as track and trace and the significant funding that the Treasury has put into that programme in order, as he rightly says, that we can be very targeted as we deal with this in the months ahead.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
In areas of Lancashire—in South Ribble, Chorley and West Lancashire—that I represent, I speak to businesses and they get that we are trying to save lives. The businesses they are in are people businesses—they are in events, weddings and bands—and they will put people first, but they are looking at three winters. They would not be here without the coronavirus business interruption loans, the bounce back loans and the furlough. But can the Minister assure me that he is giving every consideration to ensure that those businesses are still here when we are past this awful virus?
Steve Barclay
The Chancellor, through measures such as the extension of the loans to which my hon. Friend refers, and other cash flow measures such as tax deferrals, is seeking to support those businesses, but we do face living with the virus for a longer period. That is why, as our approach evolves, we need to be targeted, so that we get the balance right, not just between the health measures and the economy, but within the economy, where we need to get the balance right between wider fiscal sustainability and the support we are able to offer specific sectors.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The speculation in the media today that the Scottish Government are about to introduce greater restrictions in Scotland just as we go into the October school holiday is causing tremendous concern to businesses in my constituency, especially those working in the visitor economy. What comfort is the Chief Secretary able to give them that, at this last opportunity they have for a bit of a boost before the third winter comes, they will be protected and that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that they get the support they need?
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The response to the pandemic is helped if across the UK we take a co-ordinated approach. For example, Scotland’s chief medical officer sits alongside the CMOs from the rest of the UK; a huge amount of joint work is undertaken through the Joint Biosecurity Centre; and I engage regularly with counterparts in the Scottish Government. He raises the important point that there is concern in the business community and it is important that a consistent message across the UK, followed by the CMOs, is applied.
Points of Order
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you may be aware, I am chair of the all-party group on coronavirus. On 22 July, in Prime Minister’s questions, we were given a welcome assurance by the Prime Minister that he would “look at” the recommendations we would send him very seriously. During the recess, we wrote to him and sent him the recommendations, but we never received a response. I then tabled a named day question on 17 September asking whether the Prime Minister had acknowledged the all-party group’s recommendations. That was then transferred from No. 10 to the Department of Health and Social Care. The named day, when the reply was meant to come back to us, was 22 September—two weeks later, we have still heard nothing. Our group has been looking at this in order to try to save lives before a second wave. That second wave is now upon us. We have heard moving evidence from those suffering from long covid, from bereaved families and from frontline staff, who deserve to know that the promise is kept to them and the Prime Minister looks at these recommendations seriously. Can you please advise me on what further action remains open to me to seek a substantive and timely response from the Prime Minister on whether he has met the recommendations and whether he has looked at them?
Mr Speaker
First, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise this matter. As Speaker, I have expressed my concerns on several occasions about the delays in answering written questions, particularly delays within the Department of Health and Social Care, none more so than in the case referred to in the text I received yesterday from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—she said that she had been waiting since April and had finally got a reply last week. The Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the instance that has been raised and I hope that they will also take action. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) may also wish to consider raising her concerns with the Procedure Committee, which keeps a watching brief on the timeliness and adequacy of answers to parliamentary questions. I am disappointed on her behalf and, although this does not make it better, she is certainly not on her own.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are aware that there are a number of reports in the Scottish media today regarding the possibility of increased restrictions in Scotland. It was suggested earlier today that we might in fact be heading for some sort of circuit-break lockdown. As things stand, it is my intention to go home on Thursday to return on Sunday for business on Monday. I am not, at present, sure if that is actually going to be possible. What guidance can you give to Members, especially from Scottish constituencies, who want to be here to carry out their duties in the House, especially in the light of the reluctance of the Leader of the House to allow us the continuation of digital participation to its full extent?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. While being grateful, I would also remind him that he knows very well that it is not a point for the Chair. The decision on the scope of virtual participation is for the House itself, but his views, I am sure, have been heard by hon. Members across the House. I express his concern myself, as well, in saying that we do have alternatives. It will depend on what news comes in the future, I am sure.
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.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age)
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) (No.2) Bill 2019-21 View all Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) (No.2) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to revoke parental or judicial consent which permits the marriage or civil partnership of a child and to criminalise child marriage or civil partnership under the age of 18; and for connected purposes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine that you are 16 years old, looking forward to your sixth-form education or going into an apprenticeship, and enjoying life, as 16-year-olds should, when all that comes to an abrupt end because your parents tell you that you are going to be married to a man you have never met who is more than 30 years old. You are taken out of school and unlikely to ever return. You are taken to choose your wedding dress and then later taken to the wedding ceremony. Many families, friends and acquaintances are there, but no one—from your teachers to the registrar—asks if you are happy with this. Why would they? A child has no rights, and the parents have given permission, so it is okay.
Anyone who watched the recent drama “Honour”, based on the true story of a girl who was married at 17 to an abusive husband against her will, will understand how shocking this can be. She divorced him, which shamed her family, and her father and other family members and friends killed her. Her sister was also married at 16 against her will to somebody much older than her in this country. She was abused by her husband and now campaigns against child marriage.
Jasvinder Sanghera from Derby set up Karma Nirvana over 25 years ago to provide help to young women, and some men, who have been forced to marry. It has helped thousands of girls over the years, but the sadness is that this charity is still needed. Jasvinder’s sister poured petrol over herself after her unhappy forced marriage and set light to herself in the streets of Derby. Jasvinder has campaigned over many years to stop forced marriage, and we now have a Bill. We need to go further, because so many people are coerced into marrying at 16, and they dare not say anything to the authorities because they are children and frightened. This is what happens to thousands of girls. It is not exclusively girls—some boys are married at this age too, but it is a minority.
Following the first Girl Summit in 2014, the Department for International Development allocated up to £39 million to support global efforts to prevent child marriages. By that proactive contribution, the UK recognised that child marriages result in early pregnancy, social isolation, interrupted or stopped education, limited career and vocational opportunities and a risk of increased domestic violence. Why are we allowing the marriage of children in this country when the recognised age of adulthood is 18? The Government have signed two international human rights conventions which demand that signatories end child marriage in their jurisdictions. We are violating those conventions and allowing child sex abuse.
The law allowing marriage with parental consent dates back to 1929, when parents were most concerned about property rights. Since then, our understanding of childhood and marriage has changed significantly. The United Kingdom now requires everyone to be in education or training until the age of 18, and then they are encouraged to pursue a university education. Social aspirations have increased, especially for girls and women. A 2012 YouGov poll on the ideal age of marriage found that only 2% thought that under 20 is the ideal age for marriage, and 49% considered 25 to 29 to be the ideal age. Many young people do not marry until after 30 these days.
Decreasing numbers take advantage of this opportunity every year, or at least those who are registered. In 2017, 43 men and 140 women were married under the age of 18, contrasting with 228 men and 3,486 women in 1929. There is an argument used by Ministers that numbers are so small that it is not worth the legislative time to make this change. However, preventing the harm to those who are married more than justifies the time and effort.
We must remember that many marriages happen outside Britain, and young women and some men are brought back to this country already married. The data underestimates the scale of the problem. Religious and cultural child marriages may not be reported, and the forced marriage unit cannot act where the child does not understand marriage or has been groomed to appear willing. The British legal system is respected and followed throughout the world. UK laws therefore have international consequences.
Let us consider Bangladesh. Having raised the legal age of marriage to 18, with no exceptions, Bangladesh introduced an exception in 2017 allowing girls younger than 18 to marry in special circumstances. One Bangladeshi Government official stated, “Child marriage is legal in the UK, so why shouldn’t it be allowed here?” According to Girls Not Brides, 59% of Bangladeshi girls are married before they are 18. Save the Children, in its “Global Childhood Report 2020”, estimates that half a million young girls are at risk of child marriage because of the economic impact of today’s pandemic.
The UK’s influence is more important than ever, and we should set a high standard. The current law fails to safeguard children in England and Wales, and it undermines the UK’s international efforts to prevent child marriage elsewhere. By abolishing the exception and criminalising child marriage, this Bill would remove an anachronism in marriage law and protect children worldwide, as well as the integrity of the institution of marriage.
We have young people staying in education and training, and they should not be leaving school, education and training to be married, so that they can never have an economic future of independence. They should not be having children too young, and they should not be forced into this situation. At 16, very few young people are able to fight against their parents; by the time they get to 18, there is much more opportunity because they can see a future of going off to university or further training and having some independence.
Apart from the pandemic, life is much better now than in 1929, and girls in particular have many more opportunities than young people brought up at that time. In 1929 there was nothing to do but to leave school at 14 and go to work, and the work was pretty menial for most girls. Life has changed, and girls can do anything they wish: they can become barristers or doctors; they can work and live abroad; they can travel. They have so many opportunities. They can even become MPs now, which is quite a relief. They will not be able to do any of those things if they miss out on education and training because they have left school to get married.
It is time this country came into the 21st century and changed it completely so that girls, and some boys, are protected while they are still children. We need to safeguard these children. We need to look after them and provide them with a future, which is what most of them want.
Question put and agreed to.
That Mrs Pauline Latham, Sarah Champion, Sir Graham Brady, Mr Virendra Sharma, Henry Smith, Philip Davies, Sir Roger Gale, Dr Dan Poulter, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Mrs Heather Wheeler, Ms Nusrat Ghani and Fiona Bruce present the Bill.
Mrs Pauline Latham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 192).
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 February 2020 (Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Question agreed to.
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 View all Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 6 October 2020 - (6 Oct 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
This Bill—Helen’s law, as we have come to know it—amends the release provisions that apply to offenders who do not disclose information relating to cases of murder, manslaughter, or taking or making indecent images of children. As Members are aware, it places existing Parole Board guidance on a statutory footing to ensure that parole board members must consider, when making release assessments, any non-disclosure of information relating to a victim’s remains if they were murdered, or the identity of the victims of child sexual abuse.
I once again pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in campaigning for this Bill. He was inspired by his constituent Marie McCourt, whose daughter, Helen, was tragically murdered. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), many of whose constituents were abused by Vanessa George. Without their tireless work, this Bill would not be progressing through Parliament. I extend to them, once again, my congratulations and thanks.
The Government agree entirely with the spirit and intent behind Baroness Kennedy’s amendment but have some issues with its practicality. Essentially, what it seeks to achieve is already achieved by other means. The first part of Baroness Kennedy’s amendment requires the Parole Board to take responsibility for contacting the victim, but there is of course already a victim contact service as part of the National Probation Service, which has responsibility for precisely that. We think it would create duplication and possibly confusion if two different bodies had the same responsibility for contacting victims.
Their lordships expressed some concern about the effectiveness of the current operation of the victim contact service. In particular, their amendment calls for communications with victims and their families to be done on an opt-out basis so that the family gets contacted automatically, and the contact desists only if the family or victim says, “No, we don’t want to hear anything further.” A pilot of doing exactly that has been running across many parts of the country, although—in response to an inquiry from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—not currently in Devon and Cornwall.
I am pleased to tell the House that, subsequent to the House of Lords’ consideration of this matter, a decision has been taken to roll out that programme nationally as part of the new victims code, which we expect will come into operation in early 2021. We intend to lay before Parliament a negative statutory instrument before long to give effect to that. That is precisely what the other place called for in its amendment. Subsequent to their lordships’ debate, it has been decided to progress and do that, so that part of the amendment is being done already. Their lordships might take some credit for prompting us, but it was something that we had been trialling previously, and we intended to do that. I hope that assurance that it will be done gives Members on both sides of the House a great deal of reassurance, happiness and contentment.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that when the Justice Committee looked at these issues after a great deal of publicity and some court cases, our inquiry shared many of the concerns of the other House about the effectiveness of the victim contact scheme. Can he assure us that appropriate organisational changes, and additional resources where necessary, have been put in to ensure that the scheme can discharge these important duties adequately?
Chris Philp
I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for the work that he and his Committee have done in this area, which has been very thorough and useful. I think we do accept the point that he has made, as have the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and others, that the victim contact scheme can be improved.
I have had discussions with the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has responsibility for prisons and probation. She has asked me to pass on to the House her undertaking to meet and speak to the Victims’ Commissioner about improving the victim contact scheme. We will also be happy, either in the same meeting or a separate one, to Labour Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and, if he wishes, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as well as the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for St Helens North and their constituents if they wish to join the meeting, to discuss any concerns they may have and any ideas they may have for further improvements to the victim contact scheme. I am happy to put that commitment by the Minister of State on the record this afternoon.
This Bill has progressed thus far with cross-party support. It has been worked on very constructively by those on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, as well as by those on the Back Benches. Indeed, it would not have got here without their work, as I said earlier. I hope we can continue in that spirit of cross-party unity on this topic.
Given that the victim contact scheme exists already and the opt-out changes will be made shortly, and given our commitment to work with the Victims’ Commissioner and others to further improve the victim contact scheme, I hope the House will join me in respectfully rebuffing—perhaps that is the word, or perhaps gently pushing back—the amendments that their lordships have sent in our direction.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
May I start by thanking the Minister for his comments and the tone in which he has conducted this debate? It is much appreciated by those of us on the Opposition Benches, I can assure him.
I start by paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of victims’ families, and in particular the campaigning of Marie McCourt and the families of those abused by Vanessa George. They have begged successive Governments to time the release of serious offenders in a way that is more responsive to victim circumstance. Supported by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), they have changed the law for the better.
Observers of this House from the outside may think it is quite normal for people to bring forward legislation from the Back Benches and get it all the way through both Houses, but it is very unusual. In fact, I think I am right in saying that both the Minister and I have attempted in the past to introduce legislation from the Back Benches. In his case, it was to tackle industrial relations in utility companies and in mine it was to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and both of us met with undignified failure. They have succeeded where we unfortunately failed.
Those families will make a significant difference to the lives of victims’ families for generations to come. They did so knowing that it would not materially impact their own situation. They did it to save others from the torment they have endured, and we are grateful to them.
As the House is aware, the first part of the Bill implements Helen’s law. Motivated by the case of Ian Simms, it forces the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of key information during the release decisions of people convicted of murder or manslaughter. The unwillingness of murderers to disclose such details is a source of merciless and unrelenting anguish. That is equally true of the young victims of Vanessa George, who was convicted of sexual assault and making and distributing indecent photographs of children. She was released from prison last year, despite never naming the children she abused. The second part of the Bill guarantees the same protections for victims in such cases.
It is unforgivable that our system has not better reflected the needs of those bereaved by such horrific crimes over previous decades. For far too long, victims and their families have been treated as an afterthought in the criminal justice system. They were described as such by the victims’ commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, in a recent interview. The Bill delivers two new key statutory rights to victims and their families. I hope the Government will continue with this direction of travel apace, because, despite repeated pledges, they have still failed to bring forward the long-promised victims law, which would offer a comprehensive set of rights and protections to the victims who so desperately need them. Such a law is desperately needed now more than ever, given the increasing rate of offences for which no one is ever brought to justice because of the victim and witnesses dropping out due to various different issues. We have pledges aplenty from the Government; we need more action.
There is far more left to do to address the systemic challenges facing victims in the criminal justice system. We on the Opposition Benches will continue to press the Government on this issue and work constructively with them when the opportunity arises, as we have done today. We will campaign unfailingly until comprehensive rights are guaranteed by law for those victims who need them the most. This Bill marks one very positive step forward, and the Opposition proudly support it on its convoluted pathway from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and through both Houses of Parliament. We now look forward to the difference it will make for victims and their families.
Lords amendment 1 was proposed in the other place by Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and seeks to address the asymmetry in offender and victim rights, wherein offenders receive regular communication from the authorities—a luxury that most victims will only ever dream of. This cannot continue, and Baroness Kennedy’s amendment represents an effort to tackle the injustice. However, we are happy to have agreed with the Minister, over the course of recent weeks, commitments regarding the future of the victim contact scheme. As a result, we will not seek to divide the House on the amendment.
I want to thank the Minister and put on the record the open-spirited way in which he has engaged with me and Members from all parties as we have approached today’s debate. First, we accept his argument that the creation of a victim database would replicate the work of the victim contact scheme. Victim liaison officers perform a vital role in keeping victims and their families up to date on the release process. That extends to those affected by the shocking crimes under discussion in respect of the Bill. There is scope to improve the scheme further, and the Government have pledged to review it as part of a broader reform of probation. It is vital that the tragic cases to which the Bill applies are given substantial consideration in any such review.
Secondly, we welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an opt-out system as part of the victim contact scheme. That will help to ensure that families of victims are empowered throughout the criminal justice process, extending support to more of those in need while protecting the right to withdraw from the contact process should that be desired.
Finally, we welcome the commitment to involving the Victims’ Commissioner in any review of the victim contact scheme. In her letter dated 7 August, the commissioner laid out her thoughts on how to make the scheme more responsive to victims’ needs, including by changing it from a transactional service into a package of end-to-end support and considering the benefits of co-location with victims’ services. The Government must work closely with the commissioner to consider the viability of her proposed changes.
I thank the Minister for inviting us on the Opposition Benches to contribute to any future review; it is generous of him and welcomed by us. We look forward to working with him on this issue and finding solutions to the challenges of how we ensure that families can easily update contact details over time. It is important that our political system, and those who work within it, come together when broad agreement can be found. Not only is this how politics can better reflect most people’s experiences in their daily lives, but it is a way that we in this House can demonstrate our respect for the suffering of victims and their families by coming together and putting their needs ahead of any others.
Sir Robert Neill
May I join the Minister and shadow Minister in paying tribute to the victims who have worked so hard to have an appalling wrong righted, and to the hon. Members of this House who have campaigned so steadfastly for that to be achieved? I welcome, too, the spirit in which the Minister has approached this issue throughout; I think we will all end up in the same position.
When the Select Committee heard evidence around these matters of disclosure—I am grateful again to those members of the public who assisted us while sometimes having to relive painful experiences, as hon. Members can imagine—we had concerns about the effectiveness of the victims service at that time. I am glad to hear that those changes have been made. I hope that the Minister will ensure that it continues to have the resources needed to provide what I think we all accept needs to be a more holistic support service for victims in such circumstances.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, which will go a long way to helping the families involved in the case of Vanessa George. I speak today on behalf of the families of the children who were abused by Vanessa George. Those babies and toddlers—as they were when they were abused—are still children and young adults, so they cannot be named; nor can I place on record the names of the family members who have done so much campaigning and hard work, and who have shared so many painful experiences in order to get this far. They know who they are and Plymouth is grateful to them, and I am grateful to them for their work in this respect.
Our campaign started when the news of Vanessa George’s release was made public. At first, its key objective was to prevent her early release, as someone who still held a power over the families and the victims: the names of the children who were abused. We do not believe that every child at Little Ted’s nursery in Laira was abused by Vanessa George, but we do not know which child was. That means that every single family who sent their most precious gift in the world—their child—to the nursery is living with the uncertainty over whether it is their child who was abused, and whether it is an image of the abuse of their child that is festering in some dark corner of the web somewhere. That is a cancer that eats away at people, and the courage and determination of the families throughout this process has been a real source of strength for me.
When it was announced that Vanessa George was released, the campaign then moved to strengthen the law. I want to pay tribute to the Government. As a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that is not something I find myself doing often, but in this respect, party politics has been put to one side. The Minister, his predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State, their Justice team colleagues and the officials went out of their way to listen to the family’s concerns and bring forward a measure that enacts the campaigns of two Labour MPs. That is testament to the importance of the issues and the sense that, despite the contested nature of our politics, there are things that we can all agree on and work together on to make our country better.
The campaign had two parts. One was tightening the law to make refusal to name children who have been abused a material consideration for the Parole Board in determining whether to release a prisoner. That legislative change is needed and I am grateful that it remains in the Bill. The second part relates to the amendment that was passed in the Lords. That was the softer side—communication and how the victims’ families felt involved in the process.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is extremely important that the contact database or the contact scheme that the Parole Board has lists each family member? So often in these instances, the trauma of what has happened leads to families breaking up. It is therefore important for each family member to know what is happening.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is exactly right. That point is an important part of the softer side of communication that needs to be built into the system. The majority of the families found out about the release not via communication from the authorities but through Facebook and our local media. That is an enormous tragedy for those families who were unable to prepare themselves or their children for what was coming.
The children who Vanessa George abused and those we think she may have abused and their classmates are now young adults of secondary school age. They are digital natives. They were born with the internet. They know the issues in their community and they have followed this issue, sometimes with greater awareness than their parents. Schools have done a tremendous job in ensuring that they are supported through the process, but we need to build that into a system to make sure that there is proper communication.
I am therefore pleased that the Minister has said that the pilot schemes that were put in place with the probation service will be rolled out nationally, including in Devon and Cornwall. That is a huge improvement on the current situation. I am also glad that they are “opt out” rather than “opt in”. Opting in when the crime or the trial takes place is an enormously difficult decision. As has been said, only one member of a family normally makes that decision to take the lead on liaison with the authorities. For most people, liaison with the police and the criminal justice system is not something that they go through every day, and it is a difficult decision. The ability to have a system, whereby families can adjust their details over time, when email addresses change and families break up, is important. The enormous stress of this case has led to families breaking up. It is right and proper that both parents—the mum and the dad—have the opportunity to know what is happening place.
I am also pleased that the Minister has set out the involvement of the Victims’ Commissioner. I have met her in relation to this case and I have found her as compassionate and skilled in her current role as she was when she was in this House. I know that her involvement will strengthen the system that flows from the Bill.
The roll-out of the victim contact scheme is important. I am glad that the Minister has made that commitment. I would be pleased to take him up on his offer of being involved with that and to feed in the families’ experiences. I have been sharing not just the communication but the whole process with Ministers. In a meeting with one of the Minister’s Justice colleagues, I spoke about the experience of one family member who gave evidence at the Parole Board hearing. It was a still a requirement to attend in person at that point, in the prison where the offender was held, to read out a statement. I could not understand why, in the 21st century, that could not be done by video link from a local court, sparing the family member the pressure of travelling. That applies particularly in the case of a female offender because we do not have as many female prisons as male prisons and that means travelling long distances, especially from the south-west, to give evidence. Coronavirus has speeded up the giving of video evidence, but I know that the Government were looking at a pilot, which was held in London, and that they are considering rolling it out nationwide. I hope that the importance of doing that can be reinforced.
On the basis of the reassurances that the Minister has provided today—I am grateful to him for doing so—I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in saying that we will not be pressing this amendment. I think that is a good thing because, in my mind, child abuse should not be party political: it should be something where we find common ground and work together. I am grateful to Baroness Kennedy in the other place for tabling the amendment and for pressing it, because in doing so she has listened to the campaign of the victims in Plymouth and has helped to achieve movement, which is very welcome. Vanessa George robbed these children of their innocence. She robbed the families of the trust that they could place in their local nursery, which has now closed. Each of the families I have spoken to has said, “This can’t change what happened, but it can stop it happening to someone else.” That is a really important part of where we are going.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his championing of the first part of this Bill in relation to Helen’s law. It is enormously difficult to make a case consistently for as long as he has done, but he has done so proudly, professionally and with great courtesy. I know he will continue to support Marie and the family. Notwithstanding the personal pain that she feels at the release of Helen’s killer, she was pleased to see that this law will come into force soon and hopes that no other family will have to go through what she has gone through. That is a lasting tribute to her campaigning.
I must admit that I was ill prepared to deal with the scale of child abuse that this case presented me with. We need to equip people in public life better for that. Dealing with one case of child abuse is awful, but I was ill prepared for the scale of challenge in dealing, as in this case, with dozens of babies and toddlers who had been abused and the uncertainty around that. I am very glad that, with the support of Labour Front Benchers and of Ministers and their officials, we are getting to a point where the victims will be able to see a form of justice done in improving the system, with better communication on what is taking place.
My final remark is to Vanessa George herself. She maintains a power over the victims by withholding their names. She will know the names of some of the children she abused and photographed and whose images she shared. Wherever she is in Britain at this point, she could help the families and relieve a part of their suffering and uncertainty by naming some of the children she abused. She must know the names. She must know that naming the kids would enormously help the healing process. I appeal to her to do that, because for as long as she holds on to those names, those families will not have peace. That is a really important of this issue.
I thank the Minister for the concessions and the announcements that he has made today. They go an enormous way towards delivering on the campaign on behalf of the families from Plymouth. This is a good Bill. I hope that it can be passed into law by Christmas so that all the families of the children who were abused in Plymouth will know that there is a strengthened legislation and better communication as a result of their campaign.
Jane Hunt
I would first like to express my support for this Bill as a whole. We absolutely must do everything we can to return the bodies of victims to their loved ones to ensure that they are afforded a proper burial and an opportunity to say goodbye. The death of any loved one can have a profound impact on family members and friends. From the testimony of the McCourt family, who have been the driving force behind this Bill, and that of many others, it is clear that that is magnified in cases of murder, and further still when an offender refuses to disclose where they have left the body of their victim. It is also right that the measures in this Bill extend to those who have been convicted of abusing children and making indecent images of their victims. That is a heinous crime, and families of potential victims deserve answers.
Turning to the amendment, I doubt that anyone would dispute the need to ensure that victims and their families are kept apprised of any parole applications and, indeed, of every stage of the parole process thereafter. Over the past few years as a caseworker for my predecessor and now as the Member of Parliament, I have supported constituents of mine such as the Weedon family, whose daughter Amanda was subjected to a frenzied attack by a complete stranger when walking home from her job as a nurse at a local hospital. She sustained 37 knife wounds. Even more shockingly, it was reported that the attack happened while the perpetrator was visiting the grave of his first victim. The perpetrator of these horrific crimes was sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1980s but made a parole application earlier this year. The family were subsequently informed of this and were able to make a victim personal statement and challenge the Parole Board’s decision in the necessary timeframe. Unfortunately, in this case, the prisoner was released, but the families were at least given the opportunity to make their views known.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I shall keep my remarks very short, but I want to say a few things in the cross-party spirit of the Bill. My remarks became even shorter after the Minister contacted me this morning and explained exactly the concessions that the Government are making. I am very grateful for that. I also pay tribute to the campaigners and Members of this House who have ensured that this important change in the law will hopefully come into force very soon, making life a lot better and more bearable for victims’ families, who have gone through traumatic experiences already.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will hopefully bring much needed justice for the families of victims. I sincerely hope that this legislation will mean that far fewer families find themselves in the awful position of not knowing what has happened after a loved one becomes a victim of a heinous crime.
The most important issue, which is at the core of the Bill, is improving communication, disclosure and open decision making. The parole function needs to make sure that the views of victims’ families are an essential part of that function. As we just heard, there are too many examples of a victim’s family finding out the result of a parole hearing only through media reports or online. I do not doubt that everyone in the House wants to ensure that our justice system does better to support victims. Parole Board cases are of great significance to victims’ families. They must have the right to know what is happening and to have their say—a meaningful say.
The issue we are debating, which arises from the Lords amendment—much of that has already been discussed—is effective communication with victims’ families. That is currently done through the probation service. The Lords amendment would require the Parole Board to provide the essential and meaningful communication with victims’ families. I understand that the Government are offering not to amend this essential part of the Bill, but to improve the probation service to a point where justice is done for the families of victims.
The Government do, however, agree with part of the Lords amendment and have already been running a pilot for opt-out systems so that families can have regular updates, and they intend to lay a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure at the beginning of the new year, in line with the new victims code. All that is very welcome. We have also heard that the Government are committing to more contact between the Prisons Minister and the Victims’ Commissioner. Again, that is very welcome.
The proof of those concessions, however, will be in their effectiveness, and we will need to see how effective the system is once it is up and running. My main request is for a proper review of whether the new arrangements have the required outcome of giving the families of victims of terrible crimes the justice that they deserve, and minimising the trauma that families go through.
Chris Philp
With the leave of the House, let me say a word or two in conclusion. I once again thank the hon. Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for their campaigning on this topic, and I thank the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench for the constructive cross-party spirit in which they have approached it.
This is an example of Parliament working at its best on an issue of profound importance to victims whose lives have been destroyed by either murderers or child abusers who seek to further torment their victims, even after the offence and their trial and conviction, by intentionally and maliciously withholding information about the whereabouts of the body or the identities of the children who have been abused. It is wicked and unacceptable, and this House, in passing this legislation, sends a clear message to those people that their behaviour is abhorrent and unacceptable, and we stand united against it.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 1;
That Chris Philp, Tom Pursglove, Neil O’Brien, Julie Marson, Bambos Charalambous and Peter Kyle be members of the Committee;
That Chris Philp be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not as usual in the Reasons Room but in Committee Room 12.
In order to allow Members to safely leave the Chamber and Members who are going to speak on the next item of business to enter, I suspend the sitting for three minutes.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 View all Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 October 2020 - (large print) - (6 Oct 2020)
16:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 175 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s chair during Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. During Committee, the occupant of the Chair should be addressed as Chair of the Committee, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Implementation of the 1996, 2005 and 2007 Hague Conventions
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“3F The 2007 Lugano Convention to have the force of law
(1) The 2007 Lugano Convention shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the 2007 Lugano Convention is to be read together with any reservations or declarations made by the United Kingdom at the time of the approval of the Convention.
(3) For convenience of reference the English text of the 2007 Lugano Convention is set out in Schedule 3H.”
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, page 2, line 21, leave out “3G” and insert “3H”.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 22, leave out “4” and insert
“(Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3H to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982)”.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(5) The 2007 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom, conditional upon the United Kingdom accession to such Convention.”
Clause 1 stand part.
Government amendment 5.
This amendment provides that regulations made under NC5 may make provision binding the Crown.
Clause 2 stand part.
Government amendment 6.
This amendment inserts a new subsection into Clause 3. This allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to extend to the Isle of Man NC5 (including NS4) and subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 inserted by Amendment 5.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government new clause 5—Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)—
“(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a ‘relevant international agreement’).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(5) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(6) Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) makes further provision about regulations under this section.
(7) In this section—
‘appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Northern Ireland department, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of a Northern Ireland department
‘international agreement’ means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party;
‘private international law’ includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(i) a judgment, order or arbitral award;
(ii) an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations;
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
(i) service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedures, or
(ii) anything within paragraph (a) or (b);
‘relevant international agreement’ has the meaning given in subsection (1);
‘relevant territory’ means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(8) This section and Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3))) have effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words ‘as revised from time to time’ were substituted for the words ‘as it has effect from time to time’.”
This new clause contains a power to implement international agreements relating to private international law.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (1), leave out from “implementing” to “relevant ” and insert “the”.
This amendment together with amendments (c), (d) and (g) is intended to ensure the powers in Government NC5 may be used only to implement the 2007 Lugano Convention.
Amendment (b) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (1), leave out “any” and insert “an”.
This amendment with Amendment (f) is intended to ensure that order making powers are confined to the international treaties set out in clause 1 only.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (2), leave out “a” and insert “the”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (3), leave out “a” and insert “the”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
Amendment (e) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (6), leave out
“Schedule (Regulations under section(Implementation of other agreements on private international law (Amendment3)))”
and insert
“Schedule (Regulations under section(Implementation of other Agreements on Private International Law (Amendment 2)))”.
This amendment would provide for super-affirmative procedure to be applied in accordance with NS3 to regulations made under Government NC5.
Amendment (f) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (7), after “party”, insert
“and which is set out in section 1.”
This amendment with Amendment (b) is intended to ensure that order making powers are confined to the international treaties set out in clause 1 only.
Amendment (g) to Government new clause 5, in subsection (7), leave out
“has the meaning given in subsection (1)”
and insert
“means the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Lugano on 30th October 2007 (the ‘2007 Lugano Convention’);”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment (a).
New clause 1—Implementation of other agreements on private international law—
“(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing an international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a ‘relevant international agreement’).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) This section applies (subject to subsection (5)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a relevant international agreement.
(5) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(6) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of the proposed agreement.
(7) In this section a reference to authenticating a relevant international agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.
(8) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under subsections (1), (2) or (3) for the purpose of implementing a relevant international agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(9) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, the relevant international agreement.
(10) In this section ‘Commons sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit.
(11) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(12) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(13) No regulations may be made under subsections (1),(2) or (3) after the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date of enactment of this Act.
(14) In this section—
‘appropriate national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
‘international agreement’ means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party and which is set out in section 1 of this Act;
‘private international law’ includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
‘relevant international agreement’ has the meaning given in subsection (1);
‘relevant territory’ means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(15) This section has effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words ‘as revised from time to time’ were substituted for the words ‘as it has effect from time to time’.”
This new clause is a modified version of clause 2 removed from the Bill by the House of Lords. This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least 10 Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a relevant international agreement are laid in draft under subsections (1), (2) and (3) requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a private international law agreement with another country and contains a sunset provision.
New clause 2—Implementation of the 2007 Lugano Convention—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Lugano on 30th October 2007 (the ‘2007 Lugano Convention’), in the event that the United Kingdom becomes a party to the Convention in its own right.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland Department before making regulations under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to super-affirmative resolution procedure (see Schedule (Super-affirmative resolution procedure)).”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations implementing the Lugano Convention in the UK, subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure in NS2.
New clause 6—Report on relevant international agreement—
“(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (2)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a relevant international agreement in accordance with section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
(2) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(3) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of the proposed agreement.
(4) In this section a reference to authenticating a relevant international agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.”
This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a private international law agreement with another country.
New clause 7—Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1), (2) or (3)—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) (1), (2) or (3) for the purpose of implementing a relevant international agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, the relevant international agreement.
(3) In this section, ‘Commons sitting day’ means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit.”
This new clause requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least ten Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a relevant international agreement are laid in draft under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Government NC5.
New clause 8—Sunset Provisions—
“No regulations may be made under subsections (1),(2) and (3) of section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)) after the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Government new schedule 4—Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 3)).
New schedule 1—Schedule 4A—
“Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 3H to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982
SCHEDULE 3H
Text of the 2007 Lugano Convention
CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS
(Concluded on 30 October 2007)
The High Contracting Parties to this Convention,
Determined to strengthen in their territories the legal protection of persons therein established,
Considering that it is necessary for this purpose to determine the international jurisdiction of the courts, to facilitate recognition, and to introduce an expeditious procedure for securing the enforcement of judgments, authentic instruments and court settlements,
Aware of the links between them, which have been sanctioned in the economic field by the free trade agreements concluded between the European Community and certain States members of the European Free Trade Association,
the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Accession Conventions under the successive enlargements of the European Union,
the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which extends the application of the rules of the 1968 Brussels Convention to certain States members of the European Free Trade Association,
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, which has replaced the abovementioned Brussels Convention,
the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005,
Persuaded that the extension of the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to the Contracting Parties to this instrument will strengthen legal and economic cooperation,
Desiring to ensure as uniform an interpretation as possible of this instrument,
Have in this spirit decided to conclude this Convention, and have agreed as follows—
TITLE I
SCOPE
Article 1
(1) This Convention shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters.
(2) The Convention shall not apply to—
(a) the status or legal capacity of natural persons, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession;
(b) bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;
(c) social security;
(d) arbitration.
(3) In this Convention, the term ‘State bound by this Convention’ shall mean any State that is a Contracting Party to this Convention or a Member State of the European Community. It may also mean the European Community.
TITLE II
JURISDICTION
SECTION 1
General provision
Article 2
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.
(2) Persons who are not nationals of the State bound by this Convention in which they are domiciled shall be governed by the rules of jurisdiction applicable to nationals of that State.
Article 3
(1) Persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued in the courts of another State bound by this Convention only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Title.
(2) In particular the rules of national jurisdiction set out in Annex I shall not be applicable as against them.
Article 4
(1) If the defendant is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, the jurisdiction of the courts of each State bound by this Convention shall, subject to the provisions of Articles 22 and 23, be determined by the law of that State.
(2) As against such a defendant, any person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, whatever his nationality, avail himself in that State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force, and in particular those specified in Annex I, in the same way as the nationals of that State.
SECTION 2
Special jurisdiction
Article 5
A person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may, in another State bound by this Convention, be sued—
(1) (a) in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question;
(b) for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be—
in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered;
in the case of the provision of services, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;
(c) if (b) does not apply then subparagraph (a) applies;
in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered;
in the case of the provision of services, the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;
(2) in matters relating to maintenance—
(a) in the courts for the place where the maintenance creditor is domiciled or habitually resident; or
(b) in the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning the status of a person if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties; or
(c) in the court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings concerning parental responsibility, if the matter relating to maintenance is ancillary to those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties.
(3) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur;
(4) as regards a civil claim for damages or restitution which is based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings, in the court seized of those proceedings, to the extent that that court has jurisdiction under its own law to entertain civil proceedings;
(5) as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place in which the branch, agency or other establishment is situated;
(6) as settlor, trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by the operation of a statute, or by a written instrument, or created orally and evidenced in writing, in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the trust is domiciled;
(7) as regards a dispute concerning the payment of remuneration claimed in respect of the salvage of a cargo or freight, in the court under the authority of which the cargo or freight in question—
(a) has been arrested to secure such payment; or
(b) could have been so arrested, but bail or other security has been given;
provided that this provision shall apply only if it is claimed that the defendant has an interest in the cargo or freight or had such an interest at the time of salvage.
Article 6
A person domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may also be sued—
(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;
(2) as a third party in an action on a warranty or guarantee, or in any other third party proceedings, in the court seized of the original proceedings, unless these were instituted solely with the object of removing him from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in his case;
(3) on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending;
(4) in matters relating to a contract, if the action may be combined with an action against the same defendant in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property, in the court of the State bound by this Convention in which the property is situated.
Article 7
Where by virtue of this Convention a court of a State bound by this Convention has jurisdiction in actions relating to liability from the use or operation of a ship, that court, or any other court substituted for this purpose by the internal law of that State, shall also have jurisdiction over claims for limitation of such liability.
SECTION 3
Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance
Article 8
In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5).
Article 9
(1) An insurer domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued—
(a) in the courts of the State where he is domiciled; or
(b) in another State bound by this Convention, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the plaintiff is domiciled; or
(c) if he is a co-insurer, in the courts of a State bound by this Convention in which proceedings are brought against the leading insurer.
(2) An insurer who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
Article 10
In respect of liability insurance or insurance of immovable property, the insurer may in addition be sued in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred. The same applies if movable and immovable property are covered by the same insurance policy and both are adversely affected by the same contingency.
Article 11
(1) In respect of liability insurance, the insurer may also, if the law of the court permits it, be joined in proceedings which the injured party has brought against the insured.
(2) Articles 8, 9 and 10 shall apply to actions brought by the injured party directly against the insurer, where such direct actions are permitted.
(3) If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.
Article 12
(1) Without prejudice to Article 11(3), an insurer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the defendant is domiciled, irrespective of whether he is the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary.
(2) The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 13
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
(3) which is concluded between a policyholder and an insurer, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same State bound by this Convention, and which has the effect of conferring jurisdiction on the courts of that State even if the harmful event were to occur abroad, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that State; or
(4) which is concluded with a policyholder who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, except insofar as the insurance is compulsory or relates to immovable property in a State bound by this Convention; or
(5) which relates to a contract of insurance insofar as it covers one or more of the risks set out in Article 14.
Article 14
The following are the risks referred to in Article 13(5)—
(1) any loss of or damage to—
(a) seagoing ships, installations situated offshore or on the high seas, or aircraft, arising from perils which relate to their use for commercial purposes;
(b) goods in transit, other than passengers’ baggage, where the transit consists of or includes carriage by such ships or aircraft;
(2) any liability, other than for bodily injury to passengers or loss of or damage to their baggage—
(a) arising out of the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a) insofar as, in respect of the latter, the law of the State bound by this Convention in which such aircraft are registered does not prohibit agreements on jurisdiction regarding insurance of such risks;
(b) for loss or damage caused by goods in transit as described in point 1(b);
(3) any financial loss connected with the use or operation of ships, installations or aircraft as referred to in point 1(a), in particular loss of freight or charter-hire;
(4) any risk or interest connected with any of those referred to in points 1 to 3;
(5) notwithstanding points 1 to 4, all large risks.
SECTION 4
Jurisdiction over consumer contracts
Article 15
(1) In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5), if:
(a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; or
(b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or
(c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the State bound by this Convention of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that State or to several States including that State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.
(2) Where a consumer enters into a contract with a party who is not domiciled in the State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention, that party shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
(3) This section shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.
Article 16
(1) A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which that party is domiciled or in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled.
(2) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the consumer is domiciled.
(3) This Article shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 17
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
(3) which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same State bound by this Convention, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that State.
SECTION 5
Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment
Article 18
(1) In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Articles 4 and 5(5).
(2) Where an employee enters into an individual contract of employment with an employer who is not domiciled in a State bound by this Convention but has a branch, agency or other establishment in one of the States bound by this Convention, the employer shall, in disputes arising out of the operations of the branch, agency or establishment, be deemed to be domiciled in that State.
Article 19
An employer domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued—
(1) in the courts of the State where he is domiciled; or
(2) in another State bound by this Convention—
(a) in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or
(b) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.
Article 20
(1) An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the employee is domiciled.
(2) The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this Section, the original claim is pending.
Article 21
The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement on jurisdiction—
(1) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
(2) which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.
SECTION 6
Exclusive jurisdiction
Article 22
The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile—
(1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the property is situated.
(a) However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same State bound by this Convention;
(2) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law;
(3) in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the register is kept;
(4) in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is, under the terms of a Community instrument or an international convention, deemed to have taken place.
(5) in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
SECTION 7
Prorogation of jurisdiction
Article 23
(1) If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, have agreed that a court or the courts of a State bound by this Convention are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Such an agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either—
(a) in writing or evidenced in writing; or
(b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or
(c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
(2) Any communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement shall be equivalent to ‘writing’.
(3) Where such an agreement is concluded by parties, none of whom is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention, the courts of other States bound by this Convention shall have no jurisdiction over their disputes unless the court or courts chosen have declined jurisdiction.
(4) The court or courts of a State bound by this Convention on which a trust instrument has conferred jurisdiction shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any proceedings brought against a settlor, trustee or beneficiary, if relations between these persons or their rights or obligations under the trust are involved.
(5) Agreements or provisions of a trust instrument conferring jurisdiction shall have no legal force if they are contrary to the provisions of Articles 13, 17 or 21, or if the courts whose jurisdiction they purport to exclude have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.
Article 24
Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Convention, a court of a State bound by this Convention before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.
SECTION 8
Examination as to jurisdiction and admissibility
Article 25
Where a court of a State bound by this Convention is seized of a claim which is principally concerned with a matter over which the courts of another State bound by this Convention have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.
Article 26
(1) Where a defendant domiciled in one State bound by this Convention is sued in a court of another State bound by this Convention and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Convention.
(2) The court shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end.
(3) Instead of the provisions of paragraph 2, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial matters shall apply if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted pursuant to that Convention.
(4) Member States of the European Community bound by Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 or by the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005, shall apply in their mutual relations the provision in Article 19 of that Regulation if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted pursuant to that Regulation or that Agreement.
SECTION 9
Lis pendens—related actions
Article 27
(1) Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different States bound by this Convention, any court other than the court first seized shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established.
(2) Where the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established, any court other than the court first seized shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
Article 28
(1) Where related actions are pending in the courts of different States bound by this Convention, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings.
(2) Where these actions are pending at first instance, any court other than the court first seized may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the court first seized has jurisdiction over the actions in question and its law permits the consolidation thereof.
(3) For the purposes of this Article, actions are deemed to be related where they are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
Article 29
Where actions come within the exclusive jurisdiction of several courts, any court other than the court first seized shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
Article 30
For the purposes of this Section, a court shall be deemed to be seized—
(1) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the defendant; or
(2) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court at the time when it is received by the authority responsible for service, provided that the plaintiff has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged with the court.
SECTION 10
Provisional, including protective, measures
Article 31
Application may be made to the courts of a State bound by this Convention for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that State, even if, under this Convention, the courts of another State bound by this Convention have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.
TITLE III
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT
Article 32
For the purposes of this Convention, ‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a State bound by this Convention, whatever the judgment may be called, including a decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court.
SECTION 1
Recognition
Article 33
(1) A judgment given in a State bound by this Convention shall be recognised in the other States bound by this Convention without any special procedure being required.
(2) Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may, in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of this Title, apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised.
(3) If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a State bound by this Convention depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.
Article 34
A judgment shall not be recognised—
(1) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State in which recognition is sought;
(2) where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;
(3) if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the State in which recognition is sought;
(4) if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another State bound by this Convention or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the State addressed.
Article 35
(1) Moreover, a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 6 of Title II, or in a case provided for in Article 68. A judgment may furthermore be refused recognition in any case provided for in Article 64(3) or 67(4).
(2) In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the court or authority applied to shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of the State of origin based its jurisdiction.
(3) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of the State of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in Article 34(1) may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction.
Article 36
Under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
Article 37
(1) A court of a State bound by this Convention in which recognition is sought of a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal against the judgment has been lodged.
(2) A court of a State bound by this Convention in which recognition is sought of a judgment given in Ireland or the United Kingdom may stay the proceedings if enforcement is suspended in the State of origin, by reason of an appeal.
SECTION 2
Enforcement
Article 38
(1) A judgment given in a State bound by this Convention and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another State bound by this Convention when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.
(2) However, in the United Kingdom, such a judgment shall be enforced in England and Wales, in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland when, on the application of any interested party, it has been registered for enforcement in that part of the United Kingdom.
Article 39
(1) The application shall be submitted to the court or competent authority indicated in the list in Annex II.
(2) The local jurisdiction shall be determined by reference to the place of domicile of the party against whom enforcement is sought, or to the place of enforcement.
Article 40
(1) The procedure for making the application shall be governed by the law of the State in which enforcement is sought.
(2) The applicant must give an address for service of process within the area of jurisdiction of the court applied to. However, if the law of the State in which enforcement is sought does not provide for the furnishing of such an address, the applicant shall appoint a representative ad litem.
(3) The documents referred to in Article 53 shall be attached to the application.
Article 41
The judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 53 without any review under Articles 34 and 35. The party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application.
Article 42
(1) The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability shall forthwith be brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the State in which enforcement is sought.
(2) The declaration of enforceability shall be served on the party against whom enforcement is sought, accompanied by the judgment, if not already served on that party.
Article 43
(1) The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party.
(2) The appeal is to be lodged with the court indicated in the list in Annex III.
(3) The appeal shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules governing procedure in contradictory matters.
(4) If the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to appear before the appellate court in proceedings concerning an appeal brought by the applicant, Article 26(2) to (4) shall apply even where the party against whom enforcement is sought is not domiciled in any of the States bound by this Convention.
(5) An appeal against the declaration of enforceability is to be lodged within one month of service thereof. If the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled in a State bound by this Convention other than that in which the declaration of enforceability was given, the time for appealing shall be two months and shall run from the date of service, either on him in person or at his residence. No extension of time may be granted on account of distance.
Article 44
The judgment given on the appeal may be contested only by the appeal referred to in Annex IV.
Article 45
(1) The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. It shall give its decision without delay.
(2) Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.
Article 46
(1) The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 may, on the application of the party against whom enforcement is sought, stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the State of origin or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired; in the latter case, the court may specify the time within which such an appeal is to be lodged.
(2) Where the judgment was given in Ireland or the United Kingdom, any form of appeal available in the State of origin shall be treated as an ordinary appeal for the purposes of paragraph 1.
(3) The court may also make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine.
Article 47
(1) When a judgment must be recognised in accordance with this Convention, nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the State requested without a declaration of enforceability under Article 41 being required.
(2) The declaration of enforceability shall carry with it the power to proceed to any protective measures.
(3) During the time specified for an appeal pursuant to Article 43(5) against the declaration of enforceability and until any such appeal has been determined, no measures of enforcement may be taken other than protective measures against the property of the party against whom enforcement is sought.
Article 48
(1) Where a foreign judgment has been given in respect of several matters and the declaration of enforceability cannot be given for all of them, the court or competent authority shall give it for one or more of them.
(2) An applicant may request a declaration of enforceability limited to parts of a judgment.
Article 49
A foreign judgment which orders a periodic payment by way of a penalty shall be enforceable in the State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the State of origin.
Article 50
(1) An applicant who in the State of origin has benefited from complete or partial legal aid or exemption from costs or expenses shall be entitled, in the procedure provided for in this Section, to benefit from the most favourable legal aid or the most extensive exemption from costs or expenses provided for by the law of the State addressed.
(2) However, an applicant who requests the enforcement of a decision given by an administrative authority in Denmark, in Iceland or in Norway in respect of maintenance may, in the State addressed, claim the benefits referred to in paragraph 1 if he presents a statement from the Danish, Icelandic, or Norwegian Ministry of Justice to the effect that he fulfils the economic requirements to qualify for the grant of complete or partial legal aid or exemption from costs or expenses.
Article 51
No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required of a party who in one State bound by this Convention, applies for enforcement of a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention on the ground that he is a foreign national or that he is not domiciled or resident in the State in which enforcement is sought.
Article 52
In proceedings for the issue of a declaration of enforceability, no charge, duty or fee calculated by reference to the value of the matter at issue may be levied in the State in which enforcement is sought.
SECTION 3
Common provisions
Article 53
(1) A party seeking recognition or applying for a declaration of enforceability shall produce a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity.
(2) A party applying for a declaration of enforceability shall also produce the certificate referred to in Article 54, without prejudice to Article 55.
Article 54
The court or competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where a judgment was given shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex V to this Convention.
Article 55
(1) If the certificate referred to in Article 54 is not produced, the court or competent authority may specify a time for its production or accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production.
(2) If the court or competent authority so requires, a translation of the documents shall be produced. The translation shall be certified by a person qualified to do so in one of the States bound by this Convention.
Article 56
No legalisation or other similar formality shall be required in respect of the documents referred to in Article 53 or Article 55(2), or in respect of a document appointing a representative ad litem.
TITLE IV
AUTHENTIC INSTRUMENTS AND COURT SETTLEMENTS
Article 57
(1) A document which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument and is enforceable in one State bound by this Convention shall, in another State bound by this Convention, be declared enforceable there, on application made in accordance with the procedures provided for in Article 38, et seq. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only if enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed.
(2) Arrangements relating to maintenance obligations concluded with administrative authorities or authenticated by them shall also be regarded as authentic instruments within the meaning of paragraph 1.
(3) The instrument produced must satisfy the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity in the State of origin.
(4) Section 3 of Title III shall apply as appropriate. The competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where an authentic instrument was drawn up or registered shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex VI to this Convention.
Article 58
A settlement which has been approved by a court in the course of proceedings and is enforceable in the State bound by this Convention in which it was concluded shall be enforceable in the State addressed under the same conditions as authentic instruments. The court or competent authority of a State bound by this Convention where a court settlement was approved shall issue, at the request of any interested party, a certificate using the standard form in Annex V to this Convention.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 59
(1) In order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the State bound by this Convention whose courts are seised of a matter, the court shall apply its internal law.
(2) If a party is not domiciled in the State whose courts are seised of the matter, then, in order to determine whether the party is domiciled in another State bound by this Convention, the court shall apply the law of that State.
Article 60
(1) For the purposes of this Convention, a company or other legal person or association of natural or legal persons is domiciled at the place where it has its—
(a) statutory seat; or
(b) central administration; or
(c) principal place of business.
(2) For the purposes of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘statutory seat’ means the registered office or, where there is no such office anywhere, the place of incorporation or, where there is no such place anywhere, the place under the law of which the formation took place.
(3) In order to determine whether a trust is domiciled in the State bound by this Convention whose courts are seized of the matter, the court shall apply its rules of private international law.
Article 61
Without prejudice to any more favourable provisions of national laws, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention who are being prosecuted in the criminal courts of another State bound by this Convention of which they are not nationals for an offence which was not intentionally committed may be defended by persons qualified to do so, even if they do not appear in person. However, the court seised of the matter may order appearance in person; in the case of failure to appear, a judgment given in the civil action without the person concerned having had the opportunity to arrange for his defence need not be recognised or enforced in the other States bound by this Convention.
Article 62
For the purposes of this Convention, the expression ‘court’ shall include any authorities designated by a State bound by this Convention as having jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Convention.
TITLE VI
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Article 63
(1) This Convention shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after its entry into force in the State of origin and, where recognition or enforcement of a judgment or authentic instruments is sought, in the State addressed.
(2) However, if the proceedings in the State of origin were instituted before the entry into force of this Convention, judgments given after that date shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Title III—
(a) if the proceedings in the State of origin were instituted after the entry into force of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 both in the State of origin and in the State;
(b) in all other cases, if jurisdiction was founded upon rules which accorded with those provided for either in Title II or in a convention concluded between the State of origin and the State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.
TITLE VII
RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 44/2001 AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS
Article 64
(1) This Convention shall not prejudice the application by the Member States of the European Community of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as well as any amendments thereof, of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968, and of the Protocol on interpretation of that Convention by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, signed at Luxembourg on 3 June 1971, as amended by the Conventions of Accession to the said Convention and the said Protocol by the States acceding to the European Communities, as well as of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels on 19 October 2005.
(2) However, this Convention shall in any event be applied—
(a) in matters of jurisdiction, where the defendant is domiciled in the territory of a State where this Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies, or where Articles 22 or 23 of this Convention confer jurisdiction on the courts of such a State;
(b) in relation to lis pendens or to related actions as provided for in Articles 27 and 28, when proceedings are instituted in a State where the Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies and in a State where this Convention as well as an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article apply;
(c) in matters of recognition and enforcement, where either the State of origin or the State addressed is not applying an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.
(3) In addition to the grounds provided for in Title III, recognition or enforcement may be refused if the ground of jurisdiction on which the judgment has been based differs from that resulting from this Convention and recognition or enforcement is sought against a party who is domiciled in a State where this Convention but not an instrument referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article applies, unless the judgment may otherwise be recognised or enforced under any rule of law in the State addressed.
Article 65
Subject to the provisions of Articles 63(2), 66 and 67, this Convention shall, as between the States bound by this Convention, supersede the conventions concluded between two or more of them that cover the same matters as those to which this Convention applies. In particular, the conventions mentioned in Annex VII shall be superseded.
Article 66
(1) The conventions referred to in Article 65 shall continue to have effect in relation to matters to which this Convention does not apply.
(2) They shall continue to have effect in respect of judgments given and documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments before the entry into force of this Convention.
Article 67
(1) This Convention shall not affect any conventions by which the Contracting Parties and/or the States bound by this Convention are bound and which in relation to particular matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments. Without prejudice to obligations resulting from other agreements between certain Contracting Parties, this Convention shall not prevent Contracting Parties from entering into such conventions.
(2) This Convention shall not prevent a court of a State bound by this Convention and by a convention on a particular matter from assuming jurisdiction in accordance with that convention, even where the defendant is domiciled in another State bound by this Convention which is not a party to that convention. The court hearing the action shall, in any event, apply Article 26 of this Convention.
(3) Judgments given in a State bound by this Convention by a court in the exercise of jurisdiction provided for in a convention on a particular matter shall be recognised and enforced in the other States bound by this Convention in accordance with Title III of this Convention.
(4) In addition to the grounds provided for in Title III, recognition or enforcement may be refused if the State addressed is not bound by the convention on a particular matter and the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought is domiciled in that State, or, if the State addressed is a Member State of the European Community and in respect of conventions which would have to be concluded by the European Community, in any of its Member States, unless the judgment may otherwise be recognised or enforced under any rule of law in the State addressed.
(5) Where a convention on a particular matter to which both the State of origin and the State addressed are parties lays down conditions for the recognition or enforcement of judgments, those conditions shall apply. In any event, the provisions of this Convention which concern the procedures for recognition and enforcement of judgments may be applied.
Article 68
(1) This Convention shall not affect agreements by which States bound by this Convention undertook, prior to the entry into force of this Convention, not to recognise judgments given in other States bound by this Convention against defendants domiciled or habitually resident in a third State where, in cases provided for in Article 4, the judgment could only be founded on a ground of jurisdiction as specified in Article 3(2). Without prejudice to obligations resulting from other agreements between certain Contracting Parties, this Convention shall not prevent Contracting Parties from entering into such conventions.
(2) However, a Contracting Party may not assume an obligation towards a third State not to recognise a judgment given in another State bound by this Convention by a court basing its jurisdiction on the presence within that State of property belonging to the defendant, or the seizure by the plaintiff of property situated there—
(a) if the action is brought to assert or declare proprietary or possessory rights in that property, seeks to obtain authority to dispose of it, or arises from another issue relating to such property; or
(b) if the property constitutes the security for a debt which is the subject-matter of the action.
TITLE VIII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 69
(1) The Convention shall be open for signature by the European Community, Denmark, and States which, at the time of the opening for signature, are Members of the European Free Trade Association.
(2) This Convention shall be subject to ratification by the Signatories. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Swiss Federal Council, which shall act as Depositary of this Convention.
(3) At the time of the ratification, the Contracting Parties may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I, II and III of Protocol 1.
(4) The Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the sixth month following the date on which the European Community and a Member of the European Free Trade Association deposit their instruments of ratification.
(5) The Convention shall enter into force in relation to any other Party on the first day of the third month following the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
(6) Without prejudice to Article 3(3) of Protocol 2, this Convention shall replace the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 as of the date of its entry into force in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above. Any reference to the 1988 Lugano Convention in other instruments shall be understood as a reference to this Convention.
(7) Insofar as the relations between the Member States of the European Community and the non-European territories referred to in Article 70(1)(b) are concerned, this Convention shall replace the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968, and of the Protocol on interpretation of that Convention by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, signed at Luxembourg on 3 June 1971, as amended by the Conventions of Accession to the said Convention and the said Protocol by the States acceding to the European Communities, as of the date of the entry into force of this Convention with respect to these territories in accordance with Article 73(2).
Article 70
(1) After entering into force this Convention shall be open for accession by—
(a) the States which, after the opening of this Convention for signature, become Members of the European Free Trade Association, under the conditions laid down in Article 71;
(b) Member States of the European Community acting on behalf of certain non-European territories that are part of the territory of that Member State or for whose external relations that Member State is responsible, under the conditions laid down in Article 71;
(c) any other State, under the conditions laid down in Article 72.
(2) States referred to in paragraph 1, which wish to become a Contracting Party to this Convention, shall address their application to the Depositary. The application, including the information referred to in Articles 71 and 72 shall be accompanied by a translation into English and French.
Article 71
(1) Any State referred to in Article 70(1)(a) and (b) wishing to become a Contracting Party to this Convention—
(a) shall communicate the information required for the application of this Convention;
(b) may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I and III of Protocol 1.
(2) The Depositary shall transmit any information received pursuant to paragraph 1 to the other Contracting Parties prior to the deposit of the instrument of accession by the State concerned.
Article 72
(1) Any State referred to in Article 70(1)(c) wishing to become a Contracting Party to this Convention—
(a) shall communicate the information required for the application of this Convention;
(b) may submit declarations in accordance with Articles I and III of Protocol 1; and
(c) shall provide the Depositary with information on, in particular—
(i) their judicial system, including information on the appointment and independence of judges;
(ii) their internal law concerning civil procedure and enforcement of judgments; and
(iii) their private international law relating to civil procedure.
(2) The Depositary shall transmit any information received pursuant to paragraph 1 to the other Contracting Parties prior to inviting the State concerned to accede in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.
(3) Without prejudice to paragraph 4, the Depositary shall invite the State concerned to accede only if it has obtained the unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties. The Contracting Parties shall endeavour to give their consent at the latest within one year after the invitation by the Depositary.
(4) The Convention shall enter into force only in relations between the acceding State and the Contracting Parties which have not made any objections to the accession before the first day of the third month following the deposit of the instrument of accession.
Article 73
(1) The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.
(2) In respect of an acceding State referred to in Article 70, the Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the deposit of its instrument of accession. As of that moment, the acceding State shall be considered a Contracting Party to the Convention.
(3) Any Contracting Party may submit to the Depositary a text of this Convention in the language or languages of the Contracting Party concerned, which shall be authentic if so agreed by the Contracting Parties in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 74
(1) This Convention is concluded for an unlimited period.
(2) Any Contracting Party may, at any time, denounce the Convention by sending a notification to the Depositary.
(3) The denunciation shall take effect at the end of the calendar year following the expiry of a period of six months from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of denunciation.
Article 75
The following are annexed to this Convention—
a Protocol 1, on certain questions of jurisdiction, procedure and enforcement,
a Protocol 2, on the uniform interpretation of this Convention and on the Standing Committee,
a Protocol 3, on the application of Article 67 of this Convention,
Annexes I through IV and Annex VII, with information related to the application of this Convention,
Annexes V and VI, containing the certificates referred to in Articles 54, 58 and 57 of this Convention,
Annex VIII, containing the authentic languages referred to in Article 79 of this Convention, and
Annex IX, concerning the application of Article II of Protocol 1.
These Protocols and Annexes shall form an integral part of this Convention.
Article 76
Without prejudice to Article 77, any Contracting Party may request the revision of this Convention. To that end, the Depositary shall convene the Standing Committee as laid down in Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 77
(1) The Contracting Parties shall communicate to the Depositary the text of any provisions of the laws which amend the lists set out in Annexes I through IV as well as any deletions in or additions to the list set out in Annex VII and the date of their entry into force. Such communication shall be made within reasonable time before the entry into force and be accompanied by a translation into English and French. The Depositary shall adapt the Annexes concerned accordingly, after having consulted the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2. For that purpose, the Contracting Parties shall provide a translation of the adaptations into their languages.
(2) Any amendment of Annexes V through VI and VIII through IX to this Convention shall be adopted by the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4 of Protocol 2.
Article 78
(1) The Depositary shall notify the Contracting Parties of—
(a) the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession;
(b) the dates of entry into force of this Convention in respect of the Contracting Parties;
(c) any declaration received pursuant to Articles I to IV of Protocol 1;
(d) any communication made pursuant to Article 74(2), Article 77(1) and paragraph 4 of Protocol 3.
(2) The notifications will be accompanied by translations into English and French.
Article 79
This Convention, drawn up in a single original in the languages listed in Annex VIII, all texts being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the Swiss Federal Archives. The Swiss Federal Council shall transmit a certified copy to each Contracting Party.
In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Convention.
Done at Lugano, on 30 October 2007.”
New schedule 2—Super-affirmative resolution procedure—
“1 If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, the Secretary of State Minister may lay before Parliament—
(a) draft regulations, and
(b) an explanatory document.
2 The explanatory document must introduce and give reasons for implementing the international agreement.
3 Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft regulations laid under subsection (1) are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
4 The procedure in paragraphs (5) to (8) shall apply to the draft regulations instead of the procedure in paragraph (3) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 30-day period, or
(b) a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations so recommends within the 30-day period and the House to which the recommendation is made does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period.
5 The Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
6 If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
7 If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with the draft regulations but with material changes, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft of the regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
8 If the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations.
9 For the purposes of this Schedule regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations or revised draft regulations if they contain no material changes to their provisions.
10 In this paragraph, references to the ‘30-day’, ‘40-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 30, 40 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
11 For the purposes of paragraph 10 no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”
This new Schedule would apply the super-affirmative resolution procedure to regulations implementing the Lugano Convention in the UK (see NC2).
New schedule 3—Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2))—
“Restrictions on power to make regulations
1 (1) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) may not include—
(a) provision that confers power to legislate by means of regulations, orders, rules or other subordinate instrument (other than rules of procedure for courts or tribunals);
(b) provision that creates an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21) is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years (ignoring any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not prevent the modification of a power to legislate conferred otherwise than under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)), or the extension of any such power to purposes of a similar kind to those for which it was conferred.
(3) A power to give practice directions or other directions regarding matters of administration is not a power to legislate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a).
Regulations to be made by statutory instrument or statutory rule
2 The power to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2))—
(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)), in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department.
Parliamentary or assembly procedure
3 (1) This paragraph applies to a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).
(2) If the instrument contains (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
it may not be made unless it has been approved under the super-affirmative procedure (see paragraph 4).
(3) In this Schedule ‘relevant arrangements’ means arrangements of the kind mentioned in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) (3).
(4) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the instrument, it may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
Super-affirmative procedure
4 (1) If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) draft regulations, and
(b) an explanatory document.
(2) The explanatory document must introduce and give reasons for implementing the international agreement.
(3) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 40-day period the draft regulations laid under sub-paragraph (1) are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
(4) The procedure in sub-paragraphs (5) to (8) shall apply to the draft regulations instead of the procedure in sub-paragraph (3) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 30-day period, or
(b) a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft regulations so recommends within the 30-day period and the House to which the recommendation is made does not by resolution reject the recommendation within that period.
(5) The Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(6) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the draft regulations.
(7) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with the draft regulations but with material changes, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft of the regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
(8) If the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations.
(9) For the purposes of this paragraph regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations or revised draft regulations if they contain no material changes to their provisions.
(10) In this paragraph, references to the ‘30-day’, ‘40-day’ and ‘60-day’ periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 30, 40 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
(11) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (10) no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
Scottish affirmative procedure
5 (1) This paragraph applies to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).
(2) The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
Northern Ireland affirmative procedure
6 (1) A Northern Ireland department may not make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(2) Section 41(3) of that Act applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.
Interpretation
7 In this Schedule—
‘amend’ includes repeal or revoke;
‘primary legislation’ means any provision of—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
‘relevant arrangements’ has the meaning given in paragraph 3(3);
‘relevant international agreement’ has the same meaning as in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law (No. 2)).”
This new schedule is linked to Amendment (e) to Government NC5 and makes provision for regulations made by the Secretary of State under Government NC5 to be subject to super-affirmative procedure, and for all regulations made under that section by Scottish Ministers or Northern Ireland departments to be subject to the relevant affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 8, in title, line 1, at end add
“and the Lugano Convention of 2007;”
This amendment is consequential on either Amendment 1 or on Amendments 2 to 4 and NS1.
Amendment 9, line 1, at end add
“and to provide for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law, subject to certain conditions.”
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 10, line 1, at end add
“and to provide, subject to a super-affirmative procedure, for the implementation of the Lugano Convention of 2007.”
This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NS2.
Amendment 11, line 1, at end add
“and the Lugano Convention of 2007; and to provide, subject to consultation and a super-affirmative procedure, for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment (e) to Government NC5 and NS3.
Mr Djanogly
The main outstanding issue with the Bill concerns parliamentary scrutiny—that is, of the UK’s accession to a private international law treaty itself and then concerning orders made pursuant to that treaty. To those Members who may have been mesmerised by the complexity of the amendments today, I should say that this was not helped by the Government tabling their amendments only late last week, which required an element of guesswork for everyone else. Having said that, this belies a high level of consistency in the approach taken with tabled amendments by those who remain concerned at the Government’s position, as I shall explain.
Following Second Reading, the Government have unfortunately decided to re-table, almost unamended, the order-making powers as new clause 5, which was so decisively rejected in the other place. Despite multiple meetings with Ministers—where, I have to say, they have only been polite and listening—I am not much the wiser about the Government’s reasons for what can only be seen as a significant proposed extension of the power of the Executive.
The Government’s hinted amendment to remove criminal sanctions of more than two years’ sentencing from the order-making powers would be a good start but would not be nearly enough. I have therefore tabled amendment 2 and others, in my and others’ names. Those amendments need to be put into the context of the Bill as a whole. That is because the Bill only deals with the UK’s entering specific existing PIL treaties. It does not look at how we approve, or scrutinise entering, other future PIL treaties in the first place. Then it goes on to give the broad order-making powers for any unnamed future PIL treaties. I would suggest that, by focusing on future order-making powers, rather than the initial treaties themselves, it is effectively putting the cart before the horse.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I rise in support of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I agree with and adopt the arguments that he has made—in particular, in relation to scrutiny and the inadequacy of the current arrangements under the CRaG Act. That is not satisfactory, and we are going to have to address it sooner or later. As a consequence of leaving the European Union, we will be signing a great number of international treaties and other important international obligations, too—free trade agreements of many kinds. We do have to put in place a fit-for-purpose system, and relying on the Ponsonby convention really is not sustainable at the current time.
I had the pleasure, funnily enough, of knowing the third Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—now no longer with us—who was very active in London government, and it was his grandfather who was responsible for this. That is itself indicative of the passage of time. It was in 1924, at the time of the Zinoviev letter, when this convention was put in place, so we really do have to have something—with every respect to the memory of the Lords Ponsonby—that is more fit for purpose for the modern time, particularly because this deals with very important issues and because international treaties have themselves become much more complex and very frequently now have implications for domestic law, as well as international treaty law obligations. Therefore, a new system, as set out of my hon. Friend, for scrutinising these issues is something we have to do at some point.
The one issue that does need to be dealt with quickly—my hon. Friend is right about how long such treaties take—is that we should sign up to the Lugano convention as a matter of absolute urgency. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of our departing from the European Union that we will leave one of the most sophisticated and effective means of civil justice co-operation that exists. That was not probably something very much debated during the referendum, and it is perhaps collateral damage in that sense of the broader decision that was taken, which I have to respect, but it is an important potential loss for British legal services and British business.
That can be made good if we swiftly joined Lugano, and a number of other international conventions, including the various Hague conventions, that go with it. That is why our amendment would in fact place joining Lugano in the Bill, although I will not read out new schedule 1 in detail. There is a real concern among businesses, as well as among lawyers, of a lacuna. At the moment, any British company or individual contracting with someone in the EU or the European Free Trade Association for that matter would, by virtue of our membership of the EU, be part of the Brussels I and Brussels II recast conventions and also of the Rome conventions in relation to domestic family law. Those enable contracts to be recognised and enforced, and judgments of the courts on those contracts to be recognised and enforced automatically in any of the member states. We have that advantage at the moment by virtue of our membership of the EU, carried over in the transition period, but that will go.
Obviously, for any contract to be worth its weight, it has to be enforceable—there is no point in having it otherwise—and that runs across every type of business. There is the significant and highly lucrative development of derivatives and other financial instruments, in which the City of London remains a world leader, and they have to be enforceable should they ever be called upon, as do contracts for manufacturers or the supply of agricultural produce. Contracts for any type of good or service that have an international dimension have to be effectively enforceable, and the same applies for the rights of individuals.
For example, for the British tourist or business person abroad who is injured in a road accident where the defendant—the driver at fault—is resident in one of the continental states, at the moment they can pursue their action in Bromley county court if need be or in the High Court to get a judgment and then have it enforced in France, Germany or elsewhere. Without getting into Lugano, there will be a gap in that person’s ability to seek justice and redress. It would be unconscionable if we should get ourselves into that state of affairs.
There is also the position of the single parent if the father, perhaps, of a child has moved to one of the EU jurisdictions. At the moment, the mother can enforce the judgment of the British family courts for maintenance payments, access arrangements and so on. They can be enforced in the place where the father is domiciled, and she can get her money. Again, it would be unconscionable if we were to have a gap. I know that that is not what the Minister wants, and I know that the Government are striving earnestly to achieve this, but at the moment we do not have it. If I get the chance, I may say more about that on Third Reading, but that is why we think giving statutory provision for Lugano in the Bill demonstrates its importance.
As the negotiations go forward, it is obviously important that we get a deal on free trade in relation to goods and tariffs, but absolutely as important is that we get a deal on judicial co-operation—whether criminal and police co-operation, but also civil co-operation. I hope that our negotiators will be saying, “If we get a deal with the EU, part of that must include the Commission dropping its current objections to the UK joining Lugano.” I hope that that is a negotiating gambit at the moment. The EFTA members are happy for us to join. The EU members at the moment, on the advice of the Commission, are not. This may not be easy, because France and Germany, in particular, have a history of being highly protective towards their jurisdictions in matters of legal services, so it is not something that is to be a footnote for Mr Frost’s agenda—the full Frost agenda, if I can put it that way. It should be central. That is why we think it is sufficiently important to flag it up on the face of the Bill. The Minister knows that, and I think it needs to be stated and put out there, right across Government.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Let me first declare an interest, as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I take a different view on this Bill from my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). When I looked at the Bill and what it does, two words came out as being necessary to preserve, the first of which was agility. The Government need to have the agility to be able to implement treaties in this way. The second word was “flexibility”, which partly comes down to the issue of speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was wrong when he said that these sort of treaties take forever and there is no rush to get them through. There is a rush to get them through. One example of where there is a need to get a treaty sorted out is the Singapore mediation convention. It harms absolutely no one. All it does is make the decisions that are reached in mediation in countries that have signed the convention applicable anywhere around the world. It stops the enormously artificial process of having a mediation and then changing the mediators for another set of arbitrators, who then introduce the arbitration on exactly the same lines as the mediation in order for it to be caught by the New York convention, which is applicable around the world and which we have signed.
Understanding why we need to be quick with that treaty, which, as I say, does no harm, comes back to the visit that I and colleagues from both sides of the Houses made to Singapore earlier in the year. We have heard that many people see alternative dispute resolution as the way forward, but that is a complacent way of looking at the situation in the UK. The UK is not doing very well at maintaining itself as a global hub for alternative dispute resolution. The facilities available for conducting arbitration or mediation are far inferior to those that can be found in Singapore. If we sit around for much longer thinking that we can carry on being the global hub for this, we will lose that position very quickly and it will go to somebody else.
The techniques that we need to approve a major treaty are completely different from the sort of techniques that are needed to adopt a small treaty such as the Singapore mediation convention. We are speaking not about a new Maastricht treaty, but about treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention. We do not need an Act of Parliament for that; we need Ministers to get on with signing and implementing them as quickly as possible.
The Law Society has rather missed the point. It stresses the point that the effects of a treaty can have influence on domestic law, but it totally ignores the need for speed and it falls into the trap of complacency when it looks at the situation in the UK and the global role that we play. The House of Lords, when it looked at the measure and made its recommendations, also failed to recognise those points. I say again to the Minister that he needs to judge these amendments and new clauses according to whether they increase his agility and flexibility to get treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention signed and operational as quickly as possible.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, it really is a joy to be speaking on this Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a practising barrister for 30 years and for many of those years, I practised in these areas.
I am truly delighted to be speaking on this Bill in Committee. The very consideration of it is evidence that the transition period of our leaving the EU is coming to an end. For me, that is very welcome news. I support the propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who said that the Government need to be responsive, and there is a need for speed, agility and considered thought.
It is of course right that, prior to the end of the transition period, the UK takes steps to ensure continued participation in key agreements in its own right, at last as a free and independent trading nation. From 1 February, the UK has regained full competence to enter into this sort of international agreement in the field in its own right. This is wonderful progress. As the UK develops its wider trading policy with the EU and the rest of the world, PIL agreements will be key to supporting cross-border commerce, which will be particularly important going forward. They will also regulate the very foundations of our society—how we deal with international family law matters—and build confidence for consumers as to how trade and disputes will be settled, all of which are very good things.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I cannot match the technical analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but I hope I can bring to today’s deliberations some practical experience of the implications of new clauses 2 and 5.
The honouring of agreements has been at the heart of international trade since such trade began, but it is worth remembering that Governments have not always supported international trade. If we look back at the approach of our Government and other Governments in Europe from the 16th and 17th centuries, and even well into the 18th century, we see that we operated mercantilist policies that actively prevented international trade. Such trade was discouraged to protect domestic manufacturing. Policies such as high border tariffs were implemented, and there were even export bans on tools that could be used to improve manufacturing in third countries. Many arcane rules and requirements to use local suppliers and local trades were implemented to make it harder to undertake international trade.
There was also no support for the legal enforcement of contracts. Consequently, businesses had to make their own arrangements, which were founded primarily on personal trust and the reputation of organisations and families. I have some personal experience: I was once recruited by my brother to work in his company, eventually as the managing director. His rationale was that he had no idea whether I was competent at anything but did know that I was unlikely to steal from him. I will leave it to other people to decide whether that was ultimately good for the economy of that business. On an international basis, that approach has been disastrous: throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries there was a general stultification of growth.
I am delighted to say that it was the United Kingdom that led the world away from narrow protectionism and towards free trade. That great man Adam Smith led the charge. He destroyed the argument for protectionism, demonstrating the desirability of imports—they are more efficiently produced and therefore cheaper—and stating that exports were merely the necessary cost of acquiring them. It was through this place that we led the way in the repeal of protectionist laws: first, with the Reciprocity of Duties Act back in 1823, and then much more famously with the repeal of the corn laws in 1846. What was the result? We see it if we look around us today: the explosion of world trade.
PIL agreements have been crucial to the modern support of international trade. They bring legal certainty, deal with conflicts of jurisdiction and allow for judgments to be enforced internationally. The Bill helps to achieve those aims, particularly as we transition from EU membership into the big wide world. That transition period, to which I shall come back later in my speech, is relevant because of the time constraints that it imposes on Her Majesty’s Government.
I want to return to my first-hand experience of the impact of PIL agreements. I was the managing director of a UK-based SME that was entrepreneurial in its outlook, and we were doing pretty well in the UK, so naturally I looked to international markets as a means for expansion. In my time, I negotiated joint ventures in Russia, the United States of America, Australia and South Africa, as well as undertaking preliminary discussions in a number of other jurisdictions. It was noticeable that the only two joint ventures that we progressed to fruition were those in the United States of America and Australia, and the fundamental reasons that I felt unable to progress further in those other jurisdictions were the fears over the enforceability of contracts, particularly in relation to intellectual property, and the fears over the effectiveness of the rule of law in those jurisdictions. PIL agreements affect countless such economic decisions all around the world and in this country every day, so we must not underestimate their importance for economic decisions just like the ones that I took.
There is an urgent need for more PIL agreements, particularly as we move out of the transition period. They are an integral part of our pivot towards global Britain, and there should be no unnecessary delay in the Government’s ability not only to negotiate such agreements but to bring them into force. International enforceability is key to trade growth and to London remaining the centre of dispute resolution around the world. It is also key to the continued dominance of English and Welsh law, and it is worth reminding ourselves that that law is dominant because it is predictable in its interpretation and its enforceability. That is a key advantage for this jurisdiction.
I understand well the concerns that have been raised by old clause 2 and new clause 5. As a Back Bencher, I stand here to defend the rights of Parliament, but it is also right that I should do that with a sense of proportion. PIL agreements are significant—I have done my best to explain how significant they have been to international commerce—but they are fundamentally uncontroversial. They are not major treaties in the sense of Maastricht, which was mentioned by a previous speaker, and we need to have some practical considerations weighing on our mind as we decide whether we should implement new clause 5.
The transition period is a time when we should be lifting our eyes to the wider horizons of international trade, and that is going to mean many more PIL agreements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) highlighted, the Government’s agility, and their ability to strike while the iron is hot to take advantage of this brave new world into which we are entering, are material practical considerations. We also have the legislative timetable to consider. It is already clogged up with covid-related delays, and to require multiple Acts of Parliament to be progressed through that clogged-up timetable in order to progress time-sensitive and time-critical agreements would be disproportionate. It would create negative delay for the Government’s domestic agenda as they seek to progress this stodge, and delay for the implementation of the agreements themselves.
As a businessman and as a Back Bencher defending the rights of this Parliament, I operate with that sense of proportion, and my conclusion is that it would not be proportionate to prevent the Government from using secondary legislation in this manner. Consequently, I support the Government’s new clause 5 and I am against new clause 2.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I rise today not as a lawyer, surprisingly—like many right hon. and hon. Members across the House—but merely as someone who has taken an interest in the Bill because I want the best for my constituents. I often joke that I am bilingual, because I can speak standard English and northerner, but I do not speak legalese, so Members may have to forgive me for a bit of plain speaking on this one.
New clause 5, which has been the subject of much discussion, effectively sets out the procedure by which international agreements on legal disputes are brought into UK law. The new clause would allow Ministers to implement treaties via an affirmative statutory instrument, rather than going through the full primary legislative process.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 5 in the name of the Minister, which, on balance, I believe would result in proportionate scrutiny for the measures that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Bill. The general points about the need for international agreements on private international law have been well rehearsed. Without such agreements, there would be a considerable impact on British businesses, individuals and families who are engaged in cross-border litigation. Indeed, it is not inconceivable to foresee a situation where parallel judgments by different courts contradict each other, resulting in legal limbo with little hope of redress and no hope of justice.
That is perhaps particularly evident in the case of custody disputes, where a child has been abducted and taken outside the UK by one parent. Right hon. and hon. Members across the House are no doubt all too aware of examples of such cases. Sadly, that pain has been felt by families in my own constituency of Aylesbury. If we compound that heart-wrenching situation with a quagmire of legal process in different jurisdictions, with no mutual recognition of judgments, desperation becomes hopelessness, and loving parents risk permanent separation from their children.
Less emotional, but equally important, is the plight of small British businesses seeking redress from an overseas supplier or customer. Buckinghamshire has more microbusinesses than any other county in the country. There are small firms that need the law to be simple and straightforward, so that they can focus on what they do best—producing goods and services that generate wealth and taxes—safe in the knowledge that the judicial system is there to protect them.
New clause 5 seeks to use delegated legislation to ensure that any future agreements concerning international private law are speedily implemented, thus benefiting individuals, families and businesses in the ways I have described. Parliamentary scrutiny will exist through the affirmative process, and what is more, it will be prompt. That seems to be appropriate and proportionate. Insisting on primary legislation to bring such new agreements into effect is disproportionate and unnecessary, not least because of the likely challenges of finding parliamentary time for what, as other Members have said, are unlikely to be matters of huge controversy. When international private law agreements were in the competency of the European Union, they were implemented by direct effect. Once the transition period is over, Members of this House will be able to scrutinise and vote on such agreements, bringing power back to Parliament through the DL procedure.
I am rather surprised by some of the opposition to new clause 5, both from Opposition Members and from the other place, because what is proposed today is not novel. There is precedent for the Government’s proposed course of action, and precedent is not to be lightly dismissed. Indeed, in justifying the decision of one of Mr Speaker’s illustrious predecessors, Erskine May said that he had
“found what convinces the House of Commons more readily than any argument—I have found a precedent”.
Several Acts passed in this place contain delegated powers concerning international private law. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 contains delegated powers allowing decisions to be made by Order in Council. The same is true in family law relating to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 using the same mechanism. I therefore support the Government’s desire to introduce new clause 5 and hope that Members of the other place will feel able to take the opportunity afforded them of a second chance to consider the implications of their earlier action.
As we conclude the transition period from leaving the EU, I want the UK to be a country where we focus on getting deals done, where we support our businesses to trade and where we strive to protect our citizens’ rights in a way that is straightforward and fair. I have had countless emails from constituent businesses asking me to ensure that they can run as smoothly as possible after the transition period. I have not had one single email from a constituent business demanding primary legislation for every single commercial agreement that is made in future—that is not a cue to 38 Degrees to start such a campaign.
I want us to be agile in the way we respond to opportunities from our friends and partners overseas and able to follow up an agreement made in person with swift delivery of parliamentary scrutiny in proportionate form that enables us to implement a deal and reap the benefits in short order. Businesses in my constituency of Aylesbury are hungry for the opportunities that await us on the international markets. They want Parliament to pave the way for them to bring greater prosperity to our country. Let us do that with new clause 5.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and myself. As other Members have said, there is a degree of consistency across a number of the amendments on the selection paper.
I welcome the action to enhance transnational co-operation. For once, instead of measures that seek to breach international agreements or upset international partners, this is a step in the right direction and a move that I hope we will see reflected in other bits of legislation that the Government bring forward.
I wish that this Bill was not necessary, but, having left the European framework, it is essential that we make alternative arrangements to ensure that the three Hague conventions still apply, to prevent Scottish businesses and families from being disadvantaged. The conventions add legal certainty for parties to cross-border commercial contracts, and they help with family maintenance decisions across borders and the protection of children in disputes where parents have separated but live in different countries. These conventions may be technical, but they are very practical for those caught in difficult and tangled situations. There is therefore a clear need to replace the previous mechanisms whereby the EU reached agreements on these types of cross-border disputes on behalf of member states.
Aspects of this legislation fall within the devolved competencies, forming parts of Scots private law relating to choice of jurisdiction, recognition of judgments and enforcement of decisions. The Bill, if passed, will provide reassurances, in particular, to those affected by cross-border family support and custodial mechanisms, so we are keen to see that move forward. The Scottish Government have considered the aspects that require a legislative consent motion under section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 and will seek consent from the Scottish Parliament to allow agreement to the Bill. The Bill has been drafted with great respect for devolution and, again, I very much welcome that. It is the proper and democratic way to proceed. It is a great pity that that is not always the case with this Government, but certainly it is very much to be welcomed in this case.
I speak in favour of the amendments proposed by myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West. I pay tribute and give thanks to the Law Society of Scotland, which has supported us in the drafting of them. Amendment 10 has a particular focus on the Lugano convention, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has already told us of the significance of the need to put the mechanism in place and of having it on the face of the Bill. Given the Government’s confirmation that they are intent on continuing with the convention, putting it on the face of the Bill would be a proper and appropriate way of doing that. The convention created common rules across the EU and EFTA, avoiding multiple court cases taking place on the same subject and saving the costs of all those involved. I welcome the steps taken.
The regrettable decision not to be part of the single market may yet come back to hit us. However, we are where we are, and if the UK joining the convention in its own right is accepted by 31 December, we will need to work quickly to introduce a simple mechanism to implement the convention. That is what the amendment from me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West seeks to achieve, and I argue that the Government should amend the Bill to provide for a regulation-making power focused specifically on the implementation of the Lugano convention. That point is not being made just by Scottish National party Members; it is reflected on all sides of the House. That, in itself, speaks volumes.
It is important to note that that move would not preclude us from reinstating the previous regulation-making powers under clause 2 that were removed from the Bill during its passage in the other place. As was said earlier, that debate raised legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I strongly suggest that the Government strongly reflect on that when seeking to reintroduce those powers.
The Bill fulfils a commitment in the political declaration between the UK and the EU, and I recognise that. I certainly welcome the fact that in this situation at least the Government appear to be looking to keep their promise and to keep private international law clear after the transition. As a proud internationalist, I welcome any measures that will continue to help to support and facilitate cross-border co-operation.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On Second Reading, the official Opposition made it clear that they would oppose any attempts by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which was removed by a majority in the other place. On Second Reading, numerous Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches made very sensible suggestions on how the Government could modify clause 2 and harness cross-party support. Sunset clauses, placing Lugano on the face of the Bill, as has been suggested by Members across the House this afternoon, and limiting the power of clause 2 were all among the suggestions discussed. Very sadly, the Government did not listen. That is surprising, particularly for this Minister, who is known to be attentive and a very able lawyer indeed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
It was a great pleasure to listen to the powerful advocacy of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Unfortunately, on this occasion, I am unable to agree with him, but out of courtesy to him I will explain why.
It is a real pleasure to address the Committee of the Whole House on a Bill which, while technical, is of great importance. Private international law is not just an arcane and abstract legal construct. As my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), among others, have indicated, it is a very real framework for the dispute resolution of cross-border civil and family justice matters that affect families and businesses in our country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made the point that every time we enter into one of these agreements we strengthen the international rules-based order. That is a point we should not lose sight of either.
I am very grateful for the quality of the debate that we have witnessed today, as well as on Second Reading. It has been, if I may say in all sincerity, a debate of conspicuous clarity and ability. I really do appreciate the interest that has been shown in these important matters. I thank colleagues from across the Committee for the time they have taken to prepare the amendments and for the explanations that they have provided. Even where the Government take a different view—which, as I say, I will come on to explain—I recognise that these are serious amendments that have been tabled in good faith in an endeavour to improve the legislation.
Let me begin, if I may, by turning to amendments 5 and 6, new clause 5, new schedule 4 and amendment 7. Taken together, these amendments, in effect, restore the implementing power that was deleted in the other place and reverse the consequential amendments that flow from their deletion. The ability to be able to implement PIL agreements in a timely and effective manner is important. One of the things that really shone out from the excellent contributions that we heard was the word “agility”, which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales in referring to the context of family agreements, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) in talking about the Singapore mediation agreement. That agility is important. It is what allows the UK to be a credible negotiating counterparty, so that if British Ministers agree a PIL agreement—which, incidentally, strengthens the international rules-based order—it can be brought into effect in an agile way.
If indeed, as we all appear to accept, such agreements are good for citizens and businesses, we want to make sure that there is no undue delay in rolling out those benefits. There is a public interest in ensuring that implementation and scrutiny mechanisms are proportionate—again, a word that shone out from the contributions we have heard—in striking the important balance between timely implementation and appropriate scrutiny. If I may make one point about the contribution by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, I think it is fair to say that he did not dwell particularly on the scrutiny procedures that are in place. I will develop that a little bit, and I hope that will put his mind at rest. I do not suppose that I will be able to get him to join us on the Government Benches, but I live in hope.
The provisions are necessary and proportionate because the agreements are recognised across the House as manifestly in the public interest. If I may say respectfully to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), one of the principal points he made actually, I suggest, undermined his argument. He said, “These are very rarely party political.” The right hon. Member for Tottenham said, “I don’t recall it being vaguely contentious.” He is absolutely right. These agreements are not contentious.
Indeed, if we look at the previous Lugano convention in 2007, or at the previous Hague conventions, which we are introducing under clause 1, nobody ever prayed against them. Equally, on the old Lugano convention—the 1988 one, which preceded the 2007 one—I think only three of their lordships spoke in the other place, there were no amendments and nothing was said here. We must ask ourselves: if my hon. Friends accept that this is non-contentious, why go for what might be perceived to be the disproportionate step?
Mr Djanogly
I intervene only because the Minister suggested that I said something. I may have said that this is not party political, but that does not mean to say that it is not important, complicated and potentially contentious—but not for party political reasons.
Alex Chalk
But ultimately, my hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. If we accept that it is not contentious, it is important that the mechanisms that are in place are proportionate to that. Indeed, the Opposition knew this when they were in government, because of course all these rule-making powers were on the statute book and they did not repeal them. There was the Administration of Justice Act 1920, the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972—I could go on. They stayed on the statute book because they are not really offensive to the constitutional balance that we enjoy, but not only were they not repealed; they were used.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham knows that because he was the Minister at the time. He was Minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs when the British Government used the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 to bring into force an international agreement with who? With Israel. He knows that because he was the Minister at the time. Who was the Lord Chancellor at the time? Lord Falconer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot very well say that these are a monstrous and egregious affront to our constitution when they were used, because they were used a second time in 2007. They created a power to give effect to bilateral agreements with the United States on reciprocal enforcement of family maintenance orders.
Just to complete that point, not only were those powers used; the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, created new ones of his own. In 2005—[Interruption.] He is laughing, but he knows it is true. He was the Bill Minister on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which, incidentally, on this very rainy weekend I had a chance to re-read. That Act created a wide delegated power to introduce international agreements in that area.
I do not want to labour this point too much, but I had a chance to look at proceedings in Committee on that Bill, during which a Conservative hon. Member talked about that specific power and effectively asked the right hon. Gentleman, “Is he sure that he wants to do this?” He added:
“Those in another place get very excited about any sort of Henry VIII clause.”
The right hon. Gentleman responded, effectively, “Don’t worry,” saying that
“they are technical and necessary provisions.”––[Official Report, Mental Capacity Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2004; c. 406-407.]
Is not that precisely the point? What was technical and necessary when he was in government has now become an egregious affront to our constitution.
Alex Chalk
But the point is that when we were in the European Union and the European Union had competence to enter into PIL agreements, those would be brought into effect in the United Kingdom via the doctrine of direct effect. What role did this Parliament have? None. We are seeking to introduce much more by way of parliamentary scrutiny—the points, respectfully, that the right hon. Gentleman did not advert to. First, there is the CRaG procedure, and secondly there is the affirmative procedure.
I am at pains to mention that because I talked just a few moments ago about the Israeli agreement and the United States agreement. How did those come into force? Not through the affirmative procedure, not even through the negative procedure, but through an Order in Council. In other words, normal hon. Members—mere mortals like most of the people in the Chamber—had no say at all; just Privy Counsellors. We therefore respectfully say that it does not lie in the mouth of the Opposition to raise these concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) made the point powerfully that this precedent, which the Opposition understood when they were in government, recognises that there is an opportunity cost. If we start filling up the parliamentary timetable with such legislation, which everyone accepts is not controversial, there is less time and less space for schools, hospitals and transport, etc.
On the point about criminal offences, which was made powerfully by the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), this is an area where it is important to move cautiously. We will continue to reflect on the range of views expressed. I agree with him that an awful lot of offences are created by statutory instruments, but we need to take care, none the less.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful for the Minister’s observations in relation to criminal offences, and I will take him at his word as far as that is concerned. I know that he will want to take away, perhaps, how we deal with that proportionately.
The Minister refers to the value of the affirmative procedure, as is proposed. That, of course, is used when the PIL treaty first comes into force in our domestic law, but often these treaties or agreements can be modified as they go along. Can he help me with the concerns raised by the Bar Council and the Law Society about how the proposed scrutiny regime would deal with, for example, declarations that are attached to international agreements when we bring them into force? Such declarations can sometimes modify or limit their scope. Secondly, how will we deal with model laws, which are now often used in international trade negotiations?
Alex Chalk
If I may respectfully say so, that is an excellent point. That is one of the reasons why we seek to frame things this way, because one of the points my hon. Friend made most powerfully is that there are shortcomings in the Lugano convention. He talked about the Italian torpedo, but there are others, some of which Lord Mance referred to in the other place, for example.
How are we to be expected, in an agile and proportionate way, to address those changes, supposing they are negotiated, if we effectively have to have a new Act of Parliament each time? With respect, that would be wildly disproportionate. It would clog up this place unnecessarily, because there may be very good opportunities to improve those agreements and get them on to the statute book.
Let me deal with this business about Lugano, in amendments 1 to 4, 8 and 9, new clauses 1 and 2, new schedule 1, new schedule 3, new clause 5 and amendments (a) to (g). First, it is premature to put Lugano into the Bill while our application is outstanding, even if amendment 2 specifically includes reference to this being contingent on the UK’s accession. It is also inadequate—this is the point I was adverting to—as additional provisions will be required, mostly of a procedural or consequential nature, to properly implement to Lugano convention into domestic law.
For example, the civil procedure rules might need to be changed. What if Lugano is improved, as I indicated? What, also, if our application is unsuccessful? We may then need to move quickly. With whom will we want to move quickly? As my hon. Friend well knows, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland have published statements of support for our Lugano application, and that may be a route we would want to go down.
The most important point is that we have, and indeed should have, ambitions beyond Lugano. We must stay at the forefront of developments, whether the Singapore convention on mediation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) powerfully referred to, or the Hague convention on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, also known as Hague ’19.
I advert to the fact that the Bill properly complies with the devolution settlement. We take that extremely seriously. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) indicated, both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have passed legislative consent motions for the Bill, and the Welsh Government have agreed that an LCM is not required as PIL is almost entirely reserved. There is a small exclusion for Cafcass Cymru, but that is really it.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham spoke about the super-affirmative procedure, and I accept this amendment was submitted in the spirit of trying to be helpful. I entirely acknowledge that. These proposals are contained within paragraph 4 of new schedule 3, tabled by the Opposition, and there is a similar proposal in new schedule 2, although the SNP new schedule would introduce a super-affirmative scrutiny power only for Lugano. I respectfully make the point, and I appreciate that this is to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but why would we need a super-affirmative scrutiny power for Lugano, which we have been operating for years? That is not very obvious to me.
The bar for the super-affirmative scrutiny procedure has always been high. Let us look at the context. Section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for a super-affirmative procedure for regulations that deal with changes to reserved matters as set out in that Act. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides for such a procedure for remedial orders that deal with legislation that has been found to be incompatible—declarations of incompatibility. Under the Public Bodies Act 2011, a super-affirmative procedure is needed for orders that abolish, merge or change the constitutional funding arrangements. I dealt with those quickly, but the point is that super-affirmative procedure is reserved for matters of key constitutional importance. We must not forget that in the case we are discussing, we have the additional CRaG brake.
If we drill into the detail of super-affirmative procedure, it creates additional stages, but I query whether it results in improvements to the proposed regulations. Instead, it simply delays. It would also create a potential discrepancy between England and Wales and the devolved jurisdictions. One could easily imagine a situation whereby two litigants lived five miles either side of the border and the cases were dealt with differently, to the disadvantage of a litigant in England, because the Scottish Parliament had got on with it and simply brought an agreement into force. That would be unsatisfactory. I do not suggest that that is what the right hon. Member for Tottenham intends, but I fear it could be a consequence.
New clauses 1, 6 and 7 deal with laying the report. New clause 6 would require a report to be laid in Parliament before the UK ratifies an agreement. New clause 7 would require the Government to lay a report in Parliament for 10 House of Commons sitting days before a draft statutory instrument was laid. I accept the need for clear and detailed explanations, but it is not immediately obvious that new clause 7 would add anything to the current process. All SIs are already accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. I dug one out to prepare for the debate. It deals with the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. It runs to 18 pages and is very detailed and helpful. Other than requiring the information 10 days earlier, I cannot see that new clause 7 would make a difference. We should not forget that an SI is typically laid several weeks before the House gets to debate it. None the less, I accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made about the need to reach out to distinguished practitioners and jurists. It is right that we should do that, and I am keen for that happen.
I am very grateful for the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I share the desire to ensure that PIL agreements that we wish to join and domestically implement are appropriately scrutinised. All Governments must balance the need for scrutiny with the need to move in a timely manner to ensure that British citizens can enjoy the benefits of PIL agreements as soon as it is properly possible to provide for them. Those benefits are significant, and if the House gets the balance wrong, our citizens will be denied them by an unnecessarily labyrinthine process.
The proposed procedures provide for scrutiny of a delegated power using an affirmative SI together with the CRaG procedure to implement the agreements. That is a balanced and proportionate approach.
Sir Robert Neill
Perhaps the Minister can help my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and me. I understand what the Minister is saying, and none of us wishes to create a labyrinthine process. Does he accept that it may be necessary to learn from experience with CRaG as we go forward? Are the Government closing their mind to the idea that we could seek refinements and improvements to the CRaG process as we operate it? The answer might help us.
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. There is no doubt that the CRaG process is evolving and maturing. Proper points have been made about the need to consider it and how it should evolve over time. I certainly do not want to shut my eyes or my ears to my hon. Friend’s proposals.
The Bill takes a balanced and proportionate approach. I therefore invite hon. Members to support the Government amendments and reject the remainder.
Mr Djanogly
The debate has been interesting and gone some way towards creating a more common understanding of the important issues at stake, the balance between efficient process and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and why, as I have argued, we need a more modern process of scrutiny for PIL treaties as much as for the ministerial orders that are derived from them.
Alex Chalk
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me start by thanking all the right hon, hon. and , in particular, learned Members from all parts of the House for their careful scrutiny of the Bill at each stage of its passage. A variety of opinions have been expressed, and I value all the contributions made on these important issues. We have been fortunate, throughout the passage of this Bill, that the debates have been genuinely enriched by the experience and expertise of the speakers, both in this House and in the other place. One thing that has been raised time and again from all involved is an acknowledgement of the importance of private international law and the real-world impact it can have on our constituents.
I have to accept that historically that acknowledgement has not always been in place. A former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, who introduced a key piece of private international law legislation, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill, into the House of Lords in 1981 opened the Second Reading debate by saying:
“I rather feel that it should be accompanied by a Government health warning. There is nothing whatever that I can do to make my speech short, and those who expect to find it of throbbing human interest will, I fear, be wholly disappointed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 1981; Vol. 425, c. 1126.]
But of course we know in this House that this is extremely important. Reciprocal private international law rules provide a framework to enable UK businesses, families and individuals to resolve their difficult and challenging situations. They help to avoid confusion for all parties, by preventing multiple court cases from taking place in different countries on the same subject and reaching potentially different conclusions. Such reciprocal rules also allow for the decisions of UK courts to be recognised and enforced across borders. All of this helps to reduce costs and anxiety for the parties involved. It is therefore vital that in future our country is able not only to continue to co-operate on private international law matters with existing partners, but to implement in our domestic law new agreements that are fit for the 21st century.
The Bill underpins our ambition to deliver real and tangible benefits for the United Kingdom—for our citizens—both now and in the years to come. I reassure Members on a point that I know they realise but that can never be emphasised enough: although private international law can support and underpin cross-border trade, the Bill is not about the implementation of free trade agreements. The terms on which trade between two countries takes place are clearly outside the scope of the Bill.
Over the next few years, we face the challenge of replacing and updating the UK’s private international law framework, recognising our regained competence in this area of law. Although we have not yet agreed, as between this House and the other place, on how best to scrutinise future agreements, I am now confident that there is an eagerness to do so effectively. That eagerness recognises the overwhelming public interest of such agreements.
More broadly, I am pleased that, whatever the outcome of ping-pong, we will have in place legislation that allows the UK to realise the future opportunities in this area of law. I think all parties in this House are agreed not only that we want the UK to remain at the forefront of delivering justice internationally and to ensure that our legal services sector continues to flourish, but that we want to ensure that we are at the forefront of the international rules-based order—we want to see it strengthened and we want to play our part.
I conclude simply by thanking all Members for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Lammy
I join the Minister in thanking colleagues from all parties for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for their eminently reasonable suggestions on how the Bill could secure cross-party support.
On Second Reading, Labour made it clear that we supported the fundamental principle behind the Bill. The Opposition fully accept that as we leave the largest network of private international law agreements in the world, we must have a legislative framework in place to replace it. As we leave the European Union, we must protect our country’s proud reputation as the international forum of choice for the resolution of commercial and legal disputes.
We should also remember the human aspects of private international law. Helping parents separated by borders to come to custody agreements in the interests of their children is very important, as is allowing the safe return of a child who has been abducted. That is why the Opposition have always been fully supportive of the Government’s desire to implement the international treaties listed in clause 1, each of which has been fully scrutinised by this House and is being brought into domestic law by primary legislation. That is how the implementation of international agreements has always been done, and how we would like to see it done in future.
Unfortunately, we have seen during the Bill’s passage the Government’s desire to prise parliamentary scrutiny away from this House and these Benches. That is something we regret and something to which the other place will no doubt return in the debate ahead. Once again, we see a Government keen to do all they can to avoid proper democratic scrutiny—a Government more at ease with ruling by decree than daring to test the will of this House.
Sir Robert Neill
We have had a constructive set of debates on the Bill, and I pay tribute to all Members for the approach that has been adopted. I pay particular tribute to the skill and elan with which the Minister has steered the Bill through the House: he is a credit to our mutual profession. He is certainly no Henry VIII—and I say that in a good way—but of course he and I are both proud members of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. The nearest Tudor connection I can find is that the first Middle Templar to be Lord Chancellor was Lord, previously Sir, Richard Rich, for those who follow “A Man for All Seasons”. I am not sure whether that is a good sign, but I do not think that the Minister is a Richard in terms of personal integrity, since he was certainly one of the most successful Lord Chancellors but also one of the most corrupt. We have moved forward a great deal, and I suspect that the legacy still entertains us in Middle Temple with the wine cellar.
The Minister has done a great job on the Bill, and I hope he will reflect on some of the comments made, none of which were aimed to obstruct or make life difficult for the Government, because we all share the objective. I welcome the tone adopted throughout by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and those on the SNP Front Bench. It is important for the country’s sake that we get this right.
It has been rightly observed that this is not just about dry technical law. When I went to the London School of Economics in the ’70s, it had an international law module, which most of us avoided. It had just introduced a European law module, and somebody said, “There’ll never be much work around that,” which shows how things can be got wrong. As we exit a period of 40 or more years during which EU law has been an increasingly important part of our domestic and international legal systems, it is all the more important that we have a proper means of getting private international law agreements on a sound footing. I think we all share the Government’s objective in that.
I suspect that this may not be the last we hear of the Bill, either in the other place or here. I hope we will find a constructive way forward that meets some of the concerns raised in the other place about how scrutiny is dealt with. I welcome the Minister’s longer-term commitment to look at those issues. I hope he will take away the criminal sanctions aspect in particular, and the need to look at how CRaG operates.
May I give the Minister a further reading list, so to speak? As well as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the other things for a wet Friday, perhaps he could look at the Law Society and Bar Council briefings on how we deal with the two issues that I flagged briefly in Committee in relation to our having a proportionate and effective means of scrutinising the declarations that are frequently attached to international legal agreements. International agreements are often adopted by country with a declaration that modifies or limits the extent of its application to varying degrees. The Bill provides for the affirmative procedure for the initial adherence to the treaties, but it might not, as far as we can see at the moment, cover how we would properly scrutinise the declarations, which could have a significant impact.
An example of that, if the Minister wants it, is that we are committed to seeking to join in our own right the Hague choice of court convention 2005, which is an important document. When we joined it as part of the EU, the EU opted to exclude insurance contracts from that agreement. The provisions that we made following the withdrawal agreement and the memorandum on delegated powers that accompanies this Bill suggest that we will continue to exclude insurance contracts from it.
We need to think about why that is and how we will deal with scrutiny of changes to that, because the potential effect of that is to deprive court judgments based on excluded contracts of the right to be enforced by the 2005 convention when we hopefully sign up to it. That would leave a considerable gap in a very important sector of the British economy. Insurance and reinsurance markets are of real significance to the financial world, and we need to have a means of adjusting the position if that is required and taking on board those concerns. That is precisely the area where it is suggested that we should be talking to the experts in not only private international law but the insurance sector. I have already declared my interests in relation to these matters, but it is important that we take that as an example.
A similar issue arises in relation to how we will deal with model laws. Model laws are not international conventions that impose rights and duties between contracting states, but they are what are sometimes termed agreed soft law provisions, which are often modified substantially before they are given effect in domestic law. They are important, none the less, and they are a growing area of activity, so I hope the Minister can think about the mechanism that we have to ensure that they are properly scrutinised, as well as being brought in timeously. I flag those up as examples of what we need to do. It is certainly important that we do not just stop at joining Lugano. Whether it is on the face of the Bill or not, I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to joining it, and that is an important first step, but as we all know, there are other conventions that it is most important we seek to join, some of which have already been mentioned. I hope that we will push on swiftly, for example, to implement and ratify the 1997, 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions, because between them they would provide a suite of the vital civil and family law co-operation measures that we want to see continue after the transition period.
Of course, we also hope that the Government will ratify and implement in England and Wales the 2000 Hague convention on the international protection of adults. It has already been brought into force in Scotland but not in England and Wales, and it seems bizarre that a vulnerable adult could be treated differently if they were in Gloucester as opposed to Glasgow. That implementation would, for example, enable us to deal with important issues relating to vulnerable adults such as people who are subject to powers of attorney or who are under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and who might have overseas assets or overseas properties. Not having continuity of legal recognition of the judgments and contracts that are entered into could make it difficult to deal with those persons’ affairs.
These are techie issues, but they affect real lives, so the technical is not insignificant or without a human dimension. I hope that, as we go forward on a constructive basis, we can ensure that, having decided to leave the EU and branch out into broader areas of economic activity, the Government will make a concerted effort, as both the Law Society and the Bar Council have called for, to take a lead in selling, maintaining and building on the UK’s position as a jurisdiction of choice. Tens of thousands of jobs depend on it, as does billions of pounds-worth of economic activity, and it is in our fundamental national, strategic, economic interest to do this. With this Bill on the statute book, I hope that that is the most important thing the Government take forward as a matter of high policy in our negotiations to, hopefully, exit the EU with a deal, and in future free trade agreements.
So far, it has been tough to get free trade agreements to deal with services, and legal services in particular, but we have a potentially strong asset in our legal system and in the integrity and standing of our judiciary, which we should never pillory. No politician should ever knock lawyers for the sake of it, because ultimately, respect for the integrity of the system is fundamental. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor share that view, and I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to build strongly on that.
Owen Thompson
I too welcome the contributions of all hon. and right hon. colleagues today and throughout the Bill’s previous stages. I am deeply disappointed that the amendments in the names of myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) were not supported by the Government, but I will try not to take it personally. However, we will always continue to try to do what we can to make the Government’s laws better than when they were presented. I also find myself, not for the first time, in the slightly strange position of agreeing with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
This is a largely technical Bill, but it will have important consequences for many businesses and individuals. We only have to consider the impact on an individual family, and the extra hassle they might have to go through, if we were unable to get a replacement or an agreement to continue with the Lugano convention. We cannot underestimate the impact on people if these things are not got right, so every effort needs to be made, regardless of whether it is on the face of the Bill. Obviously we will need to see what comes forward. I heard the Minister say that we should now move to replace and update the legislation on other conventions, and I would certainly encourage following the precedent set through this Bill’s process in working across the Chamber and in respecting the devolution settlement and the rule of international law.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Let me add my gratitude to everyone who has spoken in this debate. It has been a very good debate, and I am sure that we have all learned a lot from it. I congratulate the Minister on what he has been able to do. What amazes me is that he has been able to get through the Bill without once using my skills as a mediator. That must be to his great credit.
We have here something that is in the interests of the country and that gives us a new tool in the box. From a personal point of view, I look forward to the Singapore mediation convention being signed and ratified by this country as quickly as possible. I even volunteer to sit on the statutory instrument Committee in order to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Public Health
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 986), dated 13 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.
I will start with a short summary of the social distancing regulations, as context to this debate. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020—the major lockdown regulations—were introduced on March 26. Those regulations outlined restrictions on gathering and required a number of businesses to close. The regulations were amended four times as we opened up the economy and allowed for technical clarifications. They were then revoked and replaced by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020. Those regulations had been amended three times prior to 13 September to allow more businesses to reopen, as the transmission of the virus was falling or stabilising. Unfortunately, as winter approaches, the picture has changed and we now need to introduce tighter restrictions to control the virus, protect the NHS and save lives.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The regulations were obviously made and brought into force ahead of the commitment that the Secretary of State made to the House last week. Given that the regulations that we are debating today cover the whole of England and are obviously of very great significance, will the Minister confirm that regulations of this nature would in future be covered by the Secretary of State’s commitment and would be brought for debate and decision in this House before they came into force? Would that also apply to, for example, the self-isolation regulations, which have not yet been debated by this House and which are also significant? I want to ensure that we are following through on the commitments that the Government made last week, and that this House will get to debate measures that cover the whole country and are of great significance.
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. Indeed, the Secretary of State has made a commitment that for future changes to restrictions that would have national effect, we will do our very best to bring them to the House to a vote, although obviously we have to bear in mind that there are circumstances in which we need to act very quickly, because, as we have seen, things can move very quickly with the infection rate and the consequences of the pandemic.
The regulations that we are debating today amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 so that people may not participate in social gatherings in groups of more than six unless they are members of the same household or support bubble, or exemptions apply. The regulations were made under the emergency procedure in order to respond quickly to the serious and imminent threat to public health posed by coronavirus.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I think the Minister knows what I am going to ask. I asked it last Monday in the general debate and her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), chose not to respond in the wind-up, so I will ask it again: what is the rationale for including children under the age of those who have to wear masks in the rule of six? I am asking not about the fact that it is happening, but the rationale.
Helen Whately
If my hon. Friend allows me to make a little progress, I will pick up on that point during the course of what I will say.
I appreciate that these national regulations have caused real disruption to people’s lives, placing restrictions on who people can see and what they can do. However, the evidence indicated that the covid-19 infection rate was rising across the country. It was therefore vital that the Government took decisive action to limit and slow the spread, to protect public health and to reduce the likelihood of a further national lockdown of the type that was necessary earlier this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you, Mr Speaker and a number of Members have raised concerns about parliamentary scrutiny. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care outlined to the House last week, for significant national measures with an effect on the whole of England or UK-wide, the Government will consult the House of Commons wherever possible and hold votes before such regulations come into force.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indulging me a second time. The point of our arguing for that was insisting that Ministers had to set out their arguments and the evidence. I understand that one of the key ways of transmitting the virus is social contact, and that as the regulations have been in force for three weeks, they would lapse if this House did not debate and vote on them in the next four days, but what evidence is there that the measures are actually having an effect on reducing the rise in cases of the virus? Having looked at the data, I do not see any evidence that they are having any practical effect. We want to see action—yes—but we want the right action to be taken which will have the effect that we all wish to see.
Helen Whately
I will answer the question that my right hon. Friend asked in a moment, if he lets me continue.
As the Health Secretary set out in his statement to the House on 1 October, this virus spreads through social contact, so we are having to take difficult decisions to suppress the virus while allowing people to socialise safely. The regulations we are debating today brought previous guidance into law while tightening and simplifying it. The rule of six means that people can now gather only in groups of six both indoors and outdoors. There are exceptions to that rule for households or support bubbles that are larger than six, as well as for areas including work, schools, weddings and organised sports activities.
The regulations also gave the police the powers to enforce those legal limits, including issuing fines of £100, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £3,200. The vast majority of the general public will do the right things and follow the rules, but to protect public health, it is important that the police have appropriate powers to deal with those who flout the rules. As the Prime Minister announced, these measures were not a second national lockdown but are aimed at preventing the need for one.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Do the police have powers of entry into a private dwelling to enforce these rules?
Helen Whately
I would not want to say anything incorrect at the Dispatch Box, so let me make sure that I get back to my right hon. Friend with a detailed answer to that question.
After a period of reducing or stabilising the transmission of the virus, we have been seeing daily case numbers rise rapidly across most parts of the country. That is why the Government chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser jointly agreed the changes that we announced. We know from the science of what has sadly happened in other countries that are experiencing a second wave that an increase in infections will lead to increases in hospitalisations and deaths until we take action.
In introducing the changes, we noted that clear and easily understood information about the virus and how it spreads was likely to increase adherence to public health advice. Although the majority of people report that they understand social distancing rules, feedback from the public and Members of this House indicate that people would value simpler messaging. That is why we have moved to the rule of six—one number for all settings—and have tightened the regulations so that they exactly reflect the guidance rather than there being one set of numbers in the guidance and another set of numbers in the legal framework. The rules were simplified and strengthened, so that they were easier to understand and so that the police could identify and disperse illegal gatherings.
We have acted to get the virus under control and, in doing that, we want in due course to be able to make changes and, clearly, to be able to lift the restrictions. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked specifically about children. The position on this is, as I have said, the need for a clear steer. We needed the guidance to be simple and absolutely clear to everybody. We wanted, on the one hand, to enable a level of socialising for the sake of people’s quality of life, while on the other hand to take steps to control the virus. That is why we took the position that the rule of six achieved that balance. I appreciate that colleagues would like a different position to have been taken, but that is the position based on the—
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
At that specific moment, I was doing my very best to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. I think I should make some progress, but I am happy, of course, to come back to this point if colleagues feel that they have not had all the answers that they need.
As I was asked about this a moment ago, I wish to move on to the impact of these measures. I note that they have been in place for only just over three weeks. We know that, because of the incubation period of the virus, it takes at least a couple of weeks for us to see the measures take effect. When social distancing measures were first introduced, we saw high understanding, high awareness and lots of concern about covid and high adherence to the rules. What we have seen over time, with an easing of restrictions and perhaps lower levels of public concern, is that people’s social contacts have increased. Since the introduction of this rule, levels of socialising have begun to decrease again, including specifically socialising in larger gatherings—we know that, sometimes, larger gatherings have been a factor in some outbreaks. Clearly, we are keeping a close eye on infection rates and absolute case numbers across the country.
I will now briefly talk through some further changes that have come into effect since the regulations were made.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. What she seemed to be saying was that it is too soon to tell. It is very clear from the test and trace data that the primary location for infection is in people’s households and among visitors to households. Clearly, the rule of six may have an impact on visitors to households. May I ask her to make sure that the Government publish the data as they track it out each week?
The Minister also talked about compliance. The Government keep referring to how well people are complying with regulations—or not. They do not publish any data on that. Will the Government publish the compliance data to which they have access, so that we can all see the extent to which people are complying with the rules? There is no point making rules if no one is following them. That is an important matter for this House to be aware of when it is assenting to them.
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend makes two important points. He will be aware that the Government are publishing a large amount of data and seeking to be as transparent as possible with colleagues and, clearly, with the public, and we will continue to publish what we can. I will take away his specific requests for even further publication.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will just move on as I am conscious that I have taken quite a number of interventions—
Sir Graham Brady
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. We are three weeks in and we know that a different model is being applied in Scotland. At what point would she expect to be able to form a judgment as to whether the Scottish approach, excluding young children from the rule of six, is less effective, as effective, or more effective than that in England?
Helen Whately
I have a personal perspective, as I have a household of five and am therefore well aware that the rule of six can make socialising quite difficult for families. For instance, my own family now cannot get together either with both my parents or my husband’s parents. I very much appreciate the difficulty of this restriction, although the majority of households are slightly smaller and are not finding it as difficult as my own or other larger households. We are keeping this and all measures under review. The Government clearly do not want to introduce restrictions if we do not need to do so. What is crucial is that restrictions are effective, so we are looking at all the evidence, including where and how the virus is being transmitted—whether that is in households, in people’s own homes, through meeting up with other households or in hospitality settings—and we will continue to do so. But in answer to my hon. Friend’s question, I cannot give a date or a specific “This will be the moment at which it would happen.”
Helen Whately
I feel I have taken quite a number of interventions, so it is time that I moved on, if that is all right.
Let me talk through some further changes that have come into effect since the regulations were made. On 21 September, following the advice of the four chief medical officers, the UK’s covid alert level was raised from 3 to 4, which is the second most serious stage, meaning that transmission is high or rising exponentially. The Prime Minister outlined to Parliament on 22 September that we were at a “perilous turning point”, and needed to act to save lives, protect the NHS and the most vulnerable, and shelter the economy from far sterner and more costly measures that would inevitably become necessary.
As a result, further restrictions came into effect from 24 September. These included: rules on the closure of certain businesses selling food or drink between 10 pm and 5 am; measures to require hospitality venues to provide food and drink for consumption on the premises by table service only; the doubling of initial fines for individual breaches of the above measures; and new fines for businesses that do not adhere to the new requirements, starting at £1,000, up to a maximum of £10,000 for repeated breaches. The rules also change the exemptions to the six-person gathering limit to restrict attendance at wedding ceremonies, receptions and support groups to 15, and remove the exemption for stand-alone religious or belief-based lifecycle ceremonies and adult indoor sports apart from indoor disabled sports. We are working through the normal channels to schedule debates for these regulations as soon as possible.
I recognise that people have had to make significant sacrifices to suppress the first wave, and these restrictions are not measures that any Government would want to introduce, but the threat of the virus very much remains. With winter approaching, we must do whatever it takes to keep it under control and protect the NHS so that it can, in turn, look after us.
Helen Whately
I am sorry but I was closing my speech, not taking an intervention. That was the end of my speech. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The Minister has completed her speech. She is due to come back at the end of the debate, although hon. and right hon. Members who wish to speak must bear that in mind if they wish her to speak again, because this is just a 90-minute debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her introduction.
With 1 million people worldwide and over 42,000 people in the UK having now lost their lives to covid-19, the virus is still very much with us and the threat is clear. On Friday, the Government’s scientific and medical advisers reported that the R number in the UK could be as high as 1.6, and that it was highly likely that the virus was still growing exponentially. The spread of the disease is thought to be growing between 5% and 9% each day. There were another 12,500 new cases yesterday, and that is before we see the consequences of those missing cases, where contacts have not been identified and asked to isolate.
Just about every piece of data indicates that we are heading in the wrong direction, which is why new restrictions are required, but, three weeks into them, should we not be beginning to see a sign of progress?
More than 16 million people across the country are living under additional local restrictions, and we have further national measures, such as the 10 pm curfew, which we are not debating today, yet the progress of the virus continues unabated. Indeed, Members whose constituencies are directly affected will know that some of the heaviest increases in infection appear to be taking place in areas where additional restrictions are already in place. Today’s debate is important as it gives Members the opportunity to question how effective these interventions are, whether we need to go further and what these regulations might mean for their constituents.
Before I turn to the regulations, I remind the House that Labour has been clear from the outset that we will do whatever we can to support the national effort by supporting whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect the NHS and save lives. That does not mean, though, that we are giving the Government a free pass. We have been concerned by the months of mixed messages and confused communication from the Government. We welcome the intention behind the rule of six. It is a simple, easily understood message, although anyone who has read the 10 pages of regulations, the plethora of exceptions and the many laws that they amend will realise that the simple message has not survived the process of drafting the regulations.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Given that the Minister has pleaded simplicity for the rule of six, is it any less simple that the six should exclude children than that it should include them, or do we imagine that our constituents are stupid?
Justin Madders
I certainly do not think my constituents are stupid, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not either. A very important point has already been made about children, and I will return to that later. We have not yet had a convincing explanation why they are included in the six.
Even with the best of intentions, concerns and questions remain, not least about the way in which these regulations were introduced, how effective they are, how the Government communicated them and how they will be enforced. The timeline of these regulations is the perfect demonstration of the lack of transparency, strategy and accountably, which has been the hallmark of this Government. Following media briefings the night before, the Prime Minister made an announcement about the rule of six on 9 September, not to this place, as it should have been, even though he was in the House that day to answer Prime Minister’s questions. I call that a discourtesy to this place, and I hope we see and end of that. It shows not only a lack of respect to all Members and our constituents but a lack of confidence in what is being proposed and a lack of commitment to scrutiny. Most of all, the way that these regulations were introduced shows a lack of thought about the practicalities of enforcing them.
How can we expect anyone to adhere to the minutiae of these regulations if they appear for the first time only a quarter of an hour before they become law—at quarter to midnight on a Sunday evening? How were the police meant to enforce that? Are they supposed to google the regulations as they walk around on their beat? Brian Booth, the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, said:
“Everybody is in the dark, it shouldn’t be like that…If the government says they’re going to infringe on people’s lives, they have to tell them how.”
Once again, there is no impact assessment for these regulations. Surely some thought was given to the practicalities, so what discussions did the Minister have with her counterparts in the Home Office and with police forces around the country prior to the introduction of these regulations?
The way that regulations are introduced matters. They are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law. Since March, more than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this way, with no debate and no vote before they come into force. We recognise that, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under the emergency procedures, and we acknowledge that that may still be the case at times, but more and more of the regulations that are being introduced do not meet the test of urgency. The Government have slipped into bad habits. They treat this place as an afterthought—an inconvenience, an optional extra—and not as the cornerstone of the democratic process that it should be. Surely they can do better than that. Do they not realise that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws means that, in the long run, laws are more robust, more effective and have greater public acceptance?
I repeat once again and for the record our offer to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for some, but, to be frank, we are in a pandemic so a bit of inconvenience should be the least that we have to put up with to ensure that democracy still functions.
Sir Christopher Chope
On that point, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of the present state of negotiations with the official Opposition about a debate on the 10 o’clock curfew? The suggestion was that there would be a debate tomorrow on the 10 o’clock curfew, but it is not going to be about that—it is going to be about what is happening in the north. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress there has been?
Justin Madders
Regrettably, I am not one of the business managers of the House, so I cannot advise on that, although I expect that we will have an answer during the business statement on Thursday. I note what Members have said about national regulations being debated on the Floor of the House before they become law, if possible—obviously, that will still be after the event, but we really need to start doing a lot better in that area.
There is rightly a concern across the House and among the population that we do not have control of the virus. A central part of regaining control is ensuring that there is robust scrutiny of the regulations and their effectiveness. The Government need to stop reacting to situations too late—that is how the virus has run out of control. They need to look ahead, plan, prepare and act now to get a grip on test and trace, to have a clear and consistent message on what the public need to do and to ensure that there is widespread compliance with the rules. The latter two go hand in hand and are very much connected to the regulations that we are debating today.
As we heard from the Minister, the regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations for the fourth time. The regulations restrict social gatherings to six people, unless an exemption applies. We have heard a little about some of those exemptions, so I will not list them all, but they are where the good intentions behind the regulations depart from the clear and consistent messaging that we need. For example, there is an exemption in the regulations for gatherings of up to 30 persons for a marriage or civil partnership; as Members will already be aware, that has been reduced to 15. Yet again, as with a whole host of other restrictions, we are debating regulations that are, in part at least, out of date.
The wedding industry has been decimated this year; I do not know what repeatedly inviting and uninviting people to a wedding does for family relations—maybe people could ask everyone to wear tweed to the wedding and combine it with a grouse shoot so that they could keep numbers at 30. However, this is a health debate, so I will focus on the health aspects. To that end, I would like the Minister to spell out very clearly the rationale for this decision. The limit of 30 at a wedding lasted for just two weeks before it was reduced to 15. Either a specific piece of evidence emerged during that fortnight that required the limit to be reduced for weddings but not for funerals, or the limit should never have been 30 in the first place. Which one is it?
The regulations also provide that the restrictions in private dwellings in the regional lockdown regulations remain in place; it is notable that the rules for the rule of six vary across the devolved nations, as we have already heard. Far from us having an easy-to-remember set of rules that apply to everyone, it seems that the rule of six is the baseline for around only half the UK.
In Wales, as we have heard, primary-age children are not counted in the six. The Welsh Assembly took that decision based on the evidence that it has, which shows that children are far less likely to have the most serious symptoms and are less likely to pass on the virus. The question, which has already been put today, is about how the Government have come to a different conclusion on that point. Why are younger children included in the rule of six in England, but not in Wales—or in Scotland, for that matter?
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Should I infer from the hon. Gentleman’s points that the Labour party would like children to be excluded from the rule of six? I think that is what he is saying. Obviously, this motion today is unamendable. Is he joining some of us on the Conservative side of the House in saying to the Government that we would like them to come back with a further statutory instrument to amend the regulations, so that children are excluded if they are of primary school age?
Justin Madders
What I am saying is that I would like to see the evidence. I would like to know what the difference is between this country and Wales and Scotland. The Children’s Commissioner, for one, would also like an answer. If we get the answer, we can take a position on it.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The question was asked and the answer was that it was for simplicity. It was not a question of evidence: the answer was that it was simpler to include children. Given that there is no evidence, will the hon. Gentleman reassess his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)?
Justin Madders
That is probably overstating things. Certainly, it is not what has been said in the other place about the reasons why children were included. We do need some more clarity from the Government on that.
In terms of clarity, we also need more data and evidence from the Minister about what is happening to reduce the transmission of the virus. We need her to commit to publishing evidence behind all these decisions. If there is no evidence, then so be it, but we need to see the basis on which decisions are being made. I was a little unsure whether she was saying that it was too early, or not, to establish the effectiveness of these regulations. She said at one point that it would take a couple of weeks to see whether the regulations are being effective, but of course we are already past that point. I hope that we can see some clarity on that.
I would be grateful if we heard a bit more about why it is a rule of six, not seven, eight or five, for example. That is very important, because we are putting significant restrictions on people and those cannot be based on an arbitrary number. I raise this not because we want to pick holes in what the Government are saying but because the Transport Secretary, when asked why it was six, said there was no particular reason for that figure. Can anyone imagine a police officer going to hand out a fine to a group of seven people and, when asked why seven was an offence and six was not, saying, “Well, there’s no particular reason for that.”?
Justin Madders
Every suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes is helpful, so I will.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Could I suggest 10, and then we can count them on our fingers? That would be simple enough, wouldn’t it?
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that the Government’s thought processes are rather more complex than that, but, again, we need to see what has actually been said in that respect.
When we debated the first lockdown regulations, I stated that as regulations changed, it was vital that the rules remain clear and consistent. That consistency not only carries across advice but carries across laws and all forms of official communication. It is very clear that that has not happened in this case. As we know, the Prime Minister and Ministers have made contradictory statements and have been unable to answer simple questions regarding the new regulations in the media. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if the people responsible for making the rules do not understand them, how can we expect the rest of the country to understand and follow the rules?
Justin Madders
I am conscious that more people want to speak, so I will make this my last one.
Mr Baker
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me out. I am looking at the provision on linked households, which is introduced on page 6. I have looked at the explanatory memorandum and I cannot find the explanation of what linked households means. Is he able to clearly explain, for the benefit of the nation, what this linked households provision is all about?
Justin Madders
If we are going into pub quiz territory, then perhaps we can have a pint later on. I am afraid that we probably do not have time to go into that, because I know that a number of other Members wish to speak.
Compliance is a very important matter. The vast majority of people do comply with the rule of six, but where they have not, they will obviously get a fixed penalty notice, and we need to understand how realistic it is that that will be enforced. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, has called for the Government to start an effective information campaign. He said:
“For policing, these constant changes to legislation are becoming the norm. The pressures on policing have increased significantly over recent months, and this latest change will add to this pressure.”
Brian Booth, who I quoted earlier, said that officers
“simply can’t enforce”
the new restrictions, adding:
“We just don’t have the resources, the world has woken up again and it’s busy… Resources are outstripped with that demand, never mind adding on Mrs Miggins reporting that seven people are having a barbecue next door.”
I am not aware of any official figures for the total number of fines that have been issued for breaching the rule of six, or indeed whether Mrs Miggins has had a fine, but it is notable that three weeks down the line, it is reported that many police forces, including North Yorkshire police, who handed out the greatest number of fines in the original lockdown, had not issued any fines for breaches of these regulations.
Will the Minister update us on the number of fines that have actually been issued? The police have had an incredibly difficult job in this crisis, and we know the very real pressures on them due to the reductions in their numbers over the past decade. They simply cannot continue to be handed responsibilities if those responsibilities are not accompanied by sufficient resources to enable them to do their job. With the number of enforceable restrictions increasing, will the Minister set out what additional resources will be handed to the police to ensure compliance? On that point, we know that Halloween is coming up very soon. It is always a busy night for the police, but this year they will have the added burden of breaking up groups of children if they become too big. Given that those children have probably spent all day with the very same kids at school in groups far larger than six, I say good luck to the officer who tries to explain to them why their parents will get a fine for it. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is what is going to happen.
There will need to be a very clear public messaging campaign, or will there be an exception? After all, the Prime Minister hinted that the rule of six could be dropped for Christmas day. Of course everyone would like to see that, but how on earth is saying that on a particular day the rule of six will not apply at all consistent with the clear public health message that the rule of six is meant to be?
Will the Minister also clarify what the rule is in relation to mingling? Apparently, a person can be fined for mingling with an existing group of six, but there is no definition within the regulations of what constitutes a mingle. The debate would be absurd if the consequences were not so serious.
In respect of police powers, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked the Minister whether the police can go into people’s properties to enforce the law. My understanding is that they cannot. I do not know whether the Minister expects the police to stand outside people’s properties until six people come out and then take appropriate action.
On fines, will the Minister clarify whether there was an oversight in the regulations around who has committed an offence under them? I ask that because the regulations require event organisers to carry out a risk assessment in order to comply with the regulations, but there does not appear to be any penalty for them if they fail to do so. It seems that the fine in that situation would apply to the people attending the event. How can it be right that a person attending an event in good faith is liable only because the organiser has not done their job? I appreciate that subsequent regulations came into place a few days later, on 18 September, requiring hospitality venues to enforce the rule of six or face a fine of up to £4,000, but again, I do not believe that applies to outdoor events. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case? Are there any plans to introduce a penalty for the organisers of outdoor events who fail to comply with the regulations?
I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak, so I will conclude by confirming, as we have done on many occasions, that we want the Government to succeed in fighting the virus. However, let me be clear that the rise in infections we are seeing was not inevitable and the restrictions we are debating today were not inevitable. The Government cannot continue lurching from crisis to crisis. To take people with us, we need to see more transparency, the evidence behind the restrictions that are being introduced and better communication. We need new laws introduced after the democratic process has been completed.
How can we find ourselves, eight months into this pandemic, with confidence in the Government’s response draining away, rather than growing? How can we have one of the worst death rates in the world? How can we have a test and trace system so obviously failing to deliver the basics? The regulations might not have been necessary if the Government had fixed test and trace when the sun was shining. They wasted the summer. Let us hope that the price for that is not a very bitter winter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are eight people on the call list, and I will get everyone in if it kills me. To do so, I am introducing a rule of six. It is not an arbitrary figure; I have divided the time left by how many people want to speak. The rule of six could become the rule of five or the rule of four if there are a lot of interventions.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The logic of what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) has just been saying is that the Opposition should be opposing the regulations and calling upon the Government to come back with a fresh set of regulations that overcome the shortcomings he has so articulately identified. I, for my part, certainly hope we will have an opportunity to test the will of the House on the regulations, because this is the first freedom we have been given on such regulations for months. I hope we can then get the Government to go back to the drawing board and come forward with regulations that are consistent with their other policies elsewhere in the country.
These are complex regulations. Big Brother Watch has quoted human rights barrister Adam Wagner, who said that these are
“the most complex and convoluted set of lockdown regulations on England yet.”
That is hardly simple regulation, is it? We know that the Home Secretary herself was caught out and unable to give a convincing answer to the question of what was defined as mingling.
In the time available, I am going to say that I agree absolutely with the criticisms that have been made about the definition of families and young people, but I want to concentrate on another big anomaly in these regulations, which is that they apply equally to gatherings inside and outside. Why do they do that, because that is completely inconsistent with the Government’s own advice to themselves? It is also inconsistent with the advice even coming from Professor Lockdown, who on the radio this morning was absolutely clear that the risks from the virus were much greater in an indoor setting than in an outdoor setting. So these regulations are arbitrary, unfair, unjustified by the evidence, unenforceable and counterproductive in undermining public confidence in Government and in the rule of law.
In the interview on the “Today” programme this morning with Professor Lockdown, he was asked about the contrast between what we are doing and what people are doing in Sweden. He said that, of course, there was not much difference in the issues about social distancing and compliance, but what was important was that in Sweden the people trusted the Government, and that is why they have been able to manage with far less in terms of regulation. If I had the chance to speak to Professor Lockdown, I would have said that actually what he should have been saying was that our Government should be trusting the people. I think the Swedish Government are trusting the people and the people of Sweden are responding positively, enabling Sweden to have a much more thriving economy than ours because they have not got so many arbitrary restrictions imposed upon them. I hope the message that the Minister will take back is that we should be looking at this in terms of trusting the people and applying common sense, and a lot of these regulations manifestly do not achieve that objective.
These regulations were brought in on a whim. They must have been drafted over a period of weeks, I would suggest, but after the Prime Minister made his statement to a press conference on the Wednesday and the Secretary of State made a statement on the Thursday, I raised a point of order on the Friday to ask, “Where are these regulations because they are coming into effect on Sunday evening?” In the end, they were not laid in this House until 10.30 am on the Monday morning. That is absolutely intolerable. The justification given in the letter that was sent, as all letters have to be sent by the Secretary of State if the Government are ignoring the rules of this House, by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was that these amendments were so urgent that he had not got time to bring them in earlier, but he said in the last paragraph, “I hope you understand why we proceeded in this way, and I look forward to working with you to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of these measures in future.”
The Minister who has been charged with dealing with this debate, despite the fact that these regulations were brought in by the Home Office actually—the Home Secretary introduced these regulations—could not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) as to whether there were going to be powers of entry, arrest and so on. I am sure a Home Office Minister would have been able to do that, but what that underlines is that we are talking about draconian powers that are restricting the liberty of the British citizen. We should not be introducing draconian powers without the strongest possible justification, and I do not think the Minister has set out any justification in her remarks.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister really appreciated that warm welcome from her colleagues—so different from those horrid breakfast-time interviews that she is occasionally trapped in.
I would like to make three very quick points. I want to ask, first, about this rule of six. If it is a purely arbitrary figure and it has no scientific basis at all, does the Minister accept that she is being quite unfair to those with larger extended families, and how does she justify that?
Secondly, we need clarity on the question about police powers of entry. It is quite ridiculous for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the police can level fines and that they can do this or that enforcement, only for us to discover that, if they are standing outside a property where there is a party of 40, 50 or 60 going wild, they have no room to enter. It would be useful, if we are being asked to renew these powers, to know what powers the police have.
Finally, is there a numerical point of reference—an R number, say, or a number of cases—for when these restrictions will be revised in either direction? If that is the case, surely we should know, and surely the public should know.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The so-called rule of six, like the ban on household mingling in some parts of the country and, indeed, the original lockdown measures, was introduced under public health laws that were originally envisaged as a means of controlling the movement of infected people, not of whole populations and not for indefinite periods of time. The approach being taken is truly unprecedented. These rules are a massive intrusion into the liberty and private lives of the whole British people, and they are having a devastating economic effect, which will result in big job losses and masses of business failures.
The rule of six has only been in place for three weeks or so, but much of the country has been under additional restrictions for much longer. In Greater Manchester, for example, people have been banned from mixing with other households, including close family, since late July. It would be interesting to know what conclusions the Government have reached about the efficacy of these restrictions, given the 10 weeks of experience that we now have in those areas with greater restrictions.
Rates of positive testing in those areas have fluctuated over the summer months. In Trafford, rates were falling in July, when we were put into the additional restrictions, but rising a month later. After 10 weeks, the positive test figures in Trafford are roughly twice as high as they were in July. In the city of Manchester, the increase has been tenfold.
If I asked the Minister whether these restrictions are proving effective, I suspect that she would say, “But it might have been worse if we weren’t doing it.” If so, she needs to tell the House how long she would maintain a ban on household mingling or a rule of six in the event that test rates continued not to respond to the restrictions. Does she accept that there could be no exit from the policy?
Can the Minister share with the House her estimate of the efficacy of a rule of six, compared with that of a rule of eight, had that been introduced instead? Is a rule of six more or less effective than a ban on household mixing? What assessment have the Government made of the efficacy of the rule of six in England, and in Scotland and Wales, where young children are excluded from it? The Minister did not answer that question when I intervened earlier, and she would not say when such an assessment would be made, but it is a very important point. I would have thought that by the time a month has elapsed, it should be possible to see which is working better or whether they are interchangeable.
For the state to direct people whether or when they can see their families in their own homes or gardens is an extreme intervention, and this House should set the highest bar possible before approving it. If such an intrusion into people’s lives can be justified, Ministers need to be able to demonstrate that it works, they need to be able to reassure people that it will be temporary, and they need to set out the criteria under which the restrictions will be lifted. I hope the Minister will answer those questions today.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a strange place to be when I find myself in agreement today with so many Members on the Government side of the Chamber.
I feel it is important for me, on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, to emphasise two points that have been raised already. They are on the importance of evidence-based policy making, and on promoting and protecting the wellbeing and mental health of children.
Like many others, I have struggled to find the evidence for the rule of six. It has been reported that SAGE has recommended it, and from the start of the pandemic the Liberal Democrats have always said that we will follow the science. However, in order to build trust and to secure buy-in and compliance from the public, it is important to show your workings, so, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) said, we need to know about the trade-offs involved. Why six? Why not seven? Why not eight? No SAGE minutes on the covid-19 response have been published since 30 September—at least I could not find any—and the published minutes do not include discussion about the rule of six, which was introduced on 9 September. Was there a subsequent meeting of SAGE on covid-19 measures between 3 and 9 September? Will the Government publish the minutes and show the workings behind the rule of six? We have yet to see that clear, robust scientific evidence in support of this decision, particularly around the decision to include children under 12.
As we have heard, in Wales and Scotland children have been exempted. The Minister has said previously that children have been included in England for simplicity’s sake. To reiterate a point that was made earlier, does she think that people in Scotland and Wales are able to follow a slightly more complex message, as opposed to people in England, who need a simpler message about children?
Although the pandemic has had a terrible impact on the entire population, children and young people have too often been overlooked, as we saw in the decision to reopen pubs, restaurants and non-essential shops before schools. Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, has said:
“Children have fewer health risks from Covid-19 and yet they have suffered disproportionately from the nation’s efforts to contain the virus.”
I appreciate that we are learning all the time and that there is limited research available, but recent research in the Netherlands from the RIVM—the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment—has found:
“The novel coronavirus is mainly spread between adults and from adult family members to children. The spread of COVID-19 among children or from children to adults is less common. In general, the younger the children, the less significant the role they play in spreading the virus.”
If children were such a major part of the problem in terms of transmission, we would be hearing about far greater numbers of bubbles being sent home from school. I could not find data on that point, but I know from my constituency that very few bubbles have been sent home. Indeed, last week, in primary schools across the Richmond borough, there was a 93% attendance rate among primary school children. That suggests to me that children under 12 are playing a very minor role in transmission.
As has been said, the rule of six discriminates against large families and households, where a family of six or more cannot meet a relative or friend but a family of three, four or five can. That impacts on the grandparents more than the parents, as in larger families they are unable to see their grandchildren. We should also consider the fact that larger families with four or more children may fear being out in public, in case people think they are being rule-breakers.
In terms of children’s mental health and well-being, the importance to children of being able to socialise, interact and play outside the school setting with other children is crucial. A Barnardo’s poll of 4,000 children aged eight to 24 found that 68% said that not seeing their friends was the most difficult thing about the pandemic.
I appreciate that the Government have conceded the point on informal childcare, by exempting informal childcare from the rule of six, and I welcome that move, but I see no reason why two families with two children under 12 should not meet up in a playground. I declare an interest, as I have a two-year-old and a six-year old.
I very much hope that the Minister will give us a better explanation than “simplicity” in her concluding remarks. If it is about clarity of message, the constant chopping and changing of the guidance, the hugely complex rules in different parts of the country, and politicians and advisers wilfully breaking them, are the reasons why messages have been undermined. We should not make up for poor communication and those errors on the backs of our children.
Frankly, we would not have to consider blunt measures at all if we had a functioning system to test, trace and isolate every case of the virus to keep people safe. Furthermore, we should backward-trace every outbreak to ensure that super-spreader events are cracked down on so that we can take a much more tailored and targeted approach until we have a vaccine.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is welcome that we are having a debate, scrutiny and ultimately a vote in the House. For that, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), but also the Government for listening to our plea that surely we can make better decisions. We can help the Government, but also own the decisions, take responsibility as Members, and provide the link with our constituents—the people who are impacted by the measures. That can only be good for democracy and decision making.
I will vote on what I believe is best for my constituents. When I cast my vote, I will look at whether what the Government seek to do is proportionate. Of course, I understand that it is the Government’s first requirement to protect the public and that measures must be introduced to protect people from covid. However, when those measures have other, detrimental impacts on health so that individuals do not go to hospital and get checked out when they could have a treatable cancer or they suffer from mental ill health, isolation and loneliness, and their livelihoods are at stake because of what is happening to our economy, we have to take that into account when we vote. That is what I look to do.
I have great concerns about the rule of six because I do not see the evidence for how it will reduce covid rates. I do not understand the difference with what is happening in Scotland and Wales. There is also complexity. For example, this morning, with other Members, including the shadow Health Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I played five-a-side outside. That is effectively 10 households mixing. It is good—it is sport and I am not saying that it should be banned; it should be allowed. However, on Sunday, when I was in Buckingham, I was unable to go with my sisters and children on a small horse-riding activity, solely because we would have been over a certain number. To me, that does not make sense. If one of the children had been left behind, and one of the adults gave covid to the other adult, that adult would have gone home and given it to the child who was left behind.
I hear the argument about simplicity, but when I was trying to work out whether horse-riding fitted within the definition of recreational organised sporting activity, I could not do it. I therefore do not believe that the current rules are simple. If I had been in Scotland, it would not have been an issue because of the rules on under-12s. If I had been in parts of Wales, it would not have been a problem because of the rules on under-11s. Also, in Wales, 30 people are allowed to gather outside, yet in England, the number is just six. There is no logic in that. I would like the Government to look at what other nations have done and the evidence there.
Ultimately, the measures have a huge impact on liberty, which affects people’s happiness and health. Twenty-eight per cent. of my constituents are over 65, whereas the national average is 17%. I therefore have a lot of elderly constituents who are unable to see their families. When they look at some of the other rules, such as that for five-a-side football, they just do not understand.
I say to Front Benchers: we rule by consent and we need people to come with us. People I speak to, who have been religious devotees of lockdown, now say, “I am just not going to do this any more.” The concern is that they will not follow some of the other rules, which make sense and should be in place. Professor Carl Heneghan, who is the leading scientist and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, got it right when he said that
“the ‘rule of six’ could well be the policy that tips the British public over the edge. For it is a disturbing decision that has no scientific evidence to back it up”.
I look for that evidence, but I still do not see it. On that basis, I am afraid that I am unable to vote for the rule of six. I do not believe that it is proportionate and that it will do what the Government hope. I fear that it will do more harm than good.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I, too, am deeply concerned that the evidence for the rule of six is not extensive enough to demonstrate that it does more good than harm. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and we will hopefully hear in days to come more of the evidence behind this rule. However, for all the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and others, there is deep concern about undermining consent for the process.
In a sense, this is a mobile lockdown for families who may well be able to leave their home and do various things but cannot mingle. I am very concerned—not least because of the growing presence in my inbox, in my phone surgeries and at the one or two physical surgeries that I have started again—about the serious growth in the volume of mental health-related cases, and specifically among younger people. They are heartbreaking individually and deeply alarming when we see the volume of them collected together. That is why we need to be very careful in understanding the complexities of human relationships and how important they are to our sense of wellbeing.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
In relation to a four-nations approach, the First Minister of Wales has called on the Prime Minister to ask people in restricted areas in England not to travel into Wales. The Prime Minister has refused. The First Minister of Wales has now said that people living alone—including in my constituency, which is under restrictions—can bubble with one person within the county to help improve mental health. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, groups of 30 can gather outside in Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we had a genuine four-nations approach to this, we could learn from decisions taken by the Welsh Government in the way that they can learn from ones taken by the UK Government? At the moment, there seems to be some sort of blockage to the four nations working together, and I put it to him that it is partially the Prime Minister and No. 10.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. Any party in power anywhere would have been like a rabbit in the headlights over the last six months, given what has happened, so I am not making a particular partisan point. It could happen in any Administration with any combination of colours of party. I am always careful not to use the phrase “U-turn” as an insult or a barb, because it shows that someone was listening and has enough substance to take on board the fact that somebody else may have had a better idea. I always say that all my best ideas were somebody else’s first. It is critical that this is a learning and iterative process, so I take that point on board.
It is the mental health concerns that I have for families, and particularly younger people, that make me sceptical and lead me to ask questions about the lack of evidence behind this. Much as I want to support the Government in doing tough things that need to be done to control the virus until we can eradicate it through a vaccine, we need more evidence.
I think inconsistency is an issue for all of us, and certainly for most of us who are here today with a particular interest in this matter. If we stick to the rule of six, I do not see why multiples of six cannot be used as the building blocks of bigger events. At the moment, there is a limit of 15 people allowed at a wedding. It seems entirely possible to make that an event of 36 or 48 people with building blocks of six, if the venue was big enough. Up to 300 people are allowed at a non-league football match below the seventh tier, so if someone wants to get together with their mates, they can just turn up at the mighty Kendal Town on Saturday. Those things are possible, and that inconsistency makes it difficult for people to understand why the Government are doing it and why they should be obedient.
The impact on the wedding industry, the events industry and the leisure industry is huge, and it is adding to the economic hardship that many people are experiencing. It seems wrong for us to be unnecessarily forcing people through that hardship, particularly as we come to the end of furlough in a few weeks’ time, when an intelligent approach could allow us to restrict people’s behaviour and protect against the virus but not kill several industries in the process.
I will finish by focusing on something else that worries me deeply. Our ability to get people to comply with regulations that exist to keep them safe, save lives and protect the national health service depends upon the credibility of the rules to which we expect them to be obedient. That is why the evidence is here. The rules also need to be coherent and easy to understand, which the rule of six just about is—that is the best argument that I have heard for it so far. They also have to be consistent from week to week, and with other areas of application, as I mentioned.
If people are going to be expected to be obedient and to comply with restrictions that exist to protect themselves and others, they also have to be able to afford to comply. That is my great concern moving forward. If the Government are looking at a traffic light system, which in itself is not a bad idea, that allows there to be blanket closures of the hospitality, tourism and leisure sector in certain towns, boroughs or counties, we surely cannot expect those industries and employers to close down and for there to be no compensation, and no return to furlough for those areas or grant system for those businesses.
In Cumbria, hospitality and tourism is the biggest single employer. It is the fourth biggest in the country. We cannot, when the traffic light gets to red, expect those businesses to close down completely without compensation. People will not comply with the rules if they fear that they will be unable to pay their rent or mortgage or feed their kids in the process. Let us ensure that the rules that we have are credible, coherent and consistent, and that people can afford to obey them.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister, the other Ministers in the Department and officials? They are obviously working extremely hard, and I completely accept their good faith in extremely difficult circumstances. I particularly want to pay tribute to the drafters of these very complex regulations. I know from my time as a Brexit Minister that when there are a lot of statutory instruments to do it is extremely hard work for them, and they do not get anything like enough thanks, so I want to put all of that on the record.
It remains the case that this is a dangerous disease for people with risk factors, and I certainly see why the Government wish to introduce measures. My friend and constituent, the epidemiologist Dr Raghib Ali, has written in The Telegraph that both the REACT—real-time assessment of community transmission—and Office for National Statistics studies
“showed that the levels of infection have increased in all age groups, including the most vulnerable older age groups, and also in all regions, but with much larger increases in the North, Midlands and London.”
However, he goes on later in the article to state:
“They all show this is not a repeat of the first wave as infections are rising much more slowly, doubling roughly every 11 days now vs. three days then. And crucially, they also show that the rate of increase is slowing down significantly.”
He goes on, it has to be said, to say that the Government are getting it broadly right.
I have real concerns about the very high cost of the measures. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) gave some examples, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the need for two families to meet, making eight, but what about two parents and three children? They can meet only one grandparent under the rules.
Elsewhere, we have other stories that are out of the scope of the statutory instrument. If I can get away with one anecdote, there was a story on the BBC website of a wife talking about springing her husband in his 80s out of the care home so that they can spend some time together at that late stage. People are bearing an absolutely appalling set of costs, and anecdotes of poor compliance are rising. Indeed, there seems to be a gap between people’s intentions to comply and what they actually do, as was revealed in the King’s College London research that the Government commissioned.
It is not clear now that the benefit of lockdown outweighs the costs. Although the report fell rather flat, The Telegraph covered some Department of Health and Social Care analysis that seemed to show that in quality-adjusted life years, adjusting for co-morbidities, the cost of the first lockdown was greater than the cost of the disease. In a spirit of good will, where we all mean to minimise harm and maximise human flourishing in the fullest sense, we have to ask whether this set of circumstances is really what we want.
Time and again in our own constituencies, and talking to colleagues in the Tea Room, we hear about people who are being destroyed by this lockdown. Strong, confident, outgoing, gregarious people are being destroyed and reduced to repeated episodes of tears on the phone—all around the House, people are agreeing with me about that. The situation is having a devastating social impact on our society. I believe people would make different choices were they able to take responsibility for themselves, so I have really quite deep concerns about this statutory instrument.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making the powerful point that there are other health issues and other effects of such draconian rules. Does he agree that the Government should now be publishing what those other effects are? Rather than just the bald figures on infection rates, hospital rates and deaths attributed to covid alone, there should be broader figures on mental health, cancer and all the other treatments, and the deaths that we are not seeing yet but are simply stocking up for the future.
Mr Baker
I do agree. I call on Ministers to publish robust data about the balance of costs and benefits. I understand that there is no impact assessment to go with this statutory instrument—I was certainly told that when I picked it up. We really should now be looking extremely carefully at the balance of cost and benefit to overall human flourishing. I am certainly not currently persuaded that the benefit is net positive.
I pay tribute to 66 GPs, led by Dr Ellie Cannon, who have written to the Secretary of State to say that it is now time for him
“to consider non-covid harms and deaths with equal standing as the reported deaths from covid”.
They have suggested that there be a GP on SAGE; I suggest that we also have some economists on SAGE and have made some other proposals about competitive scientific advice, devil’s advocates and other measures that could improve things. The letter from GPs is extremely important. It is time to listen to GPs.
As I reflect on this statutory instrument, I have to say that it is also time to start to think about another way. The Government’s strategy is clearly to suppress the virus, through instruments such as the one we are discussing, pending a vaccine. But what if a vaccine does not come? What if a vaccine, when it comes, does not achieve the ends aimed at? What if we still need some kind of measures alongside a vaccine? I have talked to specialists in this area, and it seems to me—with great sadness—to be pretty clear that we might be in those circumstances, in which case the Government will need a plan B.
For that reason, I was very glad to sign the Great Barrington declaration and to encourage parliamentarians of all parties and both Houses to sign it to show that there is political consensus in both Houses and across all parties for another way. This is plan B, authored by Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya and signed by 1,120 medical and public health scientists, 1,241 medical practitioners and more than 19,000 members of the public, including me. I commend it to the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Mark Harper, I would like to say that if business does end early, I hope that David Linden and Richard Drax, who are presenting petitions, will not be far from the Chamber, and that Richard Holden, who has the Adjournment debate, and Ed Argar, the Minister who will respond to it, are not far away either. I should hate for them to miss their opportunities.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The good thing about this debate and your having put in place a firm time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Minister will have a great deal of time at the end to answer the many questions. Having served as a Minister myself, I know that that will be a helpful opportunity to put to rest—hopefully—colleagues’ concerns.
At the beginning of the debate I raised a couple of other sets of regulations that we are not considering today, but I hope the Minister will confirm that they will be debated in the Chamber—on the Floor of the House—and that we will have the opportunity to vote on them. The first set is the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020, to which she has referred. They bring into force the restrictions on the trading hours of licensed premises, which I know are of concern to many colleagues. It is very important that those regulations are debated on the Floor of the House: they affect the whole country and, in the spirit of the pledge given by the Secretary of State last week, we should have the opportunity to do so.
A number of colleagues are concerned about the police enforcement powers. From my reading of the regulations that these regulations we are debating amend, I could not find any reference to powers of entry, but there are powers of arrest and powers to use reasonable force. Those powers are not in the regulations that we are debating, but I give the Minister notice of this. There are measures in the self-isolation regulations—which I also hope will be debated on the Floor of the House—that give powers of reasonable force to police community support officers, to any person given those powers by the Secretary of State and to local government employees. As a former Home Office Minister, I am not comfortable with the powers to use reasonable force being given to people who do not have the training to use them. I have seen occasions where that has led to the loss of life, and I have to say to the Minister—as a former Chief Whip, I do not say this lightly—that if those regulations are not amended, I will vote against them. I am not voting to give powers to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use those powers. If they use them incorrectly, it will lead to the deaths of adults and, potentially, children. The Minister should reflect on that and bring a revised set of regulations to the House, when I would be delighted to vote for the self-isolation part, which is very valuable.
Secondly, on the regulations before us today, I think limiting the mixing of households is warranted in principle. Looking at the evidence from the test and trace system, household transmission, household visitors and visiting friends and relatives are very significant vectors of transmission—far more, cumulatively, than a whole range of leisure activities, which is where I think the 10 pm curfew is not very well evidenced. There is some merit behind these measures in general, but I pick up on the points made by a number of colleagues.
The four nations of the United Kingdom have implemented this rule in different ways. The Minister should look at the evidence from different parts of the United Kingdom, and at some of the questions we have raised about whether children are included and the age of those children. A lady stopped me in the street last week. She had just had a new addition to her family, a small baby, which now means the family cannot meet both the grandparents. Given that the baby is not going to be an independent actor for some time, and so is not going anywhere independently of their parents, I fail to see how the inclusion of that baby, meaning the family are no longer able to see both the grandparents, is at all sensible. That constituent sees no merit in it at all.
Mr Steve Baker
I notice that my right hon. Friend is back on a time limit, so I take this opportunity to note that we are voting on these regulations retrospectively. For that reason, I am going to abstain tonight. If we were voting on them prospectively then, for the kinds of reasons he is giving, and indeed for the reasons I gave, I would have voted against them. I shall abstain tonight, because I realise they are in force. I would like to see them changed in the ways he is setting out.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) pressed the Minister on this: if the evidence is not available as to whether these regulations have been effective so far, perhaps she could give an indication of what sort of time period the Government are looking at. I think everyone in the House wants the Government to be successful in driving down the rate of infection, but I pick up the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). If the Government bring in a measure because they think it is going to work and it simply does not—we are learning things about this virus all the time—it is not only not harmful but positively sensible for the Government to say, “This one didn’t work. We tried it. We are going to stop doing this, and we will take a different course that we think will be more successful.” That sort of attitude would secure a great deal of support from the House and, I think, from the public.
Perhaps the Minister could say a little about when we should see this kicking in. I raise this because tomorrow we will debate the specific local lockdown regulations for the north-west and the north-east. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have a particular interest in this matter, given the location of your constituency. Some of these regulations in some parts of the country have been in force for quite considerable periods of time, and, apart from in one place, there is no evidence that they are having an effect on bearing down on the virus. In that case, all they are doing is causing economic damage without actually delivering a health benefit. At that point, the Government should reflect on whether the regulations are working and think again.
I draw my remarks to a close. I hope for those reassurances about the other two sets of regulations I talked about. We will expect them to be debated on the Floor of the House if the Government remain true to the Secretary of State’s commitment last week, which I welcome. I welcome the fact that it is being brought into force tomorrow, as we debate the north-west and north-east regulations. I look forward to the Minister saying a little more about evidence. I am grateful that she is going to have around 12 minutes to do so, which gives us an opportunity to probe her a little further.
Helen Whately
I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this debate, because I have been grateful for the thoughtful approach that many of them have taken. Just as I do in my role, Members have drawn on experiences from their own lives and of course from what they hear from constituents. The backdrop to this debate is the fact that the country is in the grip of a global pandemic. We are battling a highly infections and deadly disease, facing a challenge that this country has not faced since the second world war. As we have seen, this virus can spread through the population at an exponential rate, killing people as it goes. Only because of that have the Government brought in such restrictions to people’s lives, ones that clearly no Government would wish to bring in. The alternative—just allowing the virus to let rip—simply cannot be the right thing to do.
Mr Steve Baker
Nobody is suggesting that we let the virus rip; radical as I may be, I cited some supportive passages in my remarks. The Minister says that the virus is deadly. We all accept it is deadly for people who have prior risk factors, which raise the infection fatality rate, but is it not the truth that for a great many people who are younger and without prior conditions this is not an especially deadly disease? We knew that at the beginning; we know it today. It is deadly for a certain section of our society, and it is them we are looking after. Can we please be honest about that?
Helen Whately
I appreciate that my hon. Friend did not take the “let rip” position, but some have done so. The majority of those who have spoken this evening have absolutely supported the fact that we need to have restrictions in place, which is good to hear.
Helen Whately
May I just finish responding to my the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)? He says that for the vast majority this is a mild illness and that the deaths have particularly been among those with underlying health conditions. It is true to say that the majority of those who have died were older and with underlying health conditions, but, sadly, some have died who did not have known underlying health conditions and were younger. I well remember reading about a nurse not far from my constituency, in Kent, who had three young children and was only slightly younger than me but who died early in the pandemic. So it is not true to say that this affects only older and unwell people, although we should also mourn the older people whose lives have been taken before their time, many of whom were in receipt of care.
The other point is that among those who have had mild illness we are seeing increasing evidence of the condition known as “long covid”, where, sadly, there are long-term health consequences of covid. We are learning about those all the time; they are making it materially difficult for people to lead their lives some weeks and even months after they had the illness, even if they had it mildly in the first place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will make progress, as colleagues made a large number of points during their speeches that I am keen to respond to. I will take further interventions if there is time.
Mr Harper
I just wanted to challenge the Minister on this let it rip point, as the Secretary of State has done that as well. I ask the Minister to take it from me that we all want the Government to be successful, but if every time somebody asks a question or posits a different strategy, we are accused of wanting to “let it rip” and kill tens of thousands of people, this debate will not remain good tempered. Please accept that we are all trying to get this right. We are all willing to be generous, because, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, this is difficult, but I ask the Minister please not to say that Members of this House who suggest a different strategy in order to be successful want to let the disease rip and kills tens of thousands of people. We do not, and we will not be pleased if that is what we are accused of doing.
Helen Whately
I absolutely hear my right hon. Friend’s point. I reiterate the response that I just gave, which is that I very much appreciate the support of colleagues in general for taking action to suppress the virus, and I think it is extremely valuable for us to be debating some of the measures, as we are this evening.
Helen Whately
If my hon. Friend would allow me, I would like to make a little bit of progress, otherwise I will have remarkably little time left.
We have a clear strategy, which is to control and suppress the virus while doing all we can to protect the economy, people’s work, schools and the NHS, so that it, in turn, can care for us.
Let me turn to some of the points made by hon. Members. Various reasons have been suggested for the rapid introduction of the regulations. In fact, the shadow Minister made some suggestions. The Government have had to act fast. When we see the rates of increase—particularly when we take away the average across the country, and look at specific areas and parts of the population where the doubling rate can be going up really quickly—it is clear that we need to act fast. The alternative is to act slowly—and if we did that for several days, it would be inaction. That just means that the virus would be left to spread further and faster.
Colleagues have asked for further information about the impact and effectiveness of measures. I get the sense that some Members would like to hear, “If you do x, you get y,” in a very mathematical way. We are dealing with a new disease that simply is not known to the level of “A leads to B exactly.” We look at a huge amount of evidence, including at what is happening overseas, the difference made by local lockdowns and evidence from the test and trace system. All that evidence informs the decisions that are made. We know that social contact is a particular cause of the spread, so we must reduce social contact.
Helen Whately
I am really sorry, but I have so little time.
We have seen reduced levels of socialising since introducing the rule of six, but that is against a backdrop of rates rising in particular parts of the country, which are now under further restrictions. We will continue to look at the evidence and ensure that we are putting in place effective interventions.
The measures that we are debating today are clearly coupled with the vital rules such as hands, face and space. We all have our part to play. We will continue to assess the effectiveness of the measures, but we need restrictions in place until covid rates come down.
Helen Whately
I have only three minutes left, so I am keen to cover a few more points that have been made in the debate.
Colleagues have spoken about children and the rule of six. As I have said, I am acutely mindful of this point as I have a family of five. I am well aware that Wales and Scotland, where health is devolved, have made their own decisions, including a slightly different decision on this issue. Of course, we will learn from the other parts of the United Kingdom. There are regular conversations between the devolved authorities and the UK Government.
On the matter of extended families and larger households, there is an exemption for larger households—clearly, they can gather—but in some areas there has been a particularly rapid spread when larger households of extended families come together. That can be a particular source of the spread, so it is much harder for larger households wanting to socialise. This is a difficult balance to strike, but we want to ensure that we are suppressing the virus because it is such a cruel thing.
Let me turn to policing. The police approach is one of engage, explain, encourage and enforce. I can confirm that they do not have power of entry, but my understanding of the feedback that we have received from the police is that they feel that they do not need further powers to enforce these measures.
I would like to reiterate the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament and to debating regulations such as these and others. I should say that we absolutely recognise the impact of these restrictions on people’s lives, and that it is with great reluctance that we bring them in. None the less, as I have said, the alternative is not suppressing the rate of the virus, and, as I have mentioned, it is not always a mild illness. We are seeing cases of long covid. There is also a health impact on our hospitals: if they become too full treating people with covid, they will struggle to treat people with other illnesses. That has its own health implications, and cannot be the right strategy. The strategy has to be to control this virus and to suppress it with the rule of six and all the other things that we as individuals can do, including our own compliance with the social distancing measures. We must take this approach, and I thank everybody for all that they are doing. I know that the public face the implications of these restrictions day in, day out, as we do ourselves, but we must do it, because it is the way that we get back to normal as soon as possible.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to present this petition to the House. It is signed by more than 3,000 residents of Dorset and it calls for Purbeck schools to be funded properly and for the funding cuts to be reversed. I am delighted to say that, as we know, the Government have given more money to schools, but it is my personal view, too, that with all the additional moneys on salaries, inflation, the cost of paper and the rest of it, that levelling up, which we welcome, has not quite helped schools in Dorset. I therefore present this petition with the sense, and in the hope, that the Government will look at this again and ensure that all our children, and particularly those in Dorset schools, are funded equally and fairly.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that schools in Purbeck are currently facing significant funding cuts leaving numerous schools underfunded; notes that over three thousand residents of Dorset signed a petition to save Purbeck schools from funding cuts; and further that every child in Dorset has the right to a good, well-funded education.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse all funding cuts to Dorset Schools, and support the reallocation of funding to ensure schools in Dorset are well-funded and able to perform effectively.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002605]
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In recent days, my inbox has been inundated with countless emails from my east end constituents who are rightly concerned about the Chancellor’s winter economic plan and the British Government’s withdrawal of financial support, whether from furlough or the greatly reduced self-employment income support scheme. Of course, that does not include the injustice of the 3 million people excluded from financial support from the start of the pandemic.
I therefore rise to present the following petition from the good people of Glasgow East:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a particularly harsh impact on those individuals who are self-employed or run small businesses; expresses concern that the Chancellor’s recent Winter Economic Plan means the Self Employment Income Support Scheme is to be wound down; and further expresses concern over the many gaps already existing in the previous scheme, which was inadequate for millions of people who considered themselves excluded from Government support.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward additional measures to support those self-employed and freelance workers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002606]
Shotley Bridge Community Hospital
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
When I applied for this Adjournment debate, the situation was by no means as clear as it appears to be following the announcement from the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary last week. Shotley Bridge has been at the heart of the community in North West Durham since it was founded as a sanatorium for tuberculosis in 1912. Following the first world war, it was leased to the Ministry of Health to house and rehabilitate military casualties. It was transferred back to local authority control for use as a facility for mental illness before again becoming involved in the war effort in 1941, when it became an emergency hospital and the 16 now demolished huts that adorned the site were built.
Following the Beveridge report of the 1940s, the “A National Health Service” White Paper of 1944 by Sir Henry Willink, and finally the formal beginnings of our national health service under Aneurin Bevan, Shotley Bridge joined our NHS in 1948. It is on the same Liberal, Conservative, Labour cross-party consensus that the new plans for Shotley Bridge Hospital—or the replacement for it—are founded. I pay tribute to some of the local councillors I have met on the Shotley Bridge reference group, particularly Councillors Alex Watson, Owen Temple, Alan Shield and many others, and to the excellent staff at the clinical commissioning group and the local hospital trust who have met me on many occasions over the last few months.
Partly as a result of the steelworks at Consett and also due to its wartime use, Shotley Bridge became known for its plastics and burns treatments. A new out-patient block joined in 1950, and the tower built in 1969, which is still there today, was the last major investment in the site. The opening of the new University Hospital of North Durham, known locally by everyone in the area—including, I am sure, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—as Dryburn, was opened in 2001, and with that, many services moved from Shotley Bridge to other parts of the county. In 2005, the majority of the old hospital buildings on the site were demolished and they have now become part of the growing Consett housing estate. In 2005, the majority of the old hospital buildings on the site were demolished and have now become part of the growing Consett housing estate.
However, Shotley Bridge Hospital still very much forms part of the community and is a real source of local pride. I am reliably informed that you can tell if a nurse has trained at Shotley Bridge by the way they are and their professionalism. Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, himself did his early training at Shotley Bridge Hospital. Perhaps one of the reasons that Shotley is such a part of the community is the fact that anybody who lived and grew up in Consett and was able to vote at the last general election was likely to have been born there, although since 2001 the maternity services have moved.
Now a community hospital with an eight-bed ward, an urgent care centre and a number of out-patient treatments, Shotley Bridge is still very much at the heart of our local area. During the recent coronavirus outbreak, it particularly showed its worth, as places like Shotley Bridge were really able to step up and provide some of the facilities that were needed. Even at the height of the covid-19 outbreak, over half the floor space at the hospital was still in use—a fact that I got from the chief executive of the local hospital trust recently—although it was briefly stepped up to 24 beds. With almost all the buildings now at least 50 years old, and many much older, the cost of running repairs amounts to over £1.5 million a year. As services have slowly moved away, local people have been campaigning hard to stop the hospital closing completely. I pay huge tribute to the efforts of many local people over many years.
Securing the future of local hospital provision was at the core of my election campaign in North West Durham. Since being elected, I have been pressing Ministers on it remorselessly in the House—in my maiden speech, at Prime Minister’s questions, in questions and debates with Ministers from the Minister’s Department, and, indeed, with the Minister himself. In fact, even before today, Shotley Bridge Hospital had been mentioned by me seven times in the past 10 months, which is a significant uptick on the previous 10 years in which it had been mentioned just twice.
I was delighted to have the Secretary of State join me on a visit to Shotley Bridge last month—the first time that any member of staff could remember a Health Minister visiting the facility. I had actually initially invited my hon. Friend the Minister to come, but the Secretary of State clearly decided to steal it for himself, which is fair enough. The Secretary of State was really impressed by what he saw, particularly some of the nurse-led units, the huge integration with local GP practices near the site, and the fact that chemo services from across Durham had been moved to the hospital during the coronavirus outbreak—a sensible innovation to keep very vulnerable patients away from acute centres. That is something that has happened at Shotley Bridge that I hope will be replicated in other community hospitals across the country.
With Shotley Bridge now joining the list of 40 hospitals that the Government are committed to, I would like to offer my personal thanks, as well as that of many of my constituents, for the support that the Government are providing. The overall programme of over £3 billion is one of the largest capital investments for many years, and this is on top of the extra £33.9 billion a year that will be going into our NHS by 2023-24. That is helping to provide some of the excellent extra doctors and nurses we can now see starting to come through on the frontline. The announcement from the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary is obviously hugely welcome. However, I am not the sort of MP who will just go away and shut up, to borrow a phrase from a Government Minister I once worked for—although, I must add, not when I was a special adviser—so I would like to push the Minister on a few points about the announcement.
Last year, it was made clear that some of the moneys for the hospital had been secured, but they were well short of what would be required for a new facility, as outlined by the Secretary of State in his letter to me on 2 October. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed publicly the details of the Secretary of State’s letter to me, which included a new 16-bed hospital, unscheduled care services and out-patient services, including chemotherapy and X-rays.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is right about the community support in not only his constituency but North Durham, which the hospital also serves. If the moneys are in place, that is welcome news, but there seems to be confusion locally about where the site will be and whether there will be 16 beds. Does he have an update on those details?
Mr Holden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. My understanding is that there are still three sites under discussion, but it will be around Consett. I am pushing the Minister on whether there will be 16 beds, because that is what was in the Secretary of State’s letter to me, and I want to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Kevan Jones
Those community beds are needed for respite and other things in the area, and the hon. Gentleman is right about the cancer treatment done at the trust, but the CCG wrote to me this week saying that there is not yet clarification about whether there will be 16 beds.
Mr Holden
We are both pushing the Minister on that exact point.
Crucially, I would like the Minister to confirm that Government funding from the hospital programme will cover the difference between moneys sourced so far from local trusts—the £17 million confirmed last year—and whatever will be needed for this facility. It is great to see capital investment delivering on the levelling-up agenda on which I was elected. It is not all about capital—it is also about investment in schools, so it was great to hear the investment announced last week in skills and training—but part of it is, because communities like mine feel that over decades, they have not been given a fair crack of the whip and have been left behind.
I would also like the Minister to confirm that this will not be done under any form of private finance initiative deal, which my constituents have mentioned. They are concerned that, over the last few years, and especially under the last Labour Government, hospitals have been left with essentially very large debts, which caused them problems in the longer term. That has afflicted hospitals and facilities across County Durham.
Finally, I want to highlight the great work done at Shotley Bridge and by all the great NHS staff across County Durham and Darlington, some of whom were seriously ill, and a couple of whom died from covid. There are a lot of local questions about covid at the moment. Could the Minister talk a bit about the work he is doing to ensure that none of the measures taken at either a local or national level—including those asked for by local authorities in our area—will be in place any longer than they need to be? We want to see our communities back up and running as quickly as possible and providing the healthcare services that people want across the board.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing a debate on this important issue. His timeliness in doing so is, as ever, perfect, as was his impressive history lesson and his relating that history of the hospital to the present.
The future of Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, an issue that this House has become familiar with in recent months, through his regularly raising it in the Chamber on behalf of his constituents and his local campaigning on it—something well attested to on his website and well reported in recent weeks in both the Chronicle and Consett Magazine. As he said, he kindly invited me to visit his constituency to see Shotley Bridge Hospital for myself. However, I cannot blame him for upgrading last month and securing a visit instead from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although I hope I might yet enjoy North West Durham and County Durham hospitality and a welcome if my invitation still stands.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having secured that re-invitation, I look forward to that. I would like to put on record, as he did in his speech, my thanks to all who work in Shotley Bridge Hospital and more broadly in the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust for the amazing work they have done for his constituents and more broadly during the pandemic, and indeed for the care that they all provide day in, day out, all year round, regardless of the public health context.
Shotley Bridge Hospital is, as my hon. Friend said, a key part of the local healthcare landscape in the services it provides, but he has effectively made the case that it has the potential to do even more. I know that the sustainability and transformation plan set out the long-term approach to the strategic delivery of health services in these areas, but the CCG and the trust itself have undertaken considerable work on this as well. As I say, the staff are doing an amazing job, but the current hospital faces challenges. In the last financial year—I am sure my hon. Friend will correct me if I get this wrong—it had total running costs of around £1.7 million and £570,000 annual maintenance costs simply to keep the buildings working. These annual costs are a challenge, but so too is the nature of the physical space, including its usage of the current site and the access to it.
The case for, and commitment to, the hospital is clear. As I understand it, there has already been a consultation on elements of this matter in spring 2019. I was therefore extremely pleased that my hon. Friend’s campaigning had paid off and that a new hospital for Shotley Bridge was included in the list relating to the £3.7 billion investment in 40 new hospitals to be built, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced late last week. This is a reflection of a Government delivering on their pledge to build 40 new hospitals, and it is a fantastic example of this Government delivering on their commitment to levelling up.
This new hospital for the people of North West Durham, and indeed more broadly, reflects the healthcare needs of the local population and the local context. As I understand it, the CCG and the trust are continuing to work out the details and consult further, and I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to work closely with them in that endeavour, as I believe he is doing. Let there be no doubt about what he has achieved with this announcement, less than a year after being elected and after a decade of this matter barely being raised in this House. I make an honourable exception to that, because I know that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has continued to raise it, and that he has worked with my hon. Friend. However, I know that it is my hon. Friend’s passion, as the Member for North-West Durham, that has delivered this result.
Mr Kevan Jones
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on his efforts, but a lot of work has been done on this over many years, including by many councillors. I know that the hon. Gentleman mentioned councillors, but he excluded the Labour councillors and Durham County Council, who have been working with the CCG and others to deliver this. It is something that will benefit the entire area, and yes, I congratulate him, but the important thing is that a lot of this work was done before he even knew where Consett was.
Edward Argar
I suspect that my hon. Friend has long known where Consett is, and he has been campaigning hard since his election, but I shall take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention in the spirit in which it is meant. I have alluded to his work on this, which is only right, but he is right to point out, in relation to my earlier references to the work that had been done previously during the consultation by the CCG and others, that I should also recognise the work done by councillors and other local campaigners and, indeed, by local people in that context.
The new hospital for the people of North West Durham —and the broader region, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says—will be part of a model of care developed to reflect the healthcare needs of that local population. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, in working to understand those healthcare needs and working with others, as is his way, has secured agreement for the delivery and funding of one of his key local election pledges when he stood for this House in 2019. To answer some of his questions specifically, we will fund this new hospital, and I have no intention of that being through a PFI.
My hon. Friend has been clear, and I agree with him, that this new hospital will not only contain, as he has set out, an enhanced range of services, but, crucially, those in-patient beds that he has been so very clear about. As the trust and others work through—
Edward Argar
Mr Deputy Speaker, I should have seen that coming. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I should have remembered it would be coming. However, I will pick up where I left off.
My hon. Friend’s commitment is clear, and I agree with him that those in-patient beds are absolutely crucial. I know, initially, there was some talk or some suggestion of no in-patient beds or of a small number. He has been very clear that the number needs to be 16, and I heed what he says.
I look forward to receiving the detailed business cases in the coming months and—presuming, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would expect, that they meet the standards we would expect for the spending of public money and robust project delivery—to approving them and securing their approval from the Treasury. I also look forward, subject to that consent being forthcoming, to seeing construction start in 2022-23, I hope, with a swift construction so that his constituents and those of the right hon. Member for North Durham can enjoy the facilities of a new hospital as swiftly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned one other point, which was about restrictions related to tackling the covid pandemic—and, indeed, their impact on the health service and the provision of normal health services—only being in place as long as they are necessary to protect public health. I entirely agree with him. None of us wishes to see them in place a day longer than they are necessary to achieve that primary purpose, but regrettably, they do remain necessary at the moment to ensure the safety of patients and others accessing those services.
The subject of this debate is the future of Shotley Bridge Hospital. Thanks to the staff at the hospital it has a bright future and thanks to the local people, local campaigners and their passion for this hospital it has a bright future, but thanks to my hon. Friend it has an incredibly bright future. He has secured that future—that brighter future—through his campaigning and his success in his campaign. His is a plan about which, if I recall correctly, according to a survey of local residents or local constituents he undertook, 92% of those responding agreed with the approach he is proposing.
This is a Government who deliver on our pledges, and my hon. Friend is a local MP who delivers on his pledges to his constituents. They are lucky to have him representing them in this place. He is a strong voice for them, and he has played a central role in delivering that brighter future for Shotley Bridge Hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Dawn Butler |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) | Chris Elmore |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) | Steve Baker |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) | Patrick Grady |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) | Dehenna Davison |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Mohammad Yasin |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) | Rebecca Harris |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim Shannon (Strangford) | Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) | Stuart Andrew |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) | Nadia Whittome |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Draft Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2020.
The order amends the boundary of the Northern Ireland zone for the purposes of section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It clarifies the boundary between the parts of the sea within sea fishery limits that are treated as being adjacent to Northern Ireland, and those parts that are not. The reason for doing this is that the co-ordinates in the Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 were not amended when the UK Government legislated for its exclusive economic zone in 2013. The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013 designates the area of the UK’s EEZ.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Given the overwhelming opposition to this measure, I thought I would ask a constructive question. Is the order correcting an administrative error? Surely we could have tidied this all up in 2013. Is this just a tidying-up exercise?
Mr Walker
Broadly, yes; this is a tidying-up exercise. The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013 revoked and replaced orders relating to renewable energy and pollution, but did not revoke the Fishery Limits Act 1976, which sets out British fisheries limits for the UK. Instead, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, under which the 2013 order was made, amended the 1976 Act in order to align British fisheries limits with those of the EEZ. The EEZ, as defined in the 2013 order, does not follow the adjacent waters boundaries line in the area outside Carlingford lough. This legislative defect has created a management issue for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Government, as there is now an area adjacent to Northern Ireland that lies inside the UK’s EEZ, but outside the Northern Ireland zone, and which DAERA cannot manage in relation to sea fishing. In addition, the area of sea that gives rise to the issue straddles the border with Irish waters. This does not affect any other areas of UK waters.
Rectifying this legislative defect before the end of the transition period will enable DAERA to avoid management and enforcement issues relating to sea fishing. As I have set out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor observed, this is a purely technical correction and nothing controversial. As we are not seeking to amend the UK EEZ, there is no requirement to negotiate any changes with Ireland. However, I can confirm that we have notified it of what we are doing.
I reassure the Committee that the order has no impact on existing disputes between the UK and Ireland over the delimitation of maritime borders in cross-border Loughs Foyle and Carlingford. It also has no impact on the voisinage agreement between the two countries. We remain fully committed to those arrangements, and continue to work closely with the Irish Government over improvements to the management of the Loughs. British and Irish officials last met in October 2019, when a number of issues were discussed, including the loughs and the management of aquaculture in them. I commend the order to the Committee.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins. There seems to be a theme: when I am under your chairmanship, I end up speaking, as Whip, for the Opposition—with great support from my colleagues behind me. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for Windsor for confirming what we already knew, and to the latter for stealing my one constructive question. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming his work with the Irish Government, and for dealing with this administrative order. It will come as no great surprise to him to hear that the official Opposition do not object to it, and will not divide the Committee.
Draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 September. They form part of a programme of work to update our legislative framework in readiness for the end of the transition period. Obviously we want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. It is of course important to ensure that retained EU legislation continues to work effectively in the UK immediately after the transition phase.
The main reason for the statutory instrument is that it has become necessary to update the Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were considered and approved in Committee on 23 January 2019, as a result of subsequent changes in EU and domestic law. The draft statutory instrument does not alter the fundamental approach of the 2019 regulations; rather, it enables the regulations to work in the light of those changes.
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee about the 2019 regulations and the legislation that they amend. They deal with the collective redress regime for consumer protection laws, which applies in the case of an infringement of certain consumer protection laws when that infringement causes harm to the collective interests of consumers. This is about dealing with systemic infringements of consumer law, not individual disputes.
The EU’s consumer protection co-operation regulation, known as the CPC regulation, provides for reciprocal arrangements between enforcement bodies in member states, such as the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK. It allows them to investigate and, if requested by an enforcer in another member state, to take action to end cross-border infringements of EU consumer law that harm the collective interests of consumers. Within the UK, the Enterprise Act 2002 allows enforcers to seek court orders to ensure the cessation of infringements causing collective harm and, when appropriate, to secure redress.
The 2019 exit regulations revoke the CPC regulation, as it will not apply to the UK once the UK ceases to be bound by EU law. That revocation is also necessary to prevent a requirement for UK enforcers to assist their EU counterparts while EU enforcers are not under the same obligation. The 2019 regulations also amend the 2002 Act to allow the domestic collective redress regime to function effectively once EU law no longer applies in the UK. Those regulations replace the concept of a Community infringement—a breach of consumer protection laws in the European economic area—with a so-called schedule 13 infringement. The 2019 regulations will add to that when they come into force.
Amendments to the 2019 regulations are necessary because, since they were made, a new EU CPC regulation —the 2017 CPC regulation—has come into force. The draft statutory instrument therefore updates the 2019 regulations to revoke that new CPC regulation. The draft statutory instrument will ensure that the UK collective redress regime under the 2002 Act will continue to apply to new EU-derived consumer protection laws to which the 2017 CPC regulation has been extended when those laws are being retained in UK law. The instrument adds those laws to new schedule 13 to that Act. The draft regulations also ensure that the 2019 exit regulations amend the new material that was added to the 2002 Act by the CPC implementation regulations. That is important to ensure that the 2019 regulations amend that Act as it stands now. None of these changes are designed to alter the approach of the 2019 exit regulations.
We are taking the opportunity through the draft regulations to make a number of other changes to EU exit regulations relating to consumer protection. Two previous sets of UK-wide exit regulations amended legislation relating to crystal glass, footwear and textiles, which are specified in the Northern Ireland protocol. As the protocol was not contemplated when those regulations were made, the draft statutory instrument makes a small number of changes to them to ensure that they do not affect the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The draft statutory instrument also makes technical changes to replace references to “exit day” with “IP completion day”, which will be 31 December 2020. That is necessary in the context of the transitional provisions of existing regulations.
Finally, we are taking the opportunity to make minor amendments to clarify the drafting of the Enterprise Act 2002. That is a response to the 14th report in this Session of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to this year’s regulations implementing the new CPC regulation.
Departmental officials have undertaken an appropriate assessment of the impact of the draft statutory instrument. That showed there is likely to be a minimal impact on business because these amendments do not bring about a wider policy change, or impose any new liabilities or obligations on any relevant businesses, organisations or persons.
Consumer protection is devolved to Northern Ireland, but following consultation, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has agreed to the SI including provisions relating to matters devolved to Northern Ireland.
The draft regulations are a sensible and necessary use of the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will ensure that the law in this area continues to function effectively after the transition period. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Sir David.
Labour supports the regulations on the whole because, as the Minister outlined, these technical changes to update the 2019 exit regulations are required to ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is properly enshrined. While we are happy to support the general thrust of the statutory instrument, I want to raise a couple of questions with the Minister.
As the Minister said, the Enterprise Act 2002 is being amended to ensure that consumer protections are enforceable across all four nations. That is okay in principle, because we support the idea that the UK Government are the ultimate arbiter of the UK internal market, meaning that laws need to cover the four nations and the devolved Administrations of the UK. However, I do have concerns—the Minister and I are familiar with this conversation following our recent debates on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—that the devolved Administrations do not necessarily have a voice in any consultation on outlining frameworks for consumer protection.
Will the Minister say a little more about how we will ensure that, unlike under the Internal Markets Bill, the UK Government will not legislate for all four nations without the devolved Administrations having a voice, and the right to be consulted and included? I am talking about not a veto, but the right to a voice and inclusion, because we believe that the devolution settlement is precarious as we leave the EU. It was promised that all the powers coming back from the EU would be devolved and passed down but, unfortunately, that is not quite what we see in some of the Government’s statutory instruments and the Internal Markets Bill.
The Minister knows that the consumer protections enjoyed by UK citizens when we were part of the EU were a reason why citizens valued that membership. Such protections included measures on data roaming, travel compensation and addressing unscrupulous trading practice. We still have not heard much from the Government about how consumer rights will be protected as we leave the EU to ensure that we have unfettered access to the single market and consumer rights, with standards driven up rather than being diminished. I hope that he can respond to those points.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and support. It is important that we get the legislation right, and I appreciate the spirit of co-operation in which our proceedings are being conducted.
The hon. Lady asked specifically what will happen to consumer protection. Regarding the devolved Administrations, we have been in close contact with Northern Ireland, which has given us permission to legislate on its behalf, and we will continue to work with Northern Ireland on consumer protection beyond this measure. We have also advised the Scottish Parliament of exactly what we are doing, so that it can reflect on taking similar measures to get this right, and we are also working with it on consumer protection following the end of the transition.
UK standards will apply when EU-based traders trade or target their activities in the UK, so consumer protection will not change in that regard. Consumers’ protection within the EU at the end of the transition period will depend on a consumer’s contract, on whether an activity is specifically targeted at the UK market, and on the laws of the relevant member state. Individual consumers will still be able to use the European consumer centre, which helps consumers with cross-border disputes, for at least one year after transition. We will work with partners such as Citizens Advice, the consumer helpline of which is funded by my Department, to ensure that consumers understand their rights and can make informed decisions following the transition period. We have talked—[Interruption.] We talked about roaming charges, and we are hearing of that right now.
We have one of the world’s strongest consumer protection regimes to ensure that consumers’ interests are safeguarded in our economy through a comprehensive set of consumer rights, strong advocates for consumers’ interests and well-developed advice services. The declaration between the UK and the EU sets out the parties’ determination to continue working together to safeguard high standards of consumer protection, and the UK is committed to that.
The draft regulations will ensure that our consumer rights framework will continue to function effectively once the EU CPC regulation ceases to apply to the UK. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 October - (6 Oct 2020)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. As I indicated before the sitting, please adhere to the social distancing requirements for the room. Date Time Witness Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 10.30 am British Armed Forces Federation Armed Forces Support Group Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 11.00 am Hilary Meredith Solicitors Limited Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 11.25 am Major Robert Campbell Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 3.00 pm Professor Richard Ekins, Policy Exchange Dr Jonathan Morgan, University of Cambridge John Larkin QC, Policy Exchange Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 4.00 pm Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Centre for Military Justice Tuesday 6 October Until no later than 5.00 pm Liberty Human Rights Watch Thursday 8 October Until no later than 12.15 pm Cobseo - the Confederation of Service Charities The Royal British Legion Thursday 8 October Until no later than 1.00 pm General Sir Nick Parker Thursday 8 October Until no later than 3.15 pm Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment Association Thursday 8 October Until no later than 4.00 pm His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett, Judge Advocate General
Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, followed by a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 6 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.30 pm on Thursday 8 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 14 October;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6; Schedule 1; Clauses 7 and 8; Schedule 2; Clause 9; Schedule 3; Clause 10; Schedule 4; Clauses 11 to 16; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.—(Johnny Mercer.)
Resolved,
That subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Johnny Mercer.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Cttee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Johnny Mercer.)
The Chair
We will now resume our public sitting to hear evidence from Douglas Young from the British Armed Forces Federation and Michael Sutcliff from the Armed Forces Support Group. Both join the sitting remotely. May I confirm with Douglas and Michael that they can both hear us?
Douglas Young: Yes, I can, Chair.
Michael Sutcliff: Yes, Chair, I can hear you.
The Chair
If at any point during the meeting when members of the Committee ask you questions you cannot hear them, please indicate so that we can make the necessary arrangements.
I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.30 am.
Do any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
To err on the side of caution, I should say that I have served on overseas operations. I have also made a successful claim against the Ministry of Defence for my injuries during service.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I am a former member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who are one of the witnesses.
The Chair
Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record? We will start with you, Douglas.
Douglas Young: I am Douglas Young, the former chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation. I am still a member and a member of its executive council. I have been asked by colleagues to present evidence today on behalf of the British Armed Forces Federation. We did submit detailed responses to the Ministry’s consultation last year.
Michael Sutcliff: Good morning, everybody. My name is Michael Sutcliff. I am the chairman of a small group called the Armed Forces Support Group, based up in Lancashire. Our worries are a conglomeration of things. We are a signposting group, and questions have been coming in regarding the Bill. Basically, it is déjà vu—we are here again. This has happened a number of times, and we would like to know how confident you are of getting these things through.
The Chair
Thank you for introducing yourselves. I think there are some issues with the audio, because some Members are indicating to me that they cannot hear well what you are both saying. I propose asking Chris Evans to begin asking questions, and we will hope that we can improve the audio as we go along. If Members feel that the audio is unsatisfactory, we will pause proceedings to see what we can do.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Both my questions are directed at both of you. The first question of the day is, does the MOD do enough to provide a duty of care to those service personnel who go through investigations and litigations at the moment?
Douglas Young: In our opinion, the answer is no. Undoubtedly, the MOD has improved steadily. A lot of work has been done, but we are simply appalled by the experiences of some people who have absolutely been through the wringer for many years. One case, in particular, has only just come to an end, with a report by the Iraq fatalities inquiry. You can absolutely weep at the experiences of Major Robert Campbell and others who have been subjected to repeated investigations. Baroness Hallett’s report was very clear that everyone involved in the British forces’ deployment was completely innocent, and yet people say their lives have been ruined. That is awful. It has been recognised that a lot of work has been done, but it has not helped people who were already in the wringer. We certainly very much welcome the stated aims of this legislation.
Michael Sutcliff: I have to agree with the previous speaker. There is a great disappointment, Mr Chairman, that over the years there has been absolute chaos with this. If you look at the situation where Phil Shiner was allowed to spuriously bring all those cases so many times, this begins to really rot the trust within the MOD. A lot of senior officers seemed to have sloping shoulders at one time. Hopefully, these things are getting better. I take the case of the Major who has, I think, been lined up 14 times—14 times he has been exonerated, and here we go again. As I said earlier, we seem to be looking at this situation that has been gone through a number of times, and hopefully this time will be successful.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: We said that it should be 10—I think 10 is the absolute cut-off and the absolute longstop. That certainly was an option in the MOD’s original consultation. If you introduce shorter time limits, even more attention will have to be given to investigation and recording at the point that something occurs. I accept that this has been improved—I have no doubt that it has—but of course we are not currently subject to the intensity of operations, compared to the theatres where these cases first arose.
If you have a very short time limit of, say, five years, then there must be a huge effort in everyone’s interests— in the interests of potential victims, but also very much in the interests of the personnel involved—to absolutely record everything and to interview people. It can be an absolute pest, and it can be very grim going through all that, but it has got to be done at the time, rather than relying on people’s recollections afterwards, when, of course, they may have gone through a whole series of incidents during a six-month tour or longer and it can be very difficult to pick one out. So investigation and recording will be even more important than ever if you reduce the longstop time limit. I think we support the 10 years.
Michael Sutcliff: Just doing a quick poll, the team up here in the north seem to go for five to seven years, although I do not disagree with the previous speaker. But one of the dangers that there appears to be that, if you give it too long, the memories fade. We are struggling with memory-fade systems on the Bloody Sunday situation—that is a very good example.
If there is an accusation, it needs to be examined quickly and it needs to be sorted. But first of all—this is the difficult bit—somebody, somewhere, has to verify that it is real and it has not been made up by somebody, because there has been too much of that.
Chris Evans
Q
Michael Sutcliff: I cannot give you any examples of that. Talking among the team that we look after here, I have not heard of or seen any association with that sort of behaviour, so it would be unfair for me to comment on something that I really do not know about.
Douglas Young: There certainly are a number of very legitimate reasons for delaying. One would be simple concealment—perverting the course of justice and deliberate attempts to withhold evidence. Another one is where victims or complainants become aware of some evidence only later on because witnesses have been moved by the exigencies of war—they are refugees in another country or they are in a refugee camp—and people never had the chance to obtain information until after a substantial delay.
Of course, the other side of that is that people are then vulnerable to stories that are not actually true. If something happens in a crowd, for example, bereaved relatives later become aware of different stories flying about among that crowd that may not be true. That is the other side of it. But there are legitimate reasons for possible delay, because we are always assuming that, following our well-intentioned intervention supporting another country in operations, there will then be a period of peace and organisation, which may not actually be the case.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: References to the battlefield are sometimes misleading. A battlefield is a very specific thing. Quite often, when these sorts of issues have been discussed over the past few years, commentators talk about the battlefield in relation to everything that happens anywhere in the deployment area. There is no doubt that if you are deployed anywhere, you are in harm’s way, and your possibly peaceful base environment may actually become a battlefield at very short notice—there is no doubt about that. Being in harm’s way is different from normal life in the peaceful United Kingdom, but, quite often, commentators have discussed these issues as if everything consisted of fighting through the enemy objective, which is a very long way, for example, from injuries or illness that occur in barracks or in other areas directly controlled by the United Kingdom forces. I do not know whether that answers your question.
Michael Sutcliff: I agree. The term “battlefield” is often misleading. The battlefield could mean the backstreets of Basra or Belfast. It could mean the peacekeeping guys out in the far beyond place where we have them at the moment, where, theoretically, there is no war but where, sooner or later, the rebels will come out of the bush. Those are battlefields. Identifying a battlefield only as somewhere with tanks, aircraft, ships and everything else is incorrect. To answer your question, this should be very wide ranging—safely.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: The aim is that fewer personnel and veterans will be dragged through them in the future. Personally, I have had limited involvement with individuals who have been supported by the British Armed Forces Federation, although I have certainly spoken to individuals. I have some experience myself that is sensitive and which I cannot go into.
There is no doubt that talk about being dragged into an investigation is accurate. However willing one might be to serve the ends of justice and truth, it is a strain, and it hangs over you for a very long time. It forces you to continuously go back over what at the time was a stressful, difficult and challenging event. It possibly causes one to have to review one’s own actions and decisions in a confusing situation, because nobody does everything absolutely right when things are going wrong.
One is faced with a mixture of getting approaches out of the blue—a phone call saying, “We’d like to talk to you about this, that or the other” or “Something is coming up,” which can come at you at any time—and also dates that you know about, such as a court hearing on a particular date. All that, even for a perfectly innocent witness, hangs over you for a very long time. That is part of criminal justice, and armed forces personnel are not the only ones who may have to face this, but it has a real cost. The fact that one is really only a witness does not get you off the hook.
I believe that there has been a lot of exaggeration in the language used about claims. People have often spoken about a vast number of prosecutions. I think all of us—lay people, ordinary soldiers—understand prosecutions as criminal prosecutions. In fact, there have been very few of those, which we all know about, relating to recent operations. Some of these so-called prosecutions are actually civil claims by members of the armed forces and veterans. We have to be aware of exaggerated language. However, it is a strain and a stress, and being caught up in long-running investigations can have an impact on one’s family as well.
Michael Sutcliff: My personal situation regarding this is that I act in my role here as the welfare officer. Without going into too much detail, I can tell you about two individuals who were both involved with serious fighting and who both caused death to the opposite number—in-house. The fact that they had been through the wringer a few times was fairly obvious when you listened to their options—it was either them or the other. At the end of the day no charges were made, but the pressure put on those two guys was appalling.
On the other side, I have two guys who, even today in their early 70s, are looking over their shoulders and sleeping not too well at night, waiting for a knock on their door. I do not think the knock is going to come, but nevertheless, this situation is out. That is in a tiny little place where I live, so what is happening out in the big wide world, I do not know, but it is not very satisfactory. I hope that gives you a reasonable answer, sir.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: I think six years is a reasonable presumptive time limit for civil payment, and corresponds pretty much to the legal system in the different parts of the United Kingdom, but we would be concerned about the absolute longstop. As I mentioned before, claims of this type often originate during conflict or in post-conflict periods, when the claimants may be refugees or internally displaced persons. Perhaps a robust administrative payment system operating in-theatre would help to speed things up, because, clearly, some people have perfectly legitimate claims that should be met, and claims do not always imply criminal liability, which is what we are sometimes led to believe.
Imposing an absolute time limit places armed forces personnel claimants themselves at a disadvantage compared with civil claimants in ordinary life, where the court has discretion. Of course, the Minister has made it perfectly clear, absolutely correctly, that the time limit for this particular part of the Bill only starts to run at the point of knowledge. That is completely understood. That point of knowledge, diagnosis or whatever, could be many years later. Nevertheless, I would have a worry about an absolute longstop as proposed.
Chris Evans
Q
Michael Sutcliff: I take your point there, sir. Funnily enough, I am ex-Navy, and a number of my colleagues now are beginning to pick up the old asbestosis problem—I cannot remember the posh name for it—
Chris Evans
I can’t either.
Michael Sutcliff: They are being compensated for it, so you are right that if we had a very early backstop, they would have lost that. Not being the lawyerly mind, I do not know whether you can split the two things up. Let us just take the asbestos as an example, which is a workplace situation that was or is found particularly in the Royal Navy, and the difference between that and an action situation. I do not know whether you can divide the two, but on one side, I am looking at the fact that you do not want it to go on forever, and on the other side, of course, in the example that we are talking about, forever is needed before you suddenly find you have it. That is the best muddled answer I can give you.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: Various aspects of the covenant may be engaged by this legislation. Whenever we mention the covenant, it is worth saying that the stated aim of the legislation is to improve the position under the covenant, or to be guided by the covenant in removing what is considered to be unfair treatment of members of the armed forces compared with other, ordinary people who are never subjected to quite the same lengthy legislation. But there is certainly the argument that restricting the right of armed forces personnel and veterans to sue their employer for an injury or illness caused by a fault during their employment is against the military covenant, so there are two sides to that.
Michael Sutcliff: I entirely agree. The covenant is fairly new, and as we progress and go through this, we will have to tweak it here and there. I see what is in front of me in the Bill as quite positive, but we need to look at these little things to ensure that service personnel are not limited or restricted any more than civilians should be. The idea of the covenant is to help and support you in the civilian life you have just entered, so having sticking blocks in it is not a good idea.
Chris Evans
Q
Douglas Young: There is no doubt that the Bill and its principles have been widely welcomed. I think a lot of people will see the headline that, as promised by the Government, action is being taken to put a stop to the industrial level of claims. As I mentioned before, I think there is some exaggeration behind some of that, although there is absolutely no doubt that many have suffered disgracefully and that should never have happened. However, I have some doubts about the scale of what is involved.
The Ministry has at times understandably encouraged the idea of prosecutions and welfare, and some of it is claimed by members of the armed forces. Let us not forget, of course, that there are perfectly genuine and reasonable claimants who have sought compensation for something that did happen to them, but across the board I would say there is a qualified sigh of relief. A lot of people welcome it.
I have seen pretty strong views against as well, and these views are not all from, if you like, the usual suspects who are suspicious of the armed forces or not particularly sympathetic to the armed forces. Some of the criticism has come from people with a lot of relevant experience. For example, the field marshal and the general who wrote the letter were described by some as “meddling generals”, and they probably knew very little about the two individuals concerned, who certainly know what a battlefield looks like and the consequences of putting people in harm’s way. I want to encourage this Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill in case of unintended consequences, or even intended consequences, that might trick the Ministry of Defence but might not be quite what those involved are looking for.
Michael Sutcliff: From our point of view, it starts with a big hope. We have been here before, as I said at the start, as there have been several attempts. They all seemed to be Ministers saying, “We are going to do this, that and the other,” and then suddenly some bug is found somewhere and it never happens. There is a hope that this is going to go through. I take the great point just made to the Committee: please scrutinise the Bill as carefully as you can. Often the MOD is seen as the enemy of its men, which is the wrong way to see it and really is a bit of an issue. Do not let the Leigh Days of this world anywhere near it, because they will screw it up.
The object of the exercise is to look after your service and ex-service personnel in the best way you can. If you read the papers about a number of MPs voting against it, I hope you will see that there is concern out here in the big wide world and we are at your mercy—do a good job.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Douglas Young: I think we have touched already on the dire mental health effects of repeated investigations, for example, and even simply of participation in combat operations. The British Armed Forces Federation has been involved in many of these issues. In campaigning about mental health in the armed forces in the past, we have given evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into healthcare for members of the armed forces. I have some experience myself, because I am a qualified caseworker and office bearer in a major national charity that supports armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.
Not all mental health problems among the armed forces and veterans are attributable to combat; there are many other factors. There can be a different pattern in illness between armed forces people and people outside. Obviously there is a huge overlap, but they can present slightly differently.
Years ago, not long after BAFF was formed, we had the case of an individual who had sought psychiatric support through the NHS. He had been assigned to take part in group therapy. In the group therapy he described the incidents to which he attributed his illness, but after a while he was asked to stop coming because he was making all the other patients worse. There is a need for targeted mental health support where people are willing to accept tailored support. Of course, some people may not wish to be in any way associated with the armed forces, even though their problems may be attributable to that.
We certainly support everything that has been done. Things have improved. The Ministry of Defence has been doing a lot in this area, as have charities such as Combat Stress, but there is always more to be done. I frequently meet people—not directly through that, but at veterans breakfasts and the like—who are clearly suffering. It is a huge problem, which we need to understand and perhaps not exaggerate. The vast majority of people who have served in the armed forces are very effective future employees, marriage partners and so on. They tend to do well. Our veterans are not all weighed down by problems.
Michael Sutcliff: To answer your question from my end, I have been doing this job for about 16 years now. I would put it this way: the stress from being in the armed forces is very different from that of the outside world. What does it do to marriages? In some cases, of course, it breaks a marriage, and it would be quite wrong to say that it does not. There are an enormous number of very supportive wives out there who help their husbands through. Certainly, if the family is mixed up and falling out, it affects the children.
I have to tell you that, from my personal point of view, I was not suffering from anything other than the fact that I joined the services at 15 and came out at 30-something into the big wide world. My wife and I were strangers—that was an example. It worried me so much some years ago that I have actually taken a course on service mental health, so that I can understand myself. [Inaudible.]
I agree that it is getting better. There are a number of groups out there that can help in this situation. The local NHS here is very good. We have some good doctors. We operate here in our little world. The door is open and we say, “If you have a problem, come and talk to us about it.” We get people who do that. We have dragged one or two back from the brink, which I am very happy about, but it is not thousands. Do not get too carried away with that. I have spoken to the local colonel and he said to me, “Everybody thinks that every soldier, sailor and airman has PTSD, and it works out at about 3% of us.” However, that 3% goes back to Cyprus and everywhere else—there is a lot in the 3%.
We are doing better, and we can do better. All of us are beginning to understand things better, and there are clever people out there coming up with good ideas every day. Hopefully that gives you the situation. But yes, obviously it destroys families and puts great stress and strain on them—there is no getting away from that.
Miss Dines
Q
Michael Sutcliff: The quick answer to that from me is yes.
Miss Dines
Q
Douglas Young: Given that endless investigations and the fear of prosecution—sometimes unfounded fear—have had an effect on individuals’ mental health and that of their families, it follows that if that at least can be reduced, then fewer people will suffer from the same deleterious effects on mental health.
Miss Dines
Do you agree, Mr Sutcliff? I think you said yes earlier.
Michael Sutcliff: I agree 100%. They let these things run on and on forever, going round and round in circles. It is utter nonsense and has destroyed many people, so yes, they will be cutting out, and that is good.
Miss Dines
Q
Douglas Young: [Inaudible.]
The Chair
We did not hear the start of your answer, Mr Young. Will you start again? We had a technical issue.
Douglas Young: There have been very serious allegations concerning the approach taken by investigators earlier on, under the IHAT investigation. We do not know fully the truth of those, but certainly in cases investigators who had no actual police powers acted excessively. I do not believe—or, certainly, I have not been told—that that sort of thing has been happening more recently.
The Bill should not affect that, except perhaps by removing scope altogether, but it will not have a direct effect on the treatment by investigators arriving at the door. It is an important area, and the Ministry of Defence, in so far as it has not already done so, should certainly take that on board.
People who are being investigated or engaged as potential witnesses have said that they do not feel supported by the MOD. The MOD arranges them—in some cases, they have some legal support—but the MOD is not actually on their side. I can understand that—you cannot tell a witness what to say—but a number of people have written, and I have now heard it myself directly, about how they did not feel adequately supported by the MOD. Sometimes, if they were still serving, they were told, “Well, your unit should be supporting you,” but that unit might not be the one that they have a particular connection with. The question of support and attitudes towards potential witnesses and suspects requires close attention, but is perhaps not directly addressed by the Bill.
Michael Sutcliff: I have not seen that. We have had a couple of instances here. One guy had literally barricaded his house. He was worried about these guys turning up, but they never did. It took a while to calm him down. I have a couple of chaps who are still a little worried about a knock on the door, but they have not come. But I have not heard about these people knocking about for a while—at one time this was hitting the headlines quite often, but it is not at the moment. Of course it has an effect on people, and it is wrong. It is not being done properly.
Miss Dines
Q
Douglas Young: I have no direct experience of a member of the British armed forces who has been accused of torture; I have no direct knowledge. I have personally interviewed a very recent victim. I say “very recent”; it was years ago, but he had very recently been tortured by foreign armed forces and I saw his injuries.
I have very serious concerns about torture being treated differently from sexual offences—that sexual offences have been singled out as not subject to the same time limits that torture is. I would say that the two broad areas of offence are very similar. They may take place for base motives. They are certainly inappropriate. They are about using power against someone who has no control over the situation. And they very often take place behind closed doors, so it may be very difficult to take evidence—if torture or sexual offences have occurred within a base, other people in the area may not know about it at the time. So I have very serious concerns about the exemption, if you like, for torture and it being treated differently from sexual offences. The suggestion is that that is for reasons of political correctness: “Sexual offences? Oh no, we must keep them aligned, but torture we won’t oppose.” I do have worries about that.
Michael Sutcliff: My answer is that I have absolutely no experience of it and have not heard any comments from any of my colleagues or visitors, so it would be unfair for me to comment.
The Chair
We are tight for time, so I will call Carol Monaghan next, and then, if we can, we will squeeze in Liz Twist and Stuart Anderson, who have both indicated a wish to speak. Gentlemen, could you, at the other end, give short, sharp answers as well?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Q
Douglas Young: I cannot quantify it, but I certainly have seen a suggestion that a large proportion of actual claims has been on behalf of forces personnel—[Inaudible.] Only the MOD can really answer that. I have mentioned before my concern about some of the language. Lawfare actually exists and it is a threat, but many of the cases are not lawfare at all in the sense of being employed by bad or malicious actors in order to make things difficult for the United Kingdom. Many of the cases are not like that at all. If people feel that they have a claim, they will make a claim. It is exactly the same in this country. Why wouldn’t you, if you were in Basra or Helmand and you thought you had a genuine claim? People exaggerate. I have absolutely had experience of that in the Balkans. People tell stories and it is difficult to get to the truth.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Douglas Young: “Industrial scale” refers to large numbers. The numbers mentioned by the MOD are high. I would like to see the breakdown and how many were settled, in which case presumably there was something in it, and how many were not by indigenous residents but by members of our armed forces.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Douglas Young: I think six years is a reasonable presumptive time limit, but the absolute limit, the longstop, should be longer than that.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Douglas Young: On the first point about coming to light, we are all right with that. The time limit only starts at that point. I do not have any experience of facts that came to light.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Michael Sutcliff: The example I gave you is exactly that. I can see it for everyday injury, but when you are using equipment, machinery and things like that—this problem with asbestos literally only started raising its head many years ago. To be fair, the MOD dealt with that very fairly. There are always exceptions to the rule. You should be able to make a submission as something that arrives and is seen by the necessary medical people or scientists as an issue. I am not sure that that answers your question, but you cannot just shut things down like that, or else we would have been in trouble.
Carol Monaghan
Q
The Chair
Gentlemen, this will be the last question, so if you could both answer succinctly, that would be helpful.
Douglas Young: One thing about a shorter period is that, properly described by the MOD and by lawyers and others, a shorter time, if properly used, would actually remind people that the clock is ticking and that they need to get in. So there is that case for shortening that limit, but we should be careful.
Michael Sutcliff: I accept that. That is a reasonable comment.
The Chair
Thank you to the witnesses. We have reached the end of the time. I apologise to the two Members who wished to put questions but were unable to do so. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us and engaging with the technology successfully.
Examination of witness
Hilary Meredith gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear from Hilary Meredith, of Hilary Meredith solicitors, who is joining us in person. We have until 11 am for this session. Hilary, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Hilary Meredith: Yes, I am Hilary Meredith.
The Chair
Thank you. As you have seen from the previous session we have some logistical issues, because Members who wish to question you will have to move to a seat where there is a microphone, or we have a standing microphone just behind you. I hope that you will bear with us as we move forward with those logistics. The two Members who have indicated that they wish to question you during this session are Emma Lewell-Buck and Carol Monaghan. If there is anyone else—Sarah Atherton, I will take you as well. So, Emma.
The Chair
I suggest that we might logistically arrange for people who do want to ask questions, or anticipate asking questions, to be at the table where they would have access to a microphone. It makes it so much easier. Emma Lewell-Buck, I call on you to start the proceedings.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Q
Hilary Meredith: No, I do not, and that is one of my issues with the Bill—that it mixes civil and criminal law together.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Hilary Meredith: One of the issues with the Bill is that we need to look backward to find out how we got into the present situation, before we can cure it. Most of the criminal allegations arose out of civil proceedings by Iraqi foreign claimants against the Ministry of Defence. Great caution needs to be taken when criminal allegations arise out of a compensation cheque carrot being dangled. For that reason alone there needs to be a separation with the two—criminal and civil law.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think that leads on to it: because many of the criminal allegations arose out of a civil compensation claim, great caution should have been exercised. I cannot believe that extra care was not taken, and under those circumstances I can quite see there should be a presumption against guilt. It was not helped by the Ministry of Defence then paying cash to civilians in Iraq by way of compensation, which almost indicated guilt. That led on to the criminal prosecutions.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Hilary Meredith: I am against any cut-off, to be honest. I think the reason why the cases became historic is not the date of the accusation—any of the criminal accusations under human rights law, for example, came within 12 months of the incident taking place. It was the prolonged procedure that was bungled afterwards that made those cases historic. It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on criminal or civil prosecutions.
Also under that heading, I have an issue with the longstop applying to civil cases where personnel are overseas on operations and military personnel have a longstop placed on their claims as well. I understand that that has been put in on a equitable basis, so that if there is a longstop for a criminal prosecution, it also has to apply to civil law, but I am not sure about that.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Hilary Meredith: The answer to that is that I do not actually know. I think that lawfare instance came mainly from one or two lawyers. Phil Shiner was a one-off. He brought civil claims for compensation first, and as a result of that the prosecutions followed. If we had a robust procedure for investigating those cases and, for example, an independent advocate who has the back of the individual member of the armed forces and supports them, many of those cases would not have been advanced to the point that they were, with the subsequent criminal allegations.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Thank you, Chair—I will leave it there so others can come in.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think the overarching view of the Bill is correct, but there does need to be protection in place. When criminal prosecutions arise out of civil compensation cheques being dangled, there should be a presumption of innocence and no prosecution should really take place without extra care and caution.
I think that the time limit is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. We do not need time limits on it; most of the allegations were brought in a timely manner. I have searched to see whether our courts ever exercise their power of discretion under the Limitation Act for human rights allegations—they have to be brought within 12 months. I cannot find a single case on a preliminary investigation in which the courts have extended a 12-month time limit under the Human Rights Act. I can see one case where they have extended the date that time begins to run, and in multiple proceedings, that is not at the beginning of the process but at the end.
For example, under IHAT, it was only in June this year that we found out that of those 4,000 vexatious criminal claims, there was not a single prosecution. In those circumstance, if a member of the Armed Forces wishes to bring their own human rights claim for lack of a speedy trial, that time runs from June this year.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Hilary Meredith: The investigations that took place following the civil claims were shambolic to be honest. I know that you will hear from Robert Campbell after me; he would have liked to have been heard in the European courts, because our system was so shambolic and went on forever. That is a very extreme viewpoint to take—we cannot investigate properly in this country.
The Royal Military Police need special training. You have to understand that they are investigating crimes overseas and in a war zone. It is extremely difficult. It may be that they take training from, for example, the Metropolitan police on investigating crimes. It is a very difficult area to investigate. We need to have a robust system of procedures to investigate crimes, rather than putting time limits on it.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Hilary Meredith: For example, if I can use the case of Major Campbell, the investigation against him included a drowning in the river in Iraq. That allegation came within a year of the incident. He was told by his commanding officer not to worry about it because it would be cleared—it would be sorted. Then began a process where over 17 years, he was investigated 11 times for the same incident. That is the shambolic system of procedure that we are operating in this country and that is what needs to be reviewed and overhauled.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think the original investigation was by the Royal Military Police. It was perceived that they were not independent enough, so the IHAT team was formed. Under the IHAT team, we then had this terrible form of investigation through Red Snapper, which Parliament has heard about before. Its methods of investigation and what it put those accused through was quite horrific. Had there been an independent advocate that had the backs of the individual members of the armed forces—not the Ministry of Defence, which cannot act; there is a conflict—there would have been a buffer between the Red Snapper team and the IHAT team and the individual person. I think that would have solved a lot of mental health issues as well.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Hilary Meredith: There is a difficulty putting a time limit on the Human Rights Act—I do not even know whether we can do that constitutionally, because it is a European convention. If there is a six-year time limit on criminal allegations, I have concerns about that. I think most of those criminal allegations were brought well within time anyway; as I said, it is the process that was wrong.
For civil claims against the Ministry when people are injured or killed in service overseas, I do not think a longstop should be applied. There are tremendous difficulties in placing people in a worse position than civilians. In latent disease cases—diseases that do not come to light until much further down the line, such as asbestosis, PTSD, hearing loss—it is not just about the diagnosis. Many people are diagnosed at death. It is about the connection to service. That connection to service may come much later down the line, and by that time they will be out of time to bring a claim.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Q
Hilary Meredith: That is a really interesting point, actually. I had not thought of a time limit on investigations. Certainly under the Human Rights Act, there is a right to have a speedy trial, and that did not happen in these cases. There were no speedy trials. A limit on the time that an investigation takes would, I think, be really welcomed. Sorry, I cannot remember your second question.
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: Parliament had an inquiry into what support they were given. Basically, there was none. It is not so much the serving personnel, but the veterans—there was no telephone number for them to phone. At one point, I was told, “Phone the Veterans Agency.” The Veterans Agency deals with pensions. If you are arrested and in a police cell at midnight, you cannot phone a pensions department for help. The penny dropped when I said that to the Ministry of Defence.
If someone was appointed independently from the Bar Council or the Law Society, and it was freely advertised, even given to personnel before they go on operations, then they would have a telephone number to phone for support and advice. I think that is crucial. The process of the investigation may have been reduced if they had had an advocate in their corner, questioning why this was going on for so long.
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think that part 2, on the time limit, should be taken out and scrapped completely. It is the time limit for the procedure. It went on too long, with multiple investigations. We have not got our system right there. In fairness, the decision in the Al-Skeini case that opened the floodgates to the Human Rights Act applying overseas, outside our territory, took us all by surprise. It took the MOD and everybody by surprise. We were not geared up for the consequences of that.
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: I worry that it is not, actually. I think the Bill will have a rough passage if that part is not tailored slightly. There is a presumption not to prosecute where the allegations of crime arise out of a compensation cheque carrot being dangled, but in the majority of these cases the MOD are paying compensation. Payment of £145,000 was made to the father of the drowned boy in Major Campbell’s case, indicating in Iraq that there was guilt there. Why was that payment was made, who authorised it and why was it so much—it is a huge amount of money—when he was exonerated completely? Some 4,000 allegations of criminal activity under IHAT were completely dismissed, without a single prosecution. Why was the MOD paying out compensation?
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think those payments fuelled the allegations of crime. Maybe there should be a review of why large amounts of money are paid in compensation when there is no guilt there.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Q
Hilary Meredith: I am not quite sure I understand the question.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: I think there are two issues. The Human Rights Act civil cases were brought for abuse and detention. When you look at the charge sheet, there are masses—hundreds—just as abuse and detention. The civil human rights were brought by the Iraqi civilians against the Ministry of Defence. That, then, culminated in human rights criminal activity against individual members of the armed forces. Which takes precedent? I think you will have to ask a constitutional lawyer, but my concern is that if we are putting time limits on the Human Rights Act 1998, I am not sure if in the UK we have the power or authority to do that. A constitutional lawyer would be able to advise you better.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: Nobody.
Joy Morrissey
No one.
Hilary Meredith: No, there was nobody there to help them.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: No, and I think one of the issues that the members of the armed forces have is that they have to step out of the military environment into civvy street and find a civilian lawyer or even know that they are allowed to find a civil lawyer, there was no information there for them. That is why I am suggesting there should be an independent civil advocate from the Bar Council or the Law Society with criminal knowledge to help them.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: I do not know. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I think that many of those—imagine that you are completely innocent and you are accused. First, there are so many different laws now that affect you on the battlefield, so many different conventions, and then throw in human rights as well. It is a difficult, complex scenario.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Q
Hilary Meredith: Going back to the Al-Skeini case: the decision that opened the door for human rights in a foreign territory where we had control, and the situation where we had control was detaining prisoners. Of those who claimed civil compensation—I keep using Major Campbell’s case. That was not in detention but that was somebody who was said to have drowned in a river. These prosecutions just go on and on. I have forgotten the question.
Sarah Atherton
Q
Hilary Meredith: As a result of those civil claims that were brought—I do not know how many civil cases were brought against the Ministry of Defence; it would be interesting to know—they led to over 4,000 accusations of crime under the IHAT team, which happened to be investigating. Of those 4,000, there was not a single prosecution.
Sarah Atherton
Q
Hilary Meredith: I understand that, out of the 4,000, there were possibly 30 worth investigation. Of those 30, it was whittled down to around five, and of those five, there was insufficient evidence to say whether there was any issue or not. Somewhere along the way, somebody decided that the British military were “rotten to the core” and they were not given a chance, so they were almost guilty before being proven innocent. That is where the presumption against prosecution is so important.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: There are two scenarios, depending on whether you are still in service or you are a veteran. If you are a veteran, there is nothing—there is no chain of command. A number of times, the MOD said to me that veterans can go and see the chain of command, and I say that they are retired and are veterans, so there is no chain of command, or their commanding officer has retired. Who do they contact? If you are in service and have a good commanding officer, you can go and seek help through them. I know that the Army legal services tried to help in some instances, but I think there is a conflict of interest with the Army legal services protecting the Ministry of Defence and trying also to protect individuals.
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: That is one thing I considered. The remit of the ombudsman would have to be extended to do that. To look into 4,000 falsely brought accusations is a big job. Whether the ombudsman has the resources and the remit would have to be looked at, but I think that is a good idea.
Mr Jones
Q
Hilary Meredith: If their remit is extended and they could cope with the volume, yes, definitely. My idea is for an independent person, which the ombudsman is, or somebody from the Bar Council or the Law Society, or even a panel appointed on a rota basis that could assist.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Hilary Meredith: I agree; it is extremely difficult. When I am putting forward an independent person, I am talking about somebody in civvy street, which would be even more difficult. Unless you sign up to the Official Secrets Act and there is a full cards-on-the-table procedure, it would be very hard to defend.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Hilary Meredith: The time limit, on the face of it, is welcomed by most veterans and military personnel, but the reading of it is a concern. For example, time limits will be introduced if military personnel serving overseas are killed or injured in service. Putting a time limit on that puts them in a worse position than civilians. That alone outweighs the prospect of a time limit on a criminal prosecution. Most criminal prosecutions were done in a timely manner. It was the process that caused them to be historical. Differentiating between the two and sorting out the process is more welcome than actually putting a time limit on an allegation.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Hilary Meredith: In civilian cases, with the date of knowledge of, for example, of PTSD, you may consider that there is something wrong post service, but it can take up to 15 years for PTSD to actually raise its head. An example of that is the young men and women who came back who have lost limbs. People were surviving triple amputations and went on to do fantastic things; they climbed mountains, they skied, they had great prosthetics—they all did remarkably well. But as the ageing process takes place, they cannot walk on prosthetics; they become more wheelchair-bound, they put on weight, the Invictus games is not available to them, and that is when PTSD sets in. PTSD is not just the diagnosis; it is the date you realise it is connected to service, and 15 years down the line it can be difficult to differentiate between, “Yes, there is something wrong with me,” and, “Ah, but it’s also connected to service.” It is the causation issue—the service caused the PTSD.
The Chair
Thank you, Hilary. With that, we have reached the end of the time period that was allocated for your evidence. On behalf of all the members of the Committee, we are very grateful to you for the evidence you have given and for bearing with us and the logistics we have to follow to comply with social distancing. Thank you very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witness
Major Bob Campbell gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witness is Major Bob Campbell, who is giving evidence remotely using sound only. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Major Campbell, could you just confirm to me that you can hear me, and could you speak so that we know you can hear us?
Major Campbell: I can hear you fine. I will just say that I have hearing loss in both ears, so may I ask for the questions to be spoken clearly? You do not need to shout, but just speak clearly, and then we will probably get through this more quickly.
The Chair
Excellent. You are pre-empting my good self in giving that instruction to those asking for evidence. Major, could you just confirm your name formally for the record?
Major Campbell: My name is Robert Campbell, former Army officer.
The Chair
Thank you very much, sir. I have four Members who have indicated that they want to ask questions: Stephen Morgan, Kevan Jones, Carol Monaghan and Stuart Anderson. If anybody else wants to ask a question, please indicate. I will go first to Stephen Morgan, who I am sure will follow the Major’s instructions.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Q
Major Campbell: No, there was none. Depending on which investigation you wish to address, in the early investigations under the Royal Military Police we were told just not to think about it and to get on with stuff. No concession was given to us in our day-to-day duties. Later on, when the Aitken report was written in 2008, we were not approached prior to the publishing of the report; I heard about it on the radio like everybody else, while I was driving home. It is rather unpleasant to discover on the radio that your own Army accuses you of killing somebody in Iraq, three years after you have already been cleared of that allegation.
Moving forward to the later investigations, there was a civil claim made by Leigh Day in 2010, in which we were ordered to give another statement and we were ordered not to seek our own legal advice by the Treasury Solicitors. We ignored that instruction: we got our own legal advice, and we declined to assist the Ministry of Defence in defending the civil claim, because frankly we thought they had rather a cheek after previously accusing us of committing that offence.
When IHAT came in 2015, I had just started my intermediate officer education at staff college. I knew IHAT was going to come and arrest me and question me, so I approached the course colonel to ask whether I could defer the course, because I had to concentrate on this allegation. He wrote to me in an email, “Based on the version of events you have described to me, which would doubtless be corroborated by your colleagues, I do not believe you have anything to fear. Given the utter discrediting of Iraqi witnesses in al-Sweady, I believe you can take further confidence. I know this is extremely unsettling business for you, but I would urge you to try to put it to one side and focus on this course. That in itself will be a distraction and help you get on with your life.” So, to briefly answer your question, no, we were not offered any type of meaningful support other than some rather unhelpful advice to try not to think about it.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Major Campbell: No. Again, that last instance was my direct line manager—okay, it was slightly different from the normal chain of command because I was on a course. Their belief was—this is what kept being told to me—if you have done nothing wrong, you have got nothing to fear. While I tried to explain to them, “Look, I have been through many investigations and, trust me, they are very, very unpleasant” they would not have it.
I pushed it up the chain of command to Army headquarters, and again they were not really interested in helping. They expressed to me that they were being told by the directorate of judicial engagement policy not to get involved. In terms of hindering me, if you like, I was appalled to discover that the Army personnel centre had handed over my service and medical records to IHAT without my knowledge or consent.
Apart from the military chain of command, I wrote to Penny Mordaunt, Mike Penning, Mark Lancaster and the Secretary of State, Michael Fallon, in response to some of their public statements in order to correct some things they said that were not entirely accurate when they were making claims that everybody was fully supported. They all responded back to me, “You don’t understand—we have to do this because we have to be seen to be doing something.” The impression I got was that me and my two other soldiers being multiply investigated was necessary for the reputation of the United Kingdom or the Army.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Major Campbell: The Army is a large and compartmentalised place. For example, when public statements are being made about these investigations, nobody actually checks with us or our solicitors if they are indeed true. Certainly, Brigadier Aitken did not think to check with us or our solicitors if we might wish to dispute anything that he was going to write in his report. He wrote retrospectively that our case was included in another load of cases, some of which were true and some of which, I believe, were false. However, I think a greater degree of a direct communication would have been better.
I also suggested in my letter to Michael Fallon that an officer at least of colonel rank should be set up somewhere like Army headquarters—I will focus on the Army because I am not too sure about the other two services—to be the one-stop shop for anybody who is under investigation. I was told that that was not necessary. Both Michael Fallon and Sir Stuart Peach in the Defence Sub-Committee on this matter said there is no need for such a thing because there is the chain of command, which will do everything. The chain of command folded at the first hurdle. The administrative process in place to apply for our legal fees to be reimbursed failed at the first hurdle, because the form did not have a box for an IHAT investigation.
On top of that, there was just to be no concession on how we were supposed to conduct ourselves in our day-to-day life. Because there was no single point of contact, we had nowhere to address our concerns. I had a very tedious series of correspondence, again with all those people I just named, who all responded, “If you’ve got a problem with it, complain to IHAT.” That is not the most helpful piece of advice.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Major Campbell: In terms of legal protections of soldiers, I would not change anything in terms of historic allegations, let me make that point clear. Had the Bill been in place during my case, it would have meant, at the absolute worst, that our torment would have ended in 2009, and neither IHAT nor the Director Service Prosecutions would have had any method of dragging it out further. For me and my two soldiers, SO71 and SO72 as they are cited in the IFI report, that would have meant that we could have at least enjoyed the last 11 years in peace.
Secondly, if the Bill had been in place during my time, Leigh Day would not have been able to bring about false allegations. That would never have got off the ground. I am no legal expert, but if the Bill was in place, it would make the vexatious, scattergun, “throw a thousand allegations at the wall” process unprofitable, and people like Leigh Day and Phil Shiner would have to find some other human misery to exploit.
The last point about this hard stop of five years is that it would be a useful device, because it would focus the minds of the MOD and the investigators. It was the MOD that dragged it out for the last 17 years. If they had this hard stop, they would have to really focus and decide whether they are going to prosecute or not. Putting them under a bit of pressure would have saved us a lot of angst in the years past.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Major Campbell: I fully welcome the Bill, both in its intent and in its content. Again, in my amateur legal opinion, there may be a legitimate argument to be had over whether the Attorney General is the correct address in terms of being the final arbiter of further prosecutions, due to the advice he gives to the armed forces on the legality of a conflict.
My other slight concern is that previous Attorneys General have done us no favours at all. Lord Goldsmith had a lot on his shoulders for how we ended up in Iraq and the manner in which we conducted operations there. When I appealed to Jeremy Wright, and when he gave evidence to the Defence Sub-Committee on this several years ago, he took the view that this was an entirely fair process and that there was absolutely no reason to stop IHAT or even to scrutinise it any further than necessary.
The last point I would make about the Bill is that I cannot really adhere to some of the arguments against it. When I wrote to all these people, such as the CGS, the Adjutant General and previous Ministers Mordaunt, Penning, Lancaster and Fallon, they would all express a variation of, “Well, we have to be seen to be doing something.” I do not believe that public relations and being seen to be doing something are a good enough reason to destroy a soldier’s life or to drive them to suicide. I do not think that is morally acceptable in any way, but apparently they thought that was a price worth paying.
To answer your question, yes, I support the Bill. There may be some minor tweaks here and there, but, in principle, and in the absence of anybody doing anything to help us in any way, it has my full support.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Major Campbell: From my very unscientific survey of veterans, I think that generally—in my orbit—the Bill is welcomed. If the words of the Bill are not welcomed, the principle of attempting to improve the lot of veterans and service personnel is welcomed. There is deep anger and distrust between the veteran community and the MOD. It is all very well for the MOD to blame Phil Shiner and Leigh Day for this, but it was the MOD that carried out the repeated investigations.
To answer your question, I think that if the Bill were to be squashed, it would send a very depressing message to the veterans community—probably one that has been felt quite harshly by the Northern Ireland veterans—that we are not important enough to get any type of assistance when facing legal assault.
Stuart Anderson
Thank you for your comments, and thank you again for your service.
Sarah Atherton
Q
Major Campbell: I think that is a false allegation, and I will tell you why. Again, when I wrote to all these people—even internally within the Army—I was told repeatedly that if IHAT was interfered with in any way, the International Criminal Court would swoop in and clamp us in leg irons, and we would all be off to The Hague. Michael Fallon repeated in the Defence Sub-Committee that he had no power to stop such investigations and that, if he were to do so, the ICC would get involved.
I decided to test that theory, and I wrote to the chief prosecutor of the ICC, Ms Bensouda, asking in exasperation whether I, SO71 and SO72 could surrender ourselves to the ICC rather than go through several more appalling years at the hands of the Ministry of Defence. Ms Bensouda responded that our allegation does not fall within her remit, because her job is not to prosecute individual soldiers; her job is to prosecute commanders and policy makers for the most grave crimes. In her orbit, manslaughter, which is what I was accused of, is not a war crime. It is a domestic crime—a regular crime, as opposed to what she would normally deal with. I reported that rejection to the Ministry of Defence, which continued to repeat that the ICC would fall in.
The second point I would make is, what would be so terrible about the ICC being involved? We kept getting told that the ICC has a bit of scrutiny over IHAT and is keeping a very close eye on it. Personally, I do not have a problem with that. Like I said, the ICC was not going to ruin our careers, the ICC was not going to harass our families, and the ICC was not going to go and bully soldiers who had left the Army for a witness statement—not even a suspect’s. The ICC would conduct itself professionally, and it would have no incentive—no financial incentive—to drag things out for years, like Red Snapper, which provided most of the detectives to IHAT, did. Finally, the ICC would probably not use the investigative technique that IHAT used, which was to pay Phil Shiner’s gofer to be the go-between between them and witnesses because IHAT was too scared to go to Iraq.
So regarding the whole spectre of the ICC, first, I do not find it remotely as scary as people make it out to be and, secondly, it is completely false, because I attempted, with my two soldiers, to surrender ourselves in order to spare us another several years of the MOD fannying about, and the offer was refused. So to answer your question, I do not see that as an issue at all.
What I would say, though, is that I think I understand why the Government would be reluctant for the ICC to be involved, because the scrutiny would not be on Tommy Atkins; the scrutiny would be on General Atkins and Minister Atkins. Those are my thoughts on the ICC.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Clearly, a lot of this is still very raw for you, and you have talked about the MOD dragging it out over the last 17 years. Can you tell me how you think this Bill will actually tackle the MOD’s actions and inactions, which you have been subjected to over the last 17 years?
Major Campbell: Like I said in the previous response, if there was a time limit within which these things can be actioned, then I feel that a higher level of scrutiny and decision making would be necessary to make them work. I also think that the kind of dithering manner in which this process has been carried out to date would be nullified. If there is a time limit within which they have to get on with it, get it done right the first time and get the correct legal advice, I think that would improve matters no end.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Major Campbell: That is a good question, because I do not know. The reason I say that is that I do not believe that there is a police force in the United Kingdom that would be able to carry out such a contested, political and adversarial investigation. If you think about the way that it has been done in the past, when IHAT got this group of ex-detectives who were used to domestic crime, and they are asked to investigate an allegation in a country they have never been to, in a culture they do not understand, in a combat environment they have never experienced and in a language they do not speak, I just think that you are already on a hiding to nothing if those are your parameters.
I do not know how a war crimes investigation can be done effectively while hostilities are ongoing. For example, if there was an allegation against our forces in Syria, I really do not understand how you are supposed to be able to gather good evidence in an area that may be occupied by the regime, Russia or ISIS, and I do not understand how you would achieve the right level of evidence. But what I do know is that the way they did it in the past was an absolute shambles.
Carol Monaghan
Q
The Chair
This needs to be a very short answer, Major Campbell.
Major Campbell: I would argue yes, because otherwise, if you make it longer, you are just handing another incentive to the Leigh Days and Phil Shiners of this world to drag it out, because they have got absolutely nothing to lose. All of their funds are provided by the taxpayer, and all of the funds of the claimants are provided by the taxpayer. They can take a punt, and it is a win-win for them.
The Chair
We do have a time limit, which I am afraid we have reached, Major Campbell. But again, on behalf of all the members of this Committee, I thank you for your evidence this morning. Thank you very much indeed.
Major Campbell: Thank you.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 October - (6 Oct 2020)
The Chair
I hope that Professor Ekins can now hear proceedings. Will witnesses say for the record their name and designation, so that we may confirm that we can hear you?
Professor Ekins: I am Professor Richard Ekins. I am head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government at the University of Oxford.
John Larkin: I am John Larkin QC. I am in private practice now in Belfast—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
Your sound is not very clear, Mr Larkin, so I am going to see whether we can have that adjusted. Will you repeat what you have just said?
John Larkin: I am John Larkin QC. I am counsel at the Bar of Northern Ireland, and practising there.
The Chair
Please try to get as close to your microphone and to speak as robustly as you can.
John Larkin: I apologise in advance, Chair. I am afraid that you have the alarming choice of seeing me leering forward or perhaps not hearing me. We will sacrifice aesthetics in favour of audibility.
The Chair
We will take hearing you—that is our priority. If our two witnesses online will bear with us on the logistics, we are joined in the room by Dr Jonathan Morgan. Dr Morgan, will you introduce yourself for the record?
Dr Morgan: Hello. I am a reader in English law at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Corpus Christi College. As you might be aware, I co-authored with Richard Ekins a paper called “Clearing the Fog of Law” for Policy Exchange in 2015. I imagine that that is why I am here, but you might be able to tell me better.
The Chair
Excellent. I am going to call Kevan Jones to start the questions, and I would ask that he and others indicate whether they are addressing a question to a specific witness or to all the witnesses.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Perhaps, if the question is to everyone, we will start with you, Dr Morgan, in the room, and then go to Professor Ekins and Mr Larkin.
Dr Morgan: My expertise is in private law—so, tort law—and I imagine that we will come on to that later. There, you have time limits of three years, six years, one year. In my view, there is no ultimate principled way of defending a particular time limit. Five years is obviously some kind of compromise. Ten years was originally proposed; that has been reduced to five. There seems to be no logical answer, certainly, as to that particular time period. It is a balancing act.
Professor Ekins: I agree with everything that Dr Morgan has just said. All I would add is that I presume five years has been chosen with a view to allowing a sizeable period of time to pass during which—[Inaudible]—can be brought in the customary fashion. After five years, a somewhat different regime obviously applies, although it might be too strong to call this a cut-off period. There is always something somewhat arbitrary about procedural time limits. As Dr Morgan said, three years and six years are used in civil law; the criminal law does not tend to do this so often, so I do not think this is a salient number—to my knowledge.
John Larkin: I agree. There is no magic in the number five; that is a matter of policy choice.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: On the second of those questions, which is whether the Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute could be challenged in court, I think that, yes, absolutely there is a risk of that, and I think the Minister, in a letter that he wrote to the Defence Committee, accepted that that was the case, but expressed the view that the courts would have to take account of the context that it is a quasi-judicial decision, and that they should respect the Attorney General’s decision. But I suspect that it is very strongly likely that it would be reviewed. How successful that would be is hard to say in the abstract, but it could be challenged, in my view.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: Criminal procedure is not my area, but I am not aware of any others in UK law. There are references to limitation statutes in other jurisdictions. I think that the example given is that, in French law, there is a 30-year period, which is very much longer and which apparently does not apply to war crimes, so that is almost the mirror image of what is in the Bill.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: It says that only exceptionally will there be a prosecution, so it is not a total amnesty after the five years. But even having the presumption after a time period is, as far as I am aware, unique in English criminal law. When we are talking about tort law, which is much more my area, limitation periods are absolutely standard, but in criminal procedure it is much more exceptional. I think that is why this has received so much more attention, media attention and public criticism than the civil law proposals.
Professor Ekins: As Jonathan Morgan says, there are precedents elsewhere for statutes of limitation in the criminal sphere in other jurisdictions, but they have not been a feature of English law, although, of course, this is quite a soft statute of limitations in so far as it provides no obstacle or bar to prosecutions after the five years. It certainly does not stop investigations. In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations, which might be thought to be one of the main mischiefs motivating of the Bill. If there has been no investigation, the fact that there is an investigation, and cogent evidence arises of a crime, will tend to beat back the presumption against prosecution, if one wants to call it the presumption against prosecution. So it is not quite right to my mind to say this is putting the cart before the horse and deciding against prosecution before one investigates.
In relation to the Attorney General and consent to prosecute, there are two stages. One is the prosecuting authority deciding whether or not the prosecution is warranted, and the Bill looks at some of the factors that should be taken into account in making that decision. That might be one way to think about part 1 of the Bill—it is framing the determination by the prosecuting authority. In addition to that, the Attorney General’s consent is required. They are not necessarily the same stage or the same act.
As to whether the Attorney General giving or withholding consent—more likely the withholding, although I suppose either—will be challenged in the courts, I think, very likely, yes. How much risk is there? I think that is an open question. I think there must be some risk that there will be a Human Rights Act challenge arguing for a narrow and restrictive reading of the Attorney General’s power to give or withhold consent, and that might end up requiring the Attorney General to give consent in circumstances where one might not otherwise expect it. It is possible the courts will not take that course, but I think it is a risk that parliamentarians should be aware of.
John Larkin: Yes. I am in agreement with Professor Ekins. Classically, the decision of an Attorney General to give consent to prosecution has been subject to very light-touch review. Here, although it is described in the clause heading as “Presumption against prosecution”, it is really more the establishment of an exceptionality test, and that of course gives a handle to anybody seeking to challenge the Attorney General, because what is or is not exceptional will be a matter ultimately for judicial determination. I think that challenges are almost inevitable, but they are by no means to be regarded as inevitably successful. I think the approach of the courts—one can see that in the Supreme Court challenge a year or so back to the certification by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in the Dennis Hutchings case—tends to be associated with the bestowal of a good deal of latitude to the responsible law officer.
Mr Jones
Q
John Larkin: The law is full of operative presumptions, from time to time, but the precise model here is something that I have not seen either in the UK or elsewhere.
Professor Ekins: I do not think the UK has tended to legislate about the decision to prosecute. There are a great many statutory requirements for Attorney General’s consent before prosecuting, so that is by no means unique, but the legislating to frame the prosecutor’s decision as to whether to initiate the prosecution is unusual.
Mr Jones
Q
Professor Ekins: Not to my knowledge, but it is difficult to sever it from the point about time. There is a difference between a Bill that does what you see in part 1 from day one and a Bill that does so after a certain period of time has passed, which is why the Bill refers, understandably, to the importance of finality if you have an investigation and further evidence has arisen. Those are all considerations that a prosecutor might well take into account anyway; it is just that Parliament is requiring them to be taken into account, framing when and how—[Inaudible.]
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Q
John Larkin: I possess no qualifications to judge the reputational effectiveness of the Bill and its impact on military operations. What I have said to Policy Exchange is that many of the criticisms of the Bill are quite misplaced. It is not a blanket amnesty; in fact, it might be regarded as a fairly modest, proportionate measure.
Stuart Anderson
Mr Ekins?
Professor Ekins: I suppose the best case one can make for the positive benefit of the Bill is that it may provide some assurance to personnel. If no application has been made after five years, they are unlikely to be prosecuted. However, in one sense that is too strong, because if cogent evidence arises, it can be investigated. It probably will be—there is no bar to it in the Bill—and it may well result in a decision to prosecute.
Having said that, prosecution is the major risk for people who have been serving on operations abroad. It is a major problem in relation to Northern Ireland—we have been getting prosecutions 40 or 50 years after the fact, which are very difficult to conduct fairly, and which understandably cause an enormous amount of stress. In recent years, the problem in relation to people who have been serving abroad has been, in a sense, a seemingly never-ending cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The Bill does not really do anything about that, so in that sense it will not provide much help.
Stuart Anderson
I should have referred to as “professor”—sorry, I did not want you to feel left out. Doctor Morgan?
Dr Morgan: The answer is, up to a point. It really depends on what kind of allegations we want to defend service personnel against. In the Second Reading debate, there were many references to Phil Shiner—we can take him as shorthand for spurious claims being brought. But you might say that if spurious claims are brought within six years, if it is a tort action, or within five years, if it is leading to a criminal prosecution, the Bill is not doing anything about those. It is not doing anything about promptly brought spurious claims. Indeed, it seems to me that the Shiner claims were actually brought promptly. There were many problems with them—namely, that people were making up the evidence—but they were not being brought many years later.
The Bill addresses one particular problem: very old and stale allegations being revived after a long period, which are either brought as a tort damages claim—that is part 2 of the Bill—or lead to criminal prosecutions, which is part 1. It seems to me to be part of a solution to what is actually quite a big and complex problem with a number of different strands in it. It is not the total solution, but it addresses that aspect of it.
Stuart Anderson
Q
John Larkin: I have given my view on that. The short answer is that it does not.
Professor Ekins: I agree with John.
Dr Morgan: I think “blanket amnesty” is a very overblown way of putting it, if we are talking of criminal prosecutions after the five years. It is establishing presumption, and that is what should be referred to. Having said that, the stronger the presumption is against prosecution, the closer it approaches that. The weaker the presumption is, the less protection it gives to the service personnel in question. So there is obviously a balancing act, but, as it stands, I do not see it as an amnesty; that is a misdescription.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Q
Professor Ekins: To my mind, the major problem of the Bill—this is a major absence, but it would be quite a substantial policy change to introduce it—is that it does not really address the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act. That is the main driver behind some of the difficulties we have seen in the last 10 or more years in a whole range of ways. That includes requiring continued investigation and litigation—sometimes from enemy combatants relying on the Human Rights Act while UK forces have been in the field. The Bill could be improved—although, as I say, it would be a major change—by limiting the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act.
That would be, in a sense, restating the position that our senior judges understood before the European Court of Human Rights extended how jurisdiction was understood. I think that would also be much more consistent with the way in which Parliament understood the Human Rights Act when it was enacted in 1998. The ECHR and the Human Rights Act really have been extended by a series of problematic judgments, and a Bill on this subject could usefully roll that back. That might mean that the Human Rights Act simply applies in the United Kingdom, or alternatively—this may be more plausible as a prospect for enactment—it might allow for limited extraterritorial application, in the limited way that was understood to be possible in 2003 when the European Court of Human Rights gave a significant judgment on the point, as well as by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court in the years to follow. That would address the problem of being unable to stop investigations and being exposed to litigation that requires the continuation of investigations, when the Government think that that is unfair to the personnel. The Bill does not address that—save, perhaps, by encouraging Ministers to derogate from the ECHR.
John Larkin: There is a lack conceptual clarity in part 1—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
Mr Larkin, we are sorry but we are not hearing you very well. Do you want to try to speak a bit closer to your microphone?
John Larkin: There is a lack of conceptual clarity in part 1 of the Bill with respect to the prosecutorial task. As the Committee will know, the prosecutor’s task breaks down into two parts. First, they ask themselves whether the evidential test is met. If it is, they consider whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. That is the approach taken in all three UK jurisdiction—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
We are still struggling, I am afraid.
John Larkin: Clause 1 of the Bill puts no time limit on assessment of the evidential test. But then, when one looks at clause 3, subsections (1) and (2) tend to reduce the person’s culpability. Culpability is at the core of criminal liability—it is synonymous with criminal liability. There may be value in amending the Bill to permit the prosecutor to take a global view.
The Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, in its code for prosecutors, permits the public prosecutor to take a view based on the public interest test, sometimes—exceptionally—in advance of full consideration of the evidential tests, so if one has a sense from the beginning that the case is going nowhere, one should not have to go through what might seem to be a very empty exercise of none the less carrying out the evidential test in full. There could be an expressed power, by amendment, given to prosecutors to determine in advance of consideration of the full evidential tests. As you rightly note, clause 3(1) sits ill with clause 1’s exception of the evidential consideration.
Peter Gibson
Q
The Chair
Are you happy to do that, Mr Larkin? We did not hear all of what you said. Members may have got the general thrust of what you were saying, but we did not get the detail.
John Larkin: I am happy to do that. It is a technical point, so it might be of assistance to Committee members if it were reduced to writing.
Peter Gibson
Q
Dr Morgan: I would approach the question in two ways. One would be, “How would I improve this Bill?” and the other would be, “What would I do if I was starting with a blank sheet of paper?” You would get two quite different answers, but I will start with the second one.
Peter Gibson
Let us have both approaches.
Dr Morgan: Okay. To start with the second one, it seems to me that the problem in this area is lawfare or the judicialisation of war—whatever you want to call it. The extension of the European convention on human rights into this area as a result of the European Court’s decision in Al-Skeini, and the decision of our Supreme Court in Smith v. Ministry of Defence, which confirmed that and extended the law of tort into the battlefield, led to the erosion of combat immunity. To me, that should be the priority for any legislation on this difficult and multifaceted problem.
The section of the Bill that partly deals with the issue is the derogation provision and the duty on the Minister to consider derogation. It is not a duty to derogate; it is a duty to consider doing it, which is putting into statute the Government’s policy. It seems to me that that is valuable, although it does not change very much.
In its consultation paper published in June 2019, the Ministry of Defence said it was going to look at restatement of combat immunity, hand in hand with a no-fault compensation scheme for service personnel to pay damages on the full tort measure. Those two things should go together. I regret that last month, in reply to the consultation, it said that legislation on the issue is
“not being taken forward…at this time.”
I think it should be. The priority should be to restate combat immunity and, hand in hand with that, to have no-fault compensation for service personnel on the full compensation measure that you get if you bring a claim in law.
If that were done, it would help with the problem about the shorter limitation periods for tort claims—damages claims—that was raised several times at Second Reading. The British Legion has been quoted several times saying that that breaches the armed forces covenant. I do not want to get into that particular debate, but there is no question that service personnel might, in some fairly unusual situations, find their ability to bring damages claims caught by the proposals in part 2 of the Bill as it stands.
If the Ministry of Defence took forward the proposal that it called “Better combat compensation,” to have full compensation through the armed forces compensation scheme, those worries would fall away. If there was full compensation available without the need to bring a tort claim or negligence action against the Government, any limitations on the time periods for bringing tort claims would be an irrelevant question for service personnel.
Those are two reasons why I would revive what seems to have been the Ministry of Defence’s approach at one point, which was restating combat immunity and ensuring full, no-fault compensation. If you want me to give more detailed comments on the provisions of the Bill I can do that, but I would approach the issues in a quite different way than in the Bill that we have.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: The proposal to make that switch is in the joint paper produced by Richard Ekins, Tom Tugendhat and myself that I mentioned at the start. We said in that paper that that there is a case for having a more generous strand within the armed forces compensation scheme applying to those soldiers who cannot bring tort claims at law. In other words, if Crown immunity in warfare were to be revived—the Government already have the statutory power to do that, they do not need an Act of Parliament—and it was decided that you cannot bring claims at all, there would be a case for having a more generous approach within the armed forces compensation scheme to those people. I would not necessarily say the whole armed forces compensation scheme should be upgraded—I am aware of how expensive that would be. If we are going to restrict tort claims of a certain sub-category of injuries to service people, then it would be a good idea to balance that out by having full compensation.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: Yes. I confess that I have not looked at the limitation rules of the armed forces compensation scheme. It certainly does ensure cover.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: It also gets away from what we see in Smith v. Ministry of Defence: the allegation that the Land Rovers were not the right ones. Once you go to court investigating that in a negligence claim, it is getting into areas that should not be dealt with by a court in a negligence claim, it seems to me. If you are going to stop people from bringing such claims, you had better give them at least as good a compensation scheme without them needing to prove fault. That was our argument in the paper five years ago.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Q
Dr Morgan: I was going to comment on Major Campbell; I read about him in the newspaper on Saturday. It seems to me that his case would not have been addressed by these proposals. He was prosecuted in 2006 about an alleged offence in 2003, so that would have been within the five-year period for bringing the prosecution. It is only in 2020, after 17 years, that he has finally been cleared. The point was made in the Second Reading debate by a number of Members that perhaps the real vice is not so much very late prosecutions but the continued investigations by the Ministry of Defence without necessarily leading to a criminal prosecution at all. If I have understood the facts of Major Campbell’s case, it rather shows how a five-year soft cut-off for prosecutions is not going to solve that kind of problem at all.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Dr Morgan: There is a rule in criminal law that if you have been tried in a criminal court for an offence and you are either acquitted or convicted, you cannot be tried again. That is double jeopardy. What I do not understand is why the double jeopardy rule is not applying, by analogy, to these repeated investigations within the Ministry of Defence. That needs to be urgently addressed, and it is not within the Bill. Maybe the Bill cannot do everything, but the Campbell case shows that there is a gap.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Dr Morgan: Yes. Whether this needs fresh legislation or whether it can simply be done by changing the rules, I do not know. I know what Professor Ekins will say, which is that because the Human Rights Act requires investigations into deaths, we are currently limited in what we can do. Perhaps he will comment on that.
Professor Ekins: I am sure the Ministry of Defence has had many failings across the years, but in one sense it needs to keep investigations going and to be open and avoid plodding along. It has done a lot under the threat of litigation—sorry, the reality of litigation—where it is exposed to a duty to investigate in accordance with changing standards over time. Something similar has happened in Northern Ireland, which John Larkin knows much more about than I do. It has been a particular feature of the legacy and the legal cases around Afghanistan. Those conflicts were fought on a pretty sound legal position and on the understanding that the European convention did not apply. The ordinary rules of the law around conflict and service law applied, yet subsequent decisions about investigation or not investigating have been challenged in the domestic courts by way of the Human Rights Act. I cannot see how we deal with that prospect recurring over time without addressing the territorial reach of the Human Rights Act.
The Bill deals with the issue incidentally and in part in so far as derogation, if there is derogation, in advance of future conflicts might help, and in so far as there are time limits on Human Rights Act applications or proceedings. That might deal with some of the risk of historical allegations being made and investigations rolling on. In terms of the problem of people being investigated repeatedly and a prosecution never being mounted, that is not a problem the Bill deals with directly, although I think it probably is the main mischief.
John Larkin: I agree with Professor Ekins that the Bill is somewhat silent on the duration and repetition of investigations. In some cases, that leads to real mischief. It is not much fun for anyone to be finally vindicated after 10 or 12 years have elapsed. They would much rather be vindicated promptly—this applies both in terms of ordinary criminal civil justice as well as in the issue of service personnel—after a thorough and expeditious investigation.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Dr Morgan: It is the point I made, so I agree that it will not solve all of the problems as it stands.
Professor Ekins: Yes, it is a real concern.
John Larkin: I think it is wrong to see a so-called independent investigation as the answer. The issue is not the independence or otherwise of the investigation. In fact, investigations are substantially independent at present. The issue is efficiency and the fairness of what is investigated.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Q
Joy Morrissey
I would welcome feedback from each of the witnesses. How would you limit the territorial reach of the Human Rights Act within this legislation? You mentioned it as a point, and I wanted to hear how you would do that.
Dr Morgan: The Human Rights Act would have to be amended to say that the Act itself did not apply extraterritorially. Parliament could do that; what Parliament cannot do is of itself reverse the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The nearest thing to do is for the Government to derogate using the process in the European convention. Those powers are already there in the Human Rights Act.
Joy Morrissey
Q
Dr Morgan: In my view, this is nothing to do with the European Union. This is purely a European convention matter, so Brexit, thankfully, is out of the picture on this particular issue. It is purely a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which extended the extraterritorial reach of the convention in the Al-Skeini case.
There are two things that one could do about it. One is to derogate in future conflicts, which the Government have said they will consider doing. Another thing is for the Government vigorously to fight cases, such as Hassan v. United Kingdom, where the Government rather successfully argued that the European convention should be interpreted in line with the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law.
Those are two things that one could do. A third thing, which would require fresh primary legislation, would be to amend the Human Rights Act so that domestic UK courts may only hear claims relating to things that happen within the territory of the UK. That will not stop the Strasbourg Court from hearing claims against the UK. Parliament cannot unilaterally change the meaning of the European convention on human rights, but it can change the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Richard Ekins is more expert than I, so I would like him to answer.
Joy Morrissey
Q
John Larkin: May I come in on that point? The Member is referring, I think, to decision 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union—[Inaudible.]—incompatible with the European treaty. Many of us smiled at that decision, because it showed the Court of Justice of the European Union was not particularly enthusiastic about being subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court—[Inaudible.]—
The Chair
When you write to us on the previous point, Mr Larkin, will you also set out your thoughts on the question that has just been asked? We come to you, Professor Ekins.
Professor Ekins: It was a surprising decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, holding that the EU was not really able to make a treaty commitment to join the ECHR. It shows that the EU legal order guards its legal autonomy jealously, but I do not think that it helps in this context.
In answer to the question about how one limits the territorial reach of the Human Rights Act, one thing would be to include a clause in the Bill that amends the Human Rights Act to specify its territorial reach. That could be the more limited reach of only applying in the United Kingdom, or it could effectively restate the position as it was held by the European courts in 2003 and accepted by our senior judges for many years thereafter, that the convention applies in the United Kingdom and in some very limited extraterritorial circumstances. I drafted a provision to that effect, if anyone is interested, in submissions to the Defence Committee and in other papers to the Policy Exchange. It is open to question, obviously, but it is certainly possible to frame a limitation in a clause that could be adopted in the Bill. It is not impossible; it depends on whether Parliament wishes to do so.
As Dr Morgan says, though, that would not change the UK’s position in relation to Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights. Derogation is an important addition to the meaning of the Human Rights Act. If you want to deal with the prospect of continuing litigation, investigations and reinvestigations, you have to address the scope of the Human Rights Act. The same thing is true in relation to Northern Ireland and those historic allegations as well. The intention is that that should be dealt with in a separate Bill.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Q
Thank you for coming to this session. We referred to Major Bob Campbell previously, and I wanted to follow on from the point made by Carole Monaghan and the evidence given by Major Campbell. He said that he gave evidence after several years of being investigated and reinvestigated, and he wrote to the International Criminal Court to ask them to prosecute him. The ICC actually refused that request. On Second Reading—I am sure you all witnessed the debate—a number of concerns were raised relating to veterans being hauled before the International Criminal Court as a result of the Bill being passed. Do you expect any veterans to be put before the International Criminal Court if the Bill goes ahead?
Dr Morgan: There is a risk that it could happen. I have read the Government’s comments on this, and they point out that prosecutors will remain independent, that it is not an absolute bar, and that it is not an absolute amnesty. All of that is true; but if, in a particular case, a war crime is alleged against a person and it is after five years, and the prosecutor decides not to bring a case because it is not sufficiently exceptional, then in that situation there must be a risk either that the International Criminal Court would seize jurisdiction, or that another member state could apply for extradition of that veteran.
Professor Ekins: I am not an expert on the International Criminal Court, but it is probably correct to stay that there is a risk. That said, prosecutors have a discretion as to whether to bring prosecutions even without the Bill. If a decision is taken not to prosecute in a particular case, then there is a risk that the ICC may take a different view. The ICC should not be taking over prosecutions if the UK—as I think it will even if the Bill were enacted—remains a country that does take its obligations seriously, that does investigate credible cases promptly and that does retain a system of deciding which cases to prosecute, rather than having a rule that they will all be prosecuted regardless of strength of evidence or other considerations such as the passage of time. There have, however, been types of cases in which the ICC has proved to be somewhat political in its decision making. It might turn on who the prosecutor is at the relevant time. It probably does increase the risk. If you ask me whether I expect there to be prosecutions before the ICC, I would say, “Not really,” but that is amateur speculation and not bankable.
John Larkin: I think the risk is modest because, as the Committee knows, offences that are excepted from the reach of clause 1 include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome statute respectively. Given that those are not subject to the five-year exceptionality rule, I think it is quite likely that those more serious offences would be prosecuted domestically, because they would benefit from the five-year exceptionality filter.
Mark Eastwood
Q
Dr Morgan: It would have to fall within the definition of war crimes, so one hopes that it is unthinkable that credible evidence of this would ever be laid but, if it were—this is a hypothetical situation—if such evidence existed, because it related to events a long time before, perhaps long before five years, and if the sole reason for not prosecuting was the change that the Bill is making, namely that it was after the five years, then the risk is there. It is probably quite small because, as you say, the kind of situation that will trigger the ICC jurisdiction we all hope would never happen anyway, but that does not mean it cannot.
Mark Eastwood
Q
Dr Morgan: The only point that I would add is that the fact that what is being proposed is internationally unusual I think increases the risk. I probably agree with Mr Larkin that the risk is modest, but I think the fact that it is a five-year time period, which to my knowledge is not visible in any other signatory state of the ICC, increases the risk.
Professor Ekins: The ICC should be focusing on allegations of atrocities, widespread wrongs and so on, rather than on what you might call manslaughter or questions of where the allegations are much more fine-grained, such as excessive force and so on, but there is a risk that the ICC does not always observe the limits that we apply in law to its jurisdiction. There have been instances of somewhat politically motivated decision making. There might still be a modest risk of the ICC going into the kinds of case that are likely to arrive at a place where a decision is made that it is not worth prosecuting because of particular circumstances, a lack of evidence and so on. The risk is probably quite—[Inaudible.] This will only arise if after five years a prosecutor decides that the public interest in prosecuting is not really there. I think it would only be possible for the ICC to justify intervention if there is a sufficiently strong case that would result in a conviction, and disagree about the public interest. That would sound like a surprising ground on which to debate a disagreement on whether a prosecution is warranted. I think it is possible but not very likely.
John Larkin: My point is that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are not subject to the five-year time limit, so if the evidence emerges at eight years, for example, the process envisaged by this Bill—exceptionality assessment—simply does not apply; it will be determined as if it had occurred last week. That is an important point that is lost in legal—[Inaudible]—the international—[Inaudible]—of the Bill, but it has not been sufficiently appreciated that part 2 of the statute of Rome makes an exception for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. They will be prosecuted if the evidence exists domestically, and therefore the risk of a lance corporal being hauled in front of the International Criminal Court seems to me to be fairly minimal.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: indicated assent.
The Chair
I think you have to speak as an answer, Dr Morgan, because we cannot otherwise hear what it is.
Dr Morgan: Retrospection is obviously going to add a further layer of controversy on top of this. The question really is whether it should apply to Iraq and Afghanistan after this lapse of time. If you believe that the Bill is the right solution to the problem, then it seems to me odd that that is not being proposed, but I am not convinced it is the right solution to the problem, so I am not going to argue for it to be retrospective.
Mr Jones
Q
Dr Morgan: We have to wait and see what it says. It would be curious if the Northern Ireland situation and the Iraqi and Afghan situations were dealt with in a different way on that issue of retrospection, so I agree with your point.
Professor Ekins: I would question the premise of the question, because as I read the Bill, it does apply to actions taken in the past. It will not foreclose prosecutions or proceedings already under way. It is a procedural change; if the Bill were enacted, say, tomorrow, a prosecution brought the day after that, more than five years after the events in question, would be subject to the regime in the Bill. I think it will apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, save insofar as there are prosecutions that have been initiated or proceedings that are under way. It will not apply to ongoing legal proceedings, but it will be a question sometimes, if I wanted to continue proceedings, where it might apply.
John Larkin: The Bill is, as Professor Ekins has said, significantly retrospective. If one looks at clause 15(6), it says:
“None of the provisions of Part 1 applies to proceedings instituted before the day on which the provision comes into force.”
As [Inaudible.]—
The Chair
Sorry, I think you were looking away from the microphone when you answered.
John Larkin: Clause 15 makes it clear that the Bill does not apply where proceedings have begun or are under way before the day it comes into force, but if they are not under way—[Inaudible]—clearly defined rules can crystallise shortly thereafter, and—[Inaudible]—subject to the exceptionality—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
I think we are going to ask for that answer in writing, as well. The Minister has a very quick question—
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I am happy to pass on it; it has been answered by Dr Ekins.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. If no one else has any further questions, we have reached the end of the time allocated. I thank each of the witnesses for their evidence and for being with us in the technical circumstances. Mr Larkin, I am very sorry that we were not able to hear some of your responses; if you are able to write to the Committee on the matters we have come back to you on, that would be very helpful indeed.
John Larkin: I am happy to do that, Chair.
Examination of Witnesses
Ahmed Al-Nahhas and Emma Norton gave evidence.
The Chair
Before we move to our next set of witnesses, I should say that in the event that there is a Division in the House during this session, which there could be—this is for the information of the witnesses as well—we would initially suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. If the vote takes longer than that and Members cannot get back, we will deal with that pragmatically.
We are now joined by Ahmed Al-Nahhas and Emma Norton. Mr Al-Nahhas, perhaps you could say who you are so that we can confirm that we can hear you. I know from my mispronunciation of your name that you can hear me.
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: My name is Ahmed Al-Nahhas. I am a representative of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which is a not-for-profit organisation that campaigns for victims of injuries and negligence. I am also a solicitor advocate.
Emma Norton: My name is Emma Norton. I am the director and lawyer at the Centre for Military Justice. I have developed a dry cough in the last two days, which is why I am appearing virtually—I apologise in advance for any coughing that I may do.
The Chair
Thank you very much in advance for giving evidence today. I will ask Emma Lewell-Buck to start the evidence session.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: No, APIL’s position is that the Bill does not afford that. We acknowledge the good intentions behind the Bill. However, in respect of part 2 of the Bill, which I am here to discuss—the civil claims aspect—we believe that it strips service personnel and veterans of certain rights in relation to civil claims and their rights under the European convention on human rights.
Emma Norton: I would agree with that and I will not repeat it. I would say that one of the major flaws in the Bill is that it does not address the issue of the investigations that gave rise to all the problems that we are dealing with today. I think you heard that in the previous evidence; it has been a thread that has been running throughout the evidence that the Committee has heard today.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I may pass that question to Emma, who is here primarily to deal with those issues in respect of investigations. My remit is in respect of civil claims.
Emma Norton: I think there were very serious problems with the original investigations that took place into the allegations of harm in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what made it relatively easy for courts to find that, time and again, fresh investigations needed to be conducted, which then gave rise to further litigation. The responses from the Ministry of Defence to those adverse findings did not go far enough. The investigations that we had had time and again never got to the bottom of what had happened.
As witnesses have said, the longer period of time that you get between the event and the investigation, the harder it is to get to the bottom of what happened. If we were serious about really addressing the issues that Mr Campbell and other veterans have described, we would be looking at what kinds of systems and structures that we could build now and that would ensure that this does not happen again. What kinds of investigations could we set up and design that could function in the context of overseas operations? I am afraid that until that happens, these problems are going to recur and I do not think the Bill addresses them.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Emma Norton: I am happy to say that I would, personally. That would have been a sensible way to go about it—to have a consultation that would really hear from individuals who had been directly affected by investigations, as well as victims, and to speak to experts who can talk to the challenges of building a really good system of investigations overseas, because it is really difficult and we do not underestimate that. There are lots of things that could be done and could be done better.
There was a service justice review, and I know we are expecting some further responses to the recommendations in that review, but that was published in February and it had taken two years to get to. That contained some really interesting ideas about how we could improve service policing and the quality of prosecutorial decision making. I know that there are lots of other ideas—ideas about maybe getting greater degrees of civilian oversight and input into military policing overseas, or possibly having judicial oversight of decisions to detain insurgents and reviews of those kinds of decisions. It would have been more sensible to have those discussions first and then look at what was needed by way of amendments to the criminal law. It feels very much—we have heard this a couple of times today—that this is a cart before the horse situation.
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I would add my agreement to that. APIL’s concern is that the impact assessment does not go far enough and is not clear. I would welcome a pause so that a proper impact assessment can be taken and further expert evidence explored.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Thank you both. My colleague, Kevan Jones, wants to come in quickly on investigations as well.
Mr Jones
Q
Emma Norton: I do not think you can have a set time limit for an investigation. I think an investigation needs to take as long as it takes, as long as it is being conducted expeditiously. The problem with the original responses to allegations of really serious abuse overseas was that those allegations were not responded to sufficiently, certainly in accordance with our convention-compliant obligations, which are that they needed to be sufficiently independent, sufficiently well-resourced, sufficiently prompt, adequate—all those kinds of things. I do not think that setting an arbitrary time limit on what would be criminal investigations is necessarily helpful. If we think about how police conduct criminal investigations domestically, although there are time limits in terms of issues around police bail and things like that, there are no hard and fast time limits within which police need to complete those investigations, although obviously they should do them as quickly as possible, because otherwise the defendant is prejudiced.
Mr Jones
Q
Emma Norton: In terms of how that would function overseas, I can see the benefit. It may be that when you have sufficient levels of civilian input into those investigations or oversight into those investigations, or judicial oversight into decisions to detain in theatre, then that may not be necessary; you could inject that level of requisite independence in those ways. This is something that would really benefit from a wider consultation with experts in criminal law and procedure, who are experienced in criminal law and procedure but also in the challenges of having investigations overseas. We have not had that.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I am sorry, I cannot comment on criminal matters.
Emma Norton: I am not an expert in international criminal law, but if an otherwise credible allegation of a war crime was not proceeded with because of the Bill, that by definition increases the risk that those matters would be taken up by the ICC. That is something, of course, that our Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett has very real concerns about and has spoken about. I know a lot of others also have very serious concerns about that.
We have heard a lot about veterans and their understandable fear and anxiety. We have heard less from very senior and formerw members of the armed forces who are really concerned about these provisions—the criminal side of the Bill as well as the civil side—and feel they are not in accordance with the Army’s values and standards. The message the Bill will project to the rest of the world about how the Army wishes to conduct itself is really serious, and they feel quite despairing about it. I was speaking to a former brigadier this morning who served 36 years, and he said that he was really ashamed of the Bill. So I think there is a real concern.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Q
Emma Norton: What is necessary is for what happened in the past never to happen again—definitely. I just do not think that the Bill will fix it, for the reasons I have given. I will not go over them again, but they go to the lack of willingness inside the MOD to look at those allegations at the time.
I think we are in a different place now. The MOD has learned a huge amount from all those errors. I would say that the MOD has learned from some of the litigation; there have been some very positive outcomes from that, and that is missing from the debate. I just do not think that the Bill fixes those problems sufficiently.
Sarah Atherton
Q
Emma Norton: Hilary Meredith mentioned this morning that the ombudsman could have a role here. I think she was looking at whether some sort of compensation or ex gratia payment scheme could be made or some form of redress could be given to the soldiers subjected to this cycle of investigation. That was a really interesting idea. I know that, separately, the ombudsman is very under-resourced, so that would need a whole separate discussion as well.
The interplay with the service justice system is something you should ask the Judge Advocate General about when you speak to him later, because—obviously—he has huge amounts of experience of issues arising where somebody is not convicted of the main charge but is perhaps convicted of a lesser charge under the court martial.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Good afternoon. I think it is a feature of military claims that service personnel are largely unaware of their legal rights to bring a civil claim. I often find in my own practice—many of our members have also reported this—that they will, in fact, be misinformed of their legal rights. This may be because there is confusion in their chain of command. Indeed, we have heard of many cases in which the chain of command will misinform them and say that they should wait until the end of their service before bringing a civil claim, which usually means that they are out of time by the time they bring a claim. In other cases there is confusion between civil claims and the armed forces compensation scheme, which is a separate, no-fault scheme, which has a much longer period of time in which to apply—normally seven years. In answer to your direct question, I think they are very unaware and, in fact, a lot of the time they are misinformed.
Liz Twist
Q
Emma Norton: Just that that is entirely my experience as well. I have not advised people about overseas claims, but I advise them about claims arising in other respects, and that is a very, very common observation, yes.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: There is often a delay. In fact, I have dealt with many hundreds of inquiries, or at least many of the lawyers who APIL and I work with have dealt with many hundreds of inquiries, that are many, many years out of time. You will have calls from service personnel who have just finished their 22 years in service, and they will call up and inquire about the opportunity to bring a civil claim, and you have to tell them that actually they are about a decade out. So, it does vary, but more often than not they are quite a few years out of time.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Absolutely—forgive me for interrupting you, but absolutely I think they could. In fact, at the moment I do not think that they do anything to inform service personnel of their rights to bring a civil claim. I am not suggesting that as an organisation they should be shouting from the rooftops and saying to service personnel, “You should really explore your opportunity to sue us”. However, I think that the Ministry of Defence has an obligation under the armed forces covenant to be fair to service personnel. They do provide them with information about the AFCS, but, as I said, there is a much longer period of time to claim under that scheme.
I think that we also need to bear it in mind that service personnel are quite unique legal creatures in a way. For example, they are not allowed, if we are comparing them to civilians, to join a trade union. So, if you were a civilian and you were injured, you might speak to your trade union and get some advice about what claims you might bring. They may even point you in the direction of a solicitor. That often does not happen with service personnel. So, yes, I think the MOD needs to address this and be fairer with service personnel about the information available to them.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I think that the Bill, as drafted, is potentially in danger of breaching the armed forces covenant, and I will explain why. As I mentioned earlier, service personnel are quite unique legal creatures. They do not actually have the same legal rights as civilians. So, just to take an example, service personnel have very limited rights to bring a claim in the employment tribunal, save for issues such as discrimination. However, if this Bill were to be passed, they would not—beyond the six-year longstop—be able to rely on section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in respect of civil claims. They would not be able to bring those claims, which may be worthy but are actually brought very late in the day, whereas civilians might have the opportunity to use section 33 of the 1980 Act.
Of course, the other aspect of the Bill is the stripping away of reliance on the European convention of human rights. So, in many senses, if this Bill were to pass, service personnel would have less civil rights and less human rights. By analogy, they will have less rights than a prisoner, so I do not see how that squares with the armed forces covenant. I am very concerned about that.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: If I may, I will answer your question in two answers, because I think that there are two parts to it. The first is the difference between the date of knowledge and the date of diagnosis. The date of knowledge is the date when the courts will infer that a claimant realises that they have a significant injury and makes the connection between that injury and the person whose fault it was. The three-year time limit in civil claims starts from that date of knowledge. A date of diagnosis is a factor that may be taken into account when the court considers the date of knowledge. The court may assume that, if somebody is diagnosed with a condition and is told by a doctor what they have, that will move them a long way toward obtaining their date of knowledge. I think that there has been some confusion about that in some aspects of discussions.
Could I ask you to repeat the second part of your question, please?
Liz Twist
How clear cut are those questions about the date of knowledge and the date of diagnosis?
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: They are not clear cut at all. In fact, they are incredibly complex, because it is about the date of knowledge relating to a particular claim by that particular service person in their circumstances. The facts will change from case to case. You cannot prepare arguments for this sort of thing. You have to assess their merits on a case-by-case basis. They are very complex arguments, and they may well lead to satellite litigation within civil claims.
I wish not to take up too much time on this question, but I will just explain that normally in civil claims you issue a claim and it will proceed on the way. It will take a certain amount of time, evidence will be exchanged and you will end up in trial. When you have date-of-knowledge arguments or limitation arguments, it may well encourage the courts to order a split trial, or indeed the parties to apply for one, so that this issue of the deadline is determined first. That invariably leads to increased costs, in my experience.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Invariably. The MOD has very robust lawyers who do a good job. Like any lawyer, they look to take advantage of the law and to act in their client’s best interests. I am certainly not suggesting that they are doing anything wrong by using these arguments. However, I have never had a case—never—in almost a decade of litigating exclusively against the Ministry of Defence in which limitation is an issue and the lawyers have not raised it or sought to take advantage of that argument in order to either strike out my client’s case or to negotiate a settlement downwards. My answer to your question is: invariably.
Liz Twist
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: That is a difficult question to answer. I think it will definitely have an impact. I do not think that the impact statement that has been released really explores it fully, because it ignores a large proportion of civil claims brought against the Ministry of Defence, which may include elements of overseas operations.
If I can give you just a quick example, the impact study does not take into account noise-induced hearing loss claims. These are complex claims that may involve exposure to harmful noise at any point of the serviceperson’s service, and at different points of overseas operations in different countries. The impact study that has been released ignores all of those claims. In the last year alone, I think the figures released by the Ministry of Defence suggested that 1,810 claims relating to noise-induced hearing loss were brought against the MOD.
My answer to your question is that I think there will be an impact, but we do not know the extent of that impact, and that needs to be explored further.
Liz Twist
Q
Emma Norton: We are talking about civil claims. I am not aware of any evidence that the courts cannot do that. They do it all the time; it is a fairly standard part of civil law procedure. Civil procedure rule 3.4—I think—says that if a claim discloses no reasonable prospect of success, the defendant can apply for strike-out, and the strike-out can be given. There are some really good examples of that happening where the MOD has been the beneficiary. A good example was the second batch of the Kenya litigants’ claims, which were thrown out a few years ago now. Something like 40,000 claims were dismissed on the basis that they were too old and it would be unfair on the defendant, which was the Ministry of Defence, to defend the claims because it no longer had the evidence available to have any reasonable prospect of defending them. The courts are perfectly capable of striking out stale claims and they do it all the time.
I want to pick up on a couple of Ahmed’s points, which were excellent. The point about the Limitation Act is really important. The Limitation Act contains a range of different criteria that, in my opinion, are duplicated by the new criteria that are set down in the Bill. Section 33 of the Limitation Act enables the court to consider whether allowing the claim out of time is going to prejudice the defendant, in particular, or anybody else. It requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, which would include the fact that the claim arose from overseas operations, and all the difficulties and complexities of that environment. I think the courts have more than enough powers.
Liz Twist
Q
Emma Norton: No, they do not, and I respectfully disagree with the previous witnesses on that issue.
In the Smith case, which Dr Morgan cited, the Supreme Court made it very clear that the principle of combat immunity is absolutely sound. In that case, the Ministry of Defence was trying to expand combat immunity to cover a range of factors that the court said were never intended to be covered by that. It was just heat of battle, in theatre. The families of the deceased—remember, they were young soldiers who got into those Land Rovers, or other vehicles that had been procured, and suffered dreadful injuries and death—wanted to challenge the decisions made by individuals back here in Whitehall, behind a desk, to procure that equipment for use in Iraq. That was the decision that they wanted to challenge. All the court said was that combat immunity did not go that far. It has not been chipped away or reduced. So no, I do not agree with that.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I am not going to comment on the criminal aspect, but from my perspective there is a need to protect service personnel from spurious criminal claims, which we are looking into. That brings forward a lot of people who want this Act in place. I am not sure whether that is the incentive behind part 2 of the Bill, which is the civil aspect.
I can share with you, as a representative of APIL, that many of our members have many hundreds of clients who are service personnel. I have been doing this for a long time. The people we act for come to us seriously injured and needing compensation. The tools that are available to us as lawyers are the civil claim route and the Human Rights Act. If you start taking those rights away from veterans and service personnel then you will be, in my view, doing them an injustice.
I do not envy you. I can see that this a fierce debate and there are different sides to the argument. I would caution that that should be a sign to all of us that there should be a pause to the Bill and further exploration. I wonder to what extent the confusion is caused by the fact that the Bill tries to do two things. It tries to resolve the issues in respect of criminal law and it also addresses civil issues, which are incredibly different. That is a cautionary word that I would pass to you.
Emma Norton: We heard some compelling and moving testimony this morning. I was particularly struck by the gentleman from the British Armed Forces Federation—in fact, both witnesses spoke about the fear in the veteran community about being dragged off to court and having knocks on the door at 3 o’clock in the morning. Both of them indicated that they felt that that fear was ill founded and based on misunderstandings of what is actually happening.
Looking at the number of prosecutions that have actually been brought, let alone the number of convictions, it is quite stark. It is a very small number, and it is not reflected in the level of fear and anxiety in the veteran community. I do not underestimate that, but I think the question becomes: what do we do to meet that fear and anxiety? How do we reduce it? We reduce it by being honest with them about the real extent of the problem and by addressing the causes of the problem, which were the failures, early in the day, which the Minister acknowledged—the early failures to investigate these allegations. Had that happened, the unfairly accused would have been exonerated years ago and the victims would have had justice as well.
That is my concern about the Bill: veterans think that they want it, and I understand that, but I am not entirely sure. Indeed, the previous witnesses all agreed that it does not address the issue of investigations—the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has said it does not address the issues of investigations.
Stuart Anderson
Q
You say these things amplify the fear. The veteran community is very small, so we all know someone who is expecting a knock on the door. That is really amplified, because there is a brotherhood and sisterhood that has gone through the forces. When one person is affected, everybody is affected. Nothing has been brought in so far, and now we are at the start point. A major fear I have is that I keep hearing people saying stop. It has taken decades to get here. I do not know how long I will be a politician, but if I have a long career, we could still be saying stop, because people will never find a perfect Bill.
I hear what you are saying, but I think it goes against what the veteran community wants and is crying out for. As you have heard today, and with the greatest respect—I value what you are saying—every person we are seeing has a different view on this. As politicians, we need to find the best way to get the Bill through. If the Bill were to be stopped, I know the absolute lack of trust and heartbreak that the veteran community would feel. We have to use what we have and move that forward. I respect what you have said, but I felt that it was important to express how the heart of the veteran community is feeling about this.
Emma Norton: I do understand that. You say that every person that has appeared before you has a different view; in fact, it has been a running thread throughout all of this. Everybody seems to agree that the problem is the lack of independence in those early investigations, and we still have a lot of questions, and need to have discussions, about how to improve that. If we addressed that, it would be a much safer basis to proceed and face the future. It would also be litigation-proof for the MOD; if you have investigations that are solid, independent and secure, they would be litigation-proof. That would be good for the victims, and it would be excellent for the soldiers.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Yes, I believe so. What you are giving veterans with one hand, you are taking away with the other. That is a confused approach to legislation, and I am very concerned about it. Does that answer your question?
Carol Monaghan
Q
Emma Norton: I do not have much to add to that, except to say that I agree and that it is quite extraordinary that part 2 will only benefit the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Defence is the defendant in all those claims. That is quite extraordinary.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: There is definitely a risk with any hard stop. APIL’s main concern is that taking away the flexibility of section 33 is a real danger. You are touching on accountability here; I heard your question to the previous academics about that, and it is important.
May I share an example from a case of mine? It was the wife of a serviceperson who died in Iraq in 2005. At the time he died—he died in a Snatch Land Rover due to an improvised explosive device—she had no idea whatsoever that the Ministry of Defence was culpable in any way. It was not until more than a decade later, when the Chilcot report came out, that fingers started to be pointed towards the Ministry of Defence. That report stated that the provision of Snatch Land Rovers was woeful and put service personnel’s lives at risk.
The wife later sought to bring a civil claim for her and her children. At that stage, 10 years after the death, her claim was already technically out of time. We had further delays because she was dealing with cancer and going through treatment. That sounds like quite an exceptional case, but we have had similar situations—I brought a claim that technically was out of time, and if this Bill had been in place, that claim could not have proceeded. The claim was settled for several hundred thousand pounds, and brought her some justice and some compensation.
I mention that example for two reasons. First, you are talking about the accountability of these investigations that take so long; secondly, adding to that the complexity and problems of a Bill that introduces a longstop is opening the doors to some real problems here.
Emma Norton: May I make a quick point on that? Another thing that is overlooked is the benefit of some of this litigation that we are discussing now to soldiers and the MOD more widely. The Snatch Land Rovers are a good example of that, because those Land Rovers are no longer used in those kinds of conflict. If those families had not brought those claims, we would not be in this much-improved situation. That is an example of the positive outcomes of litigation, and that is worth reminding you of.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Yes, potentially. It would not encourage people to come forward and bring claims. It is normally a very brave lawyer who takes on a case that is out of time in the first instance; the reason section 33 is there is that it allows flexibility only in the most exceptional of cases. If you were to take that away and introduce this Bill, you would see less litigation on these issues. Emma raises an important point; it is certainly my experience and the experience of our members that it is primarily through litigation that organisations such as the MOD listen and change. That is one of the aspects of removing those protections that causes us great concern.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: That is one of the big problems with this Bill: it will encourage a great deal more argument. As I said in my answer to the previous question, I think the Ministry of Defence will seek to use this Bill to strike out claims. Using noise-induced hearing loss as an example, as you did, that is a very typical injury that service personnel suffer. They normally get compensated through the AFCS, but where there is negligence, they can get significant compensation. By “negligence”, I mean where the Ministry of Defence has, for example, not provided sufficient training or sufficient equipment to protect that serviceperson’s ears.
Those exposures to harmful noise can happen throughout a career. It becomes very complex, because as a lawyer you are investigating the entirety of someone’s career, with their medical records in one hand and their personnel file in the other. You are looking at overseas operations, maybe in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you have to explore whether they were exposed to a certain level of noise that may have been harmful. If I can put it simply, they are complicated enough as they are. Introducing this Bill will only do two things: it will increase the challenge to service personnel in bringing claims, and it will complicate claims unnecessarily.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Emma Norton: No, I do not have anything to add on that. I was just going to say that there are often references to the armed forces compensation scheme, and it might be worth briefly mentioning on behalf of service personnel how dreadful they find it to try to operate that scheme. Ahmed has more experience of this than I do, but a lot of my clients have described to me how bureaucratic, difficult, slow and stressful it is, and it is true to say that the awards you would generally expect to recover from that scheme are significantly lower than those you would expect to recover if you succeeded in court. Ahmed will correct me if I am wrong about that, but I think it is a point worth making.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I am struggling, to be honest with you. As Emma pointed out, this is all about civil claims that are brought against the Ministry of Defence; it is not about civil claims that are brought against service personnel, so I am really struggling to find any advantage for service personnel. When you are stripping away their access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, you are ignoring those exceptional cases in which a judge may think, “You know what? This case is out of time, but there are really good reasons why we should proceed with it.” It may be for reasons of accountability, which we have touched on, or it may be because that particular claimant deserves some justice. When you start stripping that away and then start stripping away the protections under the Human Rights Act, service personnel are left vulnerable—more vulnerable than civilians, more vulnerable than prisoners. I do not understand what advantage they are getting out of this.
Emma Norton: I agree with that. I do not have anything to add to that.
Mr Jones
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: There are, sir. They are published by the MOD on an annual basis. The MOD split the figures according to the type of claim that is being brought. What you are looking for is what they term employer’s liability claims. The figures are available online. I am happy to provide them, but I am sure you have quicker access to them than I do.
Mr Jones
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: They do split them. I do not have them to hand, unfortunately, but they separate them out, so maybe you will glean more from that. I am sorry that I cannot assist further. My understanding is that the Bill will affect the vast majority of the civil claims that are brought against the Ministry of Defence, which are the employer’s liability claims. The main provisions that the MOD break them down into are non-freezing cold injury claims, which are a mainstay of civil claims that are brought, and are in relation to negligent cold exposures, and noise-induced hearing loss, in relation to negligent exposure to loud noises. The others relate to industrial disease—things like asbestos—and then they have a quota that is defined as “other”. With a freedom of information request, we may be able to dive a bit more into those statistics. I hope that helps.
Sarah Atherton
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: That is a very good question. It depends on what they agree with their lawyer. In the industry, the norm is to provide something called a conditional fee agreement. Where you can establish that a claim has good prospects of success, you may, as a lawyer, offer a service person’s family, in relation to your example, a CFA, where you do not charge them unless you win. It is conditional on certain terms. These days, there are a lot of rules that regulate how much lawyers can charge. Normally, for example, and taking a rule of thumb, they cannot exceed the damages that you recover for the individual. In the past, there were fewer constraints on the extent of lawyers’ fees.
There are lots of lawyers out there who are specialists and who offer no win, no fee agreements to service personnel and their families. The only way that service personnel or their families may be required to pay legal costs normally is that they sometimes have to pay a chunk of their costs, related to what lawyers would define as unrecovered costs, which are things that they cannot recover from the Ministry of Defence, but as long as the claim is successful, in this context, it would be the Ministry of Defence that pays the lawyer’s bill. I hope that answers your question.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: It depends on the terms offered by the lawyers. They can vary, typically between 15% and 25% of the damages that are recovered. There are certain caps, but that is typically what you might find in the industry.
Peter Gibson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: As I am representing APIL, I would not be able to share specific numbers, but I am very happy to share my experiences on section 33. I would say that it is a small fraction of cases that are pursued that will have to rely on section 33.
Peter Gibson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: To give you an idea, it may be that two out of 100 cases that we manage would be at risk of being out of time—maybe 5% at most. On whether or not you succeed with a section 33 argument, well, the only time I went to court on a section 33 argument, I lost. I took it to the Court of Appeal, and I lost there, too. I think that might indicate to you how difficult it is to succeed there. The judges really do not engage in a liberal application of section 33.
As a lawyer, if you are partaking on a case that is out of time, you need to be brave, and it is very rare. Often or not, in some of these cases where there is a section 33 argument, they may be settled along the way, but the fact that the claim is out of time might be a factor that affects the settlement figure. I hope that answers your question.
Peter Gibson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: In answer to your direct question, yes, it is incredibly rare that you use it, but that is dependent on the lawyer and whether they are willing to take on riskier cases. On the whole, it is not something that lawyers engage in easily. But the key about section 33 is that you will come across those cases, like the one I explained earlier involving the widow of the serviceperson, where they are demanding justice. They are worthy cases, and you use section 33 because that is the flexibility in the system. That is the conduit through which judges can achieve justice, even if you are out of time.
Peter Gibson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: That depends on the definition of win. What is interesting is that most of the claims—civil claims in this area—will tend to settle. The MOD will publish, with the same document I mentioned earlier, the figures in respect of settlements that it pays out. I think that last year it spent £131 million in respect of compensation and legal costs. I do not think it has separated what is legal costs—
Peter Gibson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I could not give you an accurate estimate here. I am a representative of APIL, representing hundreds of solicitors across the country in this field. It may be that I can provide written evidence, if that would assist the Committee.
Peter Gibson
That would be welcome, thank you.
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: Of course. I am sorry that I could not assist you immediately.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I have no idea. They may need to rely on charity. They may need to rely on family. They have very limited options. Actually, they often have a big challenge: they need to find a specialist in this field to begin with, because it is not easy to sue the Ministry of Defence and it is not easy to understand the specialties and complexities of such cases. They will often go to another lawyer for a second opinion, and one hopes that that lawyer would take on their case, but there are no guarantees, and particularly on cases that are out of time. You may be going around the houses to tens of lawyers who will all say to you, “I’m really sorry, but you are out of time. There is nothing I can do for you.” That is one of my concerns with the Bill.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I would say, on average, in my own practice, probably between 70% and 80% of inquiries that come in will be rejected because they are out of time. Forgive me, that is anecdotal and off the top of my head. I was not expecting that question but, if it gives you an idea, the vast majority of the inquiries we get are from people who are frankly out of time.
Mr Jones
Q
Ahmed Al-Nahhas: It should not—it definitely should not. You are taking away legal rights from service personnel who already have fewer legal rights as it is. You really are stripping the tree there.
The Chair
If no other Member wishes to ask a question, I thank both our witnesses for their contributions to the Committee this afternoon. Thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witnesses
Martha Spurrier and Clive Baldwin gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Martha Spurrier: Hi, everyone. I am Martha Spurrier and I am a lawyer and the director of the human rights organisation Liberty.
Clive Baldwin: I am Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser with the international organisation Human Rights Watch. It is perhaps also relevant to the Committee that I was previously involved in training the UK armed forces and other armed forces on detention practices and international law.
The Chair
Thank you. We are expecting a vote in the House imminently; I will have to suspend proceedings for about 15 minutes in that event. We will begin the questioning with Chris Evans.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Given that the Government have managed to exclude sexual offences from the Bill, do you see any reason why torture should not similarly be excluded?
Clive Baldwin: No, there should be no reason. Not just torture but other international crimes should not be excluded, particularly war crimes, crimes against humanity and, indeed, any other international crimes, such as enforced disappearances that the UK is obliged to investigate and prosecute. For the reasons given by the Secretary of State, sexual offences have no place in armed conflict, and neither does torture or war crimes. The exemption should be very clear. Even in international crimes, particularly war crimes, it is a very clear principle of international armed conflict law that there should be no statute of limitations on war crimes, because of the difficulties in investigating them. Anything that starts to look like a statute of limitations on war crimes risks the UK violating its international obligations.
Martha Spurrier: I entirely agree. I cannot see any legal or moral justification for not including torture and other war crimes in that schedule.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: The triple lock, as it is set out, is quite worrying, particularly for those international crimes, because it seems to be creating a block to prosecution. The first element is the five-year limit, together with the presumption against prosecution, which is quite unique. I am not aware of any other country having something similar, especially for those international crimes.
The third part of it—the increase in the powers of the Attorney General—is a position that we at Human Rights Watch have objected to for some time. The Attorney General is an unreformed legal position that essentially remains a member of the Government and should therefore have no role in determining individual decisions on prosecutions, although of course the Attorney General still has some of those powers. The increase in the power to effectively block prosecutions gives the risk of all this appearing to be a political attempt to make it extremely difficult in an exceptional situation—as the draft Bill says—for war crimes, torture and other international crimes to be prosecuted.
The second element in the triple lock is the taking of facts into account. Those are relevant factors—the situation on the ground and the situation of forces personnel—but those are situations that should be taken into account anyway, particularly when prosecuting war crimes, as war crimes are designed to be crimes that apply on the battlefield and in situations of armed occupation. There are many other issues that should be taken into account as well, not least the need for justice, the seriousness of the offence and the seniority of the person responsible.
Martha Spurrier: On the stated intent and whether the triple lock is a rational answer to that stated intent, as far as I understand it the stated intent of this Bill as a whole is to deal with so-called vexatious claims. It is clear from the statistics that it is not a significant number of civil claims that are, in fact, properly termed as vexatious. Of course, it is also important not to conflate civil and criminal cases. There is not really such a thing as a vexatious criminal case. That would bring suggestion that the state was abusing its powers in prosecuting something, and I do not understand that that is being suggested.
The way to meet that stated intent is to deal with the inefficacy of investigations as they currently stand; it is not to impose a triple lock on dealing with very serious crimes committed by military personnel. That deals with an entirely different proposition, one that we say is deeply problematic—that there is no justification for the five-year time limit, no justification for a list of factors to be taken into account by a prosecutor, which exclude things like the public interest in upholding the accountability of the military and the public interest in victims having their voices heard, and there is no public interest in there being an Attorney General’s veto in what is often a very highly politicised context.
The triple lock does not meet the stated intent, but in and of itself it is not something that Liberty and other organisations can stand by, because it amounts to a chilling effect on prosecutions for serious crimes and effectively a culture of impunity in the armed forces.
Chris Evans
Q
Martha Spurrier: Absolutely. If you have a triple lock on prosecution, it must be right that your intention is to make prosecutions harder to bring. If you have been the victim of an injustice, whether that is because you are a civilian victim abroad or you are a serving man or woman who has been the victim of an abuse of justice by the UK military, those three locks on you getting justice could very easily act as a bar. They are an additional three hurdles that an ordinary, if you like, victim of crime would not have to cross in order to seek justice, accountability and punishment for what they have suffered.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: Absolutely. Particularly in the situation of crimes that may have been committed overseas, it is very difficult for victims to achieve justice, for many understandable reasons, in those cases. This makes it even more difficult, in that after five years it becomes the exception rather than the rule to prosecute. This is just focusing on part 1, the criminal side. It does run the serious risk of creating injustice.
Mr Jones
Q
Clive Baldwin: No, I am not aware of any international law or even system that has something like that. Some countries have statutes of limitations—absolute time limits for the prosecution of minor offences, or relatively minor offences. Certainly, when it comes to war crimes, as I have said, there is a very strong international law, under the law of armed conflict, that there should be no limitation period for war crimes.
As you say, this is quite a strange law. It would create a very strange situation and I think, as Martha was saying, that it will have a very chilling effect, not just on prosecutions but even on criminal investigations, because those doing the investigation will know that there will be a presumption against prosecution.
Mr Jones
Q
Clive Baldwin: Internationally, there are standards, as with the independence of the judiciary, that prosecutors should be independent and not subject to interference by politicians or Ministers on individual cases. Of course, Ministers may be at the head of the prosecution system. Some countries do this better than others, and there are very different types of systems. In the United States, for example, Attorneys General are elected, which creates its own political problems. However, the move has generally been very much towards making prosecutors, and that prosecutorial decision to prosecute or not, as robustly independent as possible.
One country that had a similar system to the UK was Kenya. When it had a major constitutional reform, it made sure that the Attorney General became a very apolitical, non-political position, because of the importance of the Attorney General in making these decisions about prosecutions.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: Yes. As an organisation that works very closely on international criminal justice, including with the International Criminal Court, I would say that this Bill, unamended, would probably significantly increase the risk of UK service personnel and others facing investigations from the International Criminal Court, or perhaps in other countries, on the principle of universal jurisdiction for international crimes such as war crimes and torture—universal jurisdiction being that principle that a crime like torture should be prosecuted anywhere. There is a duty under international law that countries have to criminalise, or make it possible to prosecute, or extradite, anyone suspected of torture found in their territory.
The Bill, unamended, would increase that risk because it does not exclude all forms of international crimes—war crimes and torture. The International Criminal Court and others will consider whether the UK is willing and able to genuinely prosecute such offences, and given that the Bill would include those offences, would create this triple lock and would create effectively a presumption against prosecution after five years for those offences, it creates the serious risk that the UK would not be considered willing to prosecute offences after five years. That would increase the risk that the ICC or other countries would seek to prosecute such offences.
Martha Spurrier: I agree. The phrase to remember is that, when looking at whether to prosecute, the ICC will think about whether the home country is willing and able to bring forward a prosecution. If you have a stated legislative intention from Parliament, with a triple lock and with a schedule that you have said you are not going to include torture and war crimes in, that telegraphs pretty clearly to the ICC and others that the UK Government and UK prosecutors are unwilling and unable, and therefore that those prosecutions would have to take place elsewhere.
Chris Evans
Q
The Bill obviously extends beyond the traditional battlefield. Are you thinking of areas where we have deployed UK troops on peacekeeping missions and they may or may not have committed offences there? That is just an example.
Clive Baldwin: It is difficult to say; I have not seen any indication from the Government of where they would intend this. Of course, if the Government made a very specific commitment to exclude all international crimes, they could exclude new international crimes. Enforced disappearances would be one, and perhaps others that might arise and that the UK may sign up to. However, I worked for several years in Kosovo on justice issues during the peacekeeping operations and, as you mentioned, in situations of peacekeeping many issues arise about day-to-day crimes—traffic offences, even, and elsewhere—that the Government may or may not choose to exclude, depending on the nature of the peacekeeping mission.
If a peacekeeping force is part of building a justice system and there is a functioning justice system in the country, it may be that the Government may choose to make some of those crimes part of it. On a wider picture, giving that power to the Secretary of State, when it is done on an ad hoc basis, mission by mission, will produce uncertainty and lack of clarity about what crimes will be prosecuted. That is something it is quite important to be really clear on, because if anything is amended in the Bill now, it is a very clear and simple statement that no international crimes are part of this Bill; they are all excluded.
Martha Spurrier: The danger of secondary legislation for lawyers is, of course, that, as the Committee will be aware, it simply does not receive the parliamentary scrutiny that primary legislation would. The very real concern with this delegated power is that, as Clive said, you could end up taking away or adding really serious international crimes; you could also conceivably say that the Minister might, by secondary legislation, make changes to the Human Rights Act. That would be pretty unprecedented in parliamentary terms. We have seen over the past few months with the coronavirus regulations how much the state can do without parliamentary authority. We are deeply concerned about the extension of the use of secondary legislation to make such substantive changes that will impact on people’s rights.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: No, for the reasons you say. My organisation works a lot on these situations of violent conflict and the intersect between human rights law and the law of armed conflict, and we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country—you mentioned drones, but there are other decisions made within a country, and cyber-warfare is coming.
The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down. The distinction of when an armed conflict begins and ends is becoming murkier in many ways, especially non-international armed conflict. The idea of having one rule for overseas operations and one for domestic operations will be increasingly artificial, and that lack of clarity about the real application of such situations and such laws will be another danger of this Bill.
Martha Spurrier: The definition, as Clive says, is unclear but it is also over-broad. In my mind, there is no justification for including in that definition things such as peacekeeping missions. What the definition should be focused on is restricting those powers to active hostilities, which could then include, as you say, a future-looking way of envisaging modern warfare, but should still be restricted only to active hostilities. There is simply no justification for taking these extraordinary powers any wider.
Mr Jones
Q
Clive Baldwin: Speaking from personal experience in Kosovo and Bosnia, and from the experience of my organisation, the rules and laws that apply to overseas armed forces in these operations vary very much from time to time. You may have formal peacekeeping operations, where the armed forces have to act as domestic police officers and do domestic policing work, or you may have a strange and unclear overlap. To some degree, that was the situation in Iraq in the last decade, especially as the occupation formally ended after one year in 2004, although British forces remained for four or five years after that with special powers. Sometimes you have stated forces agreements between countries, and sometimes you do not, so it is very unclear. The actual criminal law, and crimes that have been committed by forces or that are alleged to be committed by forces also vary from war crimes in the battlefield to war crimes in occupation, but if you—[Interruption.]
The Chair
We cannot hear you, Mr Baldwin, because we have a Division in the House of Commons that requires the bell to ring. I am suspending the sitting for 15 minutes and we will come back to your answer to that question. The Clerks will remain in the room, so if there are any unexpected issues they will remain in contact with you.
The Chair
We are formally resuming proceedings. I ask Chris Evans to continue his line of questioning. When Mr Jones comes back, I will ask him whether he wants to resubmit the question that he asked before the suspension.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: If the Bill were made retrospective, and I think it is not quite clear whether it would be for existing investigations that have not proceeded to prosecutions, but even if it were, I think that creates even more problems. With the ICC, there is currently a preliminary examination, which might then proceed to an investigation, for the reasons previously stated. More broadly, we would say that the Bill does not fix any of the problems about criminal investigations, because part 1 is trying to limit prosecutions, and there have been so few prosecutions in any event. We would say the problem recently in Iraq and Afghanistan lies with the lack of prosecutions dealing with the evidence that some more crimes—limited, but some—were committed. That has been the problem.
Martha Spurrier: I agree with Clive. The Bill is a huge barrier to victims, as I have said, whether they are civilian or service personnel seeking justice. It has no bearing on the problem that it is purporting to solve and it will make accountability for human rights violations and serious crimes harder. To make it retrospective would simply enlarge the scope of what is already going to be a bad law.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: Not at all. We have been following and looking at the issues in Iraq, particularly, and in Afghanistan, and not just with the UK, but also with other countries. The problem on the criminal side is that the military criminal justice system has not shown itself fit for purpose in these particular situations of overseas investigations, which are very complex. We need a system that is fair, speedy for size, transparent, effective and independent. We would say that you start with trying to look at the problem and fixing that, so that there are investigations on the criminal side first that are as speedy as possible and fair. Once you fix that, you can look at what other measures might be needed. This problem starts with the prosecution side, which, as I said, has not in itself been the issue, because there have been so few prosecutions.
Martha Spurrier: That is absolutely right. The answer to the stress faced by service personnel is to deal with investigations: to make them thorough, to make them independent, to make them fast, to get them done to a high standard, and also to offer proper support to service personnel and victims. You heard from Major Campbell today, and he has been clear in his public statements that he does not feel that the Ministry of Defence supported him through the repeated investigations he faced. Presenting the Bill as a solution to what people like Major Campbell have faced is, frankly, offensive to the trials he has been through. It is not an answer to that problem. Nowhere on the face of the Bill does it deal with investigations.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: To answer the second question on the law of armed conflict, you say “pushed to the limit”, and, as I said on one particular element, if it starts to look like or resemble a statute of limitations on war crimes, that does violate a basic principle of the law of armed conflict. If you are suggesting that anyone would then feel that they could push any other crimes, or commit crimes with impunity, that may or may not be the case, but it would certainly encourage people to delay investigations to cover up, which is something that we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also, the UK has a fairly poor record in actually prosecuting crimes committed overseas, despite there being public inquiries and investigations. Only when you have some of the clear cases of torture being prosecuted do people become aware of what is or what is not torture. One example from Iraq relates to torture practices, such as sensory deprivation and hooding, that the UK said in Northern Ireland 40—then 40, now 50—years ago were unacceptable, and should not recur. They started recurring in Iraq. You might say that that was because there has not been a clear prosecution of such cases as torture. It took an English judge in one of those civil claims in the past few years to say that these practices should have no place in the 21st century. That is why you need some litigation. Of course, the innocent and the accused who have not committed any crimes also get tarred with the same brush if these investigations go on and nobody gets prosecuted. You need a prosecution to clearly identify the few people responsible for war crimes, and to make sure that those individuals are held responsible and not the armed forces as a whole.
Martha Spurrier: Clive has covered the second question, so I will take the first one. When you start with a Bill that does not deal with the problem you are trying to solve, it is quite difficult to answer the question of how to make it deal with that problem. There are lots of practical things that the Government could do to try to make investigations better. The recommendations from the Service Justice System review would be a good place to start: issues about things such as independence and fast pace, and doing basic investigative things like taking witness statements promptly, gathering forensic evidence effectively, and so on. All of those things can and should be done, and they should be a matter of priority. The Bill cannot and will not do any of those things.
You could amend the Bill to knock off some of its most egregious aspects. You could include torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the schedules. You could remove the triple lock by taking away Attorney General consent, by removing the presumption against prosecution in relation to the time limit, and by balancing out the factors that a prosecutor would have to consider before proceeding with a prosecution. That would not cure the Bill and would not make it a good piece of legislation, either from the perspective of accountability, justice and human rights, or from the perspective of trying to solve the problem that the Government purport to be wanting to solve.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Clive Baldwin: To clarify, I was not saying that it would encourage it. I am responding to the question that seemed to be saying, “Would it lead to anyone trying to stretch the law of armed conflict?”. If a law creates impunity for offences and makes sure no one gets prosecuted, it may make those offences more likely. I would repeat that torture was admitted but never prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and the same techniques—the same type of torture—was repeated in Iraq in the 2000s. That is because you need prosecutions. You need people to be aware that they will face prosecutions for an offence. If they perceive that an offence will not be prosecuted after five years, it will make it more likely even for the investigations to be delayed to that moment and for offences not to be seen as, very clearly, “This is criminalised. This is unacceptable. These are crimes that will be prosecuted.”
Stuart Anderson
Q
Clive Baldwin: I do not think anyone would be briefed. When I was involved in training the armed forces in detention we were very clear, and everyone was very clear—these are the crimes. What has been interesting, as well, though, is that there are some elements which are just, traditionally, not being prosecuted in the United Kingdom. One of the keys is that senior people do not get prosecuted for war crimes in the United Kingdom—senior military people, even Government Ministers—under the principle of command responsibility, which is an international element of war crimes. It was put into the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in the UK, but to my knowledge and others’ no one has even been investigated under that.
It was only when I used to brief people in this country and other countries about that element, people sit up and take notice, because it makes people aware that as a commander you could be criminally liable if you fail to prevent war crimes or if you fail to prosecute them. It is elements like that—you only become aware of that when you actually see people being prosecuted for it and know that it is liable. Again, if it comes after five years it is much more difficult and there is a presumption against prosecution: that is why the words matter. Something like a presumption against prosecution—it sounds like it would be very difficult, it would be exceptional, to prosecute. That would send a very difficult message, both internally and externally in the rest of the world.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Martha Spurrier: I absolutely would support a Bill that protected service personnel, because, as I am sure you know, Liberty has done a lot of work supporting military personnel and their families to find justice. What I think about this Bill, as I have said, is first that it is setting up a solution to a problem that is often mis-stated; and then the solution does not fit the actual problem.
In my view what service personnel need, to be protected, is to have an absolute assurance that any investigation that they face will be dealt with fairly and independently, and to an extremely high standard. One would hope, therefore, that that would mean that they do not have repeat investigations hanging over their heads for many years, which obviously is an unenviable and miserable situation for any human being to find themselves in—but that Bill will not deal with this.
I appreciate the lens of saying that it will create a culture of impunity, in the sense that I do not think anyone is suggesting that you would go out to the battlefield and commit a crime in the hope that you could delay being noticed for five years; but the fact is that there are plenty of reasons why five years might elapse before an effective independent investigation can be undertaken, either to exonerate someone who has wrongfully been accused, or to convict them. That could go for torture survivors, for example, who are often not able to come forward for a number of years because of the trauma they have faced, and for serving military personnel, who often do not feel able to come forward, including if active hostilities have been continuing for that whole period of time.
I do not think it is about saying, “Well, let’s just bin the Bill, and then do nothing.” There are plenty of constructive things that one can and should do in order to support military personnel. I just do not think that this Bill achieves those things.
Mr Jones
Q
Clive Baldwin: It is important to distinguish between the three types of investigation that the MOD and service personnel have faced in the last 20 years. One is public inquiries, which should be about the general situation and general problems. They should be for learning lessons and to find out the truth about what went on. There are then civil claims that are brought against the Ministry of Defence, sometimes by service personnel and sometimes by others who have claimed to be victims, some of which have been upheld and some of which have not. Then there are criminal investigations.
I am not sure about this Bill. Improving investigations would be better done in a wholescale reform of the military criminal justice system, which we hope will happen in the next armed forces Act and has been promised for many years, that is based on rights, fairness to the accused, those investigated and alleged or real victims, and some basic human rights principles, such as double jeopardy, which has already been mentioned. Generally, no one should be prosecuted twice, once finally acquitted or convicted for the same offence, and they should not face repeat investigations for the same offence.
Strengthening of those conditions and some fundamental principles, not just of human rights law but of English tradition, such as habeas corpus, having judges control detention and having every detainee brought before a judge, not only deters abuse but protects those doing the detention, because they can say, “We had a record and the judge controlled the detention.” Records made at the time make it much easier to investigate afterwards. There are a lot of recommendations for the justice system. They are probably better done in a military justice reform Act rather than in this Bill.
Martha Spurrier: I agree with Clive. There are plenty of good and constructive things that one could do to the military justice system in order to make it fairer for all concerned. This Bill does not do that.
There is a danger in saying that the way to cure the deficiencies in the Bill is to effectively add a section on investigations. That would deal with the fact that investigations are missing, but it would not deal with the fact that what you have in the rest of the Bill is a system being set up that creates a culture of impunity in the armed forces. It means that bringing criminal prosecutions for the most serious offences imaginable will become much harder. That is why I think both Clive and I are now saying that this simply is not the vehicle.
This Bill cannot be cured by adding things in about investigations. That is something that will have to be done separately. There is a real danger of losing focus on the egregious parts of this Bill, which will damage the standing of the armed forces abroad and damage the UK’s reputation as a leader in human rights. That is why you have seen many people, including people from the military, coming out with grave concerns about this Bill, whether you take Lord Guthrie or the Judge Advocate General. These are people with high standing in the military who have real concerns about what this piece of legislation could do to the integrity of the British armed forces.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: On the international side, which is what my organisation works on—I will be brief, because Liberty’s focus is on this—there are many reasons why claims, brought both by members of the armed forces and by others in different parts of the world, may take some time. We have seen them on rendition cases and others in the last year. It is partly because people may not be aware of damages in a case, or because evidence did not come out, as the only people aware of the crimes that may have been committed were those who suffered them and the persons who were responsible, or because other types of claims could be made. There are many reasons why, particularly for overseas operations, flexibility around time limits would be vital in order to secure justice.
On an international level, particularly when it comes to torture, there are quite a lot of international standards that say countries need to give an effective remedy to people who suffer torture allegations. It needs to be a fair system. Sometimes it is not possible to have trials—this has been mentioned about the Kenya cases from 70 years ago—but it still needs to be a fair system that has a degree of flexibility. Something that looks like a very hard time stop perhaps risks creating some severe injustice.
Martha Spurrier: As someone who has practised law and argued these kinds of cases before judges, equitable is the watchword. Bright-line rules, in the context of what are often extremely complicated textured cases, very rarely give out justice or achieve something equitable for either victims or perpetrators. The courts have a whole range of powers available to them, in [Inaudible] and beyond, to prevent cases from being brought—be it before or after a time limit—if those cases are unmeritorious or are being brought for abusive reasons. For example, you can have your legal aid certificate removed, or your claim can be struck out. You can have your funding withdrawn if any dishonesty offences are proven. There are a whole array of tools that judges can and do use routinely to make sure that justice is done, and that includes justice being done in a timely fashion.
The danger of putting a hard stop is that the kinds of cases that you have alluded to—whether you are talking about noise-induced hearing loss, some other complicated medical issue or an issue entirely beyond the control of any of the parties to the litigation. That case, falling three days the wrong side of that rule, would not be heard even it was a meritorious case. That seems to me to be arbitrary injustice. What should instead continue is judicial discretion over what is equitable for both parties. Of course, both parties will be represented and they can—and, believe me, they do—argue very forcefully on both sides, either to extend or not extend time limits. Again, it feels to me as though people speculate that this is a problem that exists in the justice system, but it is certainly not one that is statistically significant or that I have ever experienced as a lawyer.
Chris Evans
Q
Martha Spurrier: Sorry, could you say that again?
Chris Evans
Q
Martha Spurrier: Yes, in the sense that at the moment, everyone is equal before the law, and that is how it works. You can pitch up and argue that a case should be struck out because it is out of time, or that it should not be struck out because it is out of time. There is no weighting according to whether you are a civilian, a claimant, a defendant or a member of the armed forces. Of course, the proposal in the Bill is that civilians will be disadvantaged more greatly than service personnel by the longstop. That is an unjustifiable weighting in favour of service personnel, in the same way that the weighting works on the criminal side, where presumption goes all in favour of military personnel and all against victims of military crimes.
Chris Evans
Mr Baldwin, do you have a view on that?
Clive Baldwin: I have nothing to add to what Martha said.
Chris Evans
Q
Martha Spurrier: If the six-year time limit came in, it would benefit the Ministry of Defence and the Government, because these claims are, by and large, being brought against the Ministry of Defence, either as an employer or as a detaining official, or against the Government as a policy maker. It is absolutely critical that the forces of the state—again, I have acted for countless individuals and families where bringing a claim against the state is no mean feat. You are usually against a range of senior and powerful lawyers, and any additional disadvantage that you face makes it incredibly difficult to seek justice. So, unquestionably, this is a power that plays in favour of the state, and state agencies, and plays against individuals, whether those individuals are service personnel or civilians.
Clive Baldwin: To add to that, it is so clear, when it comes to civil claims, because they are public claims, that the beneficiary of any limit to those powers would be the British Government and normally the Ministry of Defence, because that is what the claims are made against. That includes service personnel bringing claims; it includes people in other countries bringing claims who in some cases have been the subject of abuses. That is the beneficiary. Of course, you still have to have a fair trial, but in most cases it is going to be the MOD.
When it comes to the investigations, the Government, when it is a civil claim, which is not against individual personnel, have a duty of care towards their personnel and ex-personnel. Those are not investigations and claims against those individuals; they may have to give evidence and that has its own degree of severe stress, but it is not a claim against individuals. That is why it is so important to separate the public law issues, the civil claim issues, and the criminal law issues.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: On the broader issue of derogation from human rights, that is part of human rights law; that is part of the European convention. It is actually something I proposed in Kosovo 20 years ago—that there would be a derogation then to reflect the realities of the situation and still be able to detain people according to the law. It is also important to realise that derogation is not exempting anyone from human rights law; it is just modifying it to deal with emergency situations. That is the case particularly on detention: it does not remove the need for detention according to law. It does not remove the need for habeas corpus, to bring someone before a judge. It could mean that someone is before a judge within weeks rather than days, perhaps. This does not mean that human rights law does not apply.
Chris Evans
Q
Clive Baldwin: Effectively, Governments always have to consider derogation, so I do not think that legally it changes anything. Human Rights Watch proposed some years ago to Government that they should consider this when dealing with the issue of detention overseas. You have to prepare it—I do not know of any situation where a Government has actively declared a state of emergency, which is what you need for derogation, in another country, and a lot of these situations are multinational peacekeeping and other operations, so you cannot really have one rule for the UK armed forces and one for others, normally.
So it is quite a complex situation. Also, derogation changes the law; it changes the law that applies, so again, it should not be done by just a secondary declaration by a Minister or Secretary of State. It would need a change in law. But we would say that preparing for these situations, preparing for detention in armed conflict or peacekeeping, and having a law that is clear is something that people have been saying that the armed forces need for the last 20 years. The armed forces I know say that they want clarity when they go to detain, which means knowing what law they should apply, how they detain and to whom they should apply. Giving them that clarity in advance would be of great interest. Derogation, when applied properly, is a strengthening of human rights law. It is not an exclusion of human rights law, but only when it is applied carefully, properly and not by just some ministerial fiat, as it could risk becoming.
Martha Spurrier: As Clive says, the power to derogate is a really critical part of the human rights framework; it is the power to suspend rights or to restore rights, and that is why it is tied to a state of emergency. Writing that requirement to consider into the Bill, on a narrow view, changes very little in relation to the legal position.
The concern, of course, is when you take a wider view and look at this Bill as a whole, which very much signals the desire to water down the human rights arrangements; and then you look at the wider agenda more generally, which is a Government with a manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act and an ongoing process to look at access to judicial review, and whether certain Government decisions should be shielded from that mechanism of accountability.
So, our concern is not so much about the narrow wording of that clause, but about a culture of watering down Executive accountability that crops up manifestly in this Bill but also in other places in the Government’s agenda, which we would say overall will make it very much more difficult for ordinary people—be they soldiers or civilians—to hold powerful people to account.
The Chair
I will call Carol Monaghan, because we can go on until 5.15 pm, and I want Carol to have the opportunity of asking her questions.
Carol Monaghan
Q
I just want to ask a few questions about part 2 of the Bill. In the briefing sent by Liberty and Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and I think a few other organisations, one thing it says is,
“It is notable that by far the largest proportion of claims against the MOD between 2014 and 2019 were brought by service personnel seeking compensation for injuries.”
I asked the last witnesses about this, as well. Have we got a Trojan horse situation, where part 2 of the Bill has been snuck in off the back of part 1, so veterans and personnel think this Bill is about helping them, but in actual fact it is putting barriers in their way?
Clive Baldwin: The submission was actually from Liberty and Amnesty; I will not have Human Rights Watch take credit for that. However, in some ways, absolutely, by removing the power of anyone, or by having this backstop, to take action against the Ministry of Defence, it will definitely affect members of the armed forces. So, for some it will be removing protection.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Martha Spurrier: This Bill protects the MOD and the Government much more than it protects anybody else.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Martha Spurrier: Yes, I think there are plenty of circumstances in which there would be entirely fair and honest reasons for not starting a claim promptly. The one example that I have already alluded to is the case of noise-induced hearing loss, where an injury may develop over a matter of decades of service, and the date of knowledge may occur after the six-year time limit has already elapsed, and then you may be prohibited from bringing a claim for really no good reason.
That is why you need to be able to have flexibility in the hands of the judiciary when considering these claims. That is not to say that claims that could have been brought promptly but were not should be allowed to proceed; maybe they should not be allowed to proceed. However, that is not what this longstop will do. This longstop will just create a bright line that creates injustice for people who fall the wrong side of it, even though they may have perfectly good reasons for doing so.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Clive Baldwin: Just to add that, although some time limits on civil claims are quite common in systems, there needs to be that element of flexibility or fairness. Can we imagine situations in which there are good reasons not to bring claims within that time limit? Quite a few, particularly for overseas operations in which, as we said, the situations are complex and people may not even be aware of their rights, or rights to bring a claim, until later, or even until they have left the armed forces. That is why the overriding principle has to be one of fairness. People may need to justify why they are bringing a claim later than they could have done, but they may have good reasons to do so, and the judiciary needs that element of flexibility to respond to those situations.
Carol Monaghan
Q
Clive Baldwin: Quite possibly. You would have to ask the veterans. The idea is that the Bill will protect veterans, but as we said, on the civil side, it will clearly take away some rights, and on the criminal side, it will not stop investigations; it may stop prosecutions, but very few have been happening anyway. It increases the risk of international criminal investigations against members of the armed forces and others if the UK does not appear to have a credible system of prosecution of international crimes. Yes, the Bill, in its current state, does not seem to strongly protect veterans and other members of the armed forces from some of the real injustices that some of them have suffered.
Martha Spurrier: I agree with that proposition. The Bill does nothing to deal with slow, ineffective or unfair investigations, which is what service personnel are complaining about. Certainly, the families and the people who Liberty has represented are often bringing cases against the Ministry of Justice or against the Government after years of banging their head against the wall of institutional power. The Bill will do nothing to help those people seek justice and accountability.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for their evidence this afternoon. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session today. The Committee will meet again in this room at 11.30 am on Thursday to take further evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gang-associated Girls
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before we start this debate, may I remind Members that only those on the call list are able to participate? We have five right hon. and hon. Members in Westminster Hall at the moment, and that will be the maximum number who can participate in this debate. That means that even if the debate looks as though it is going short, others who are not on the call list will not be able to join us.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gang-associated girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to be back in Westminster Hall to debate such an important topic. Youth violence is a very serious issue across our four nations in the UK, and it has a devastating impact on families—mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers—as well as on the wider community in our towns and cities. Here in London, it has almost become a daily occurrence on news bulletins. In the last two months alone, I have had to speak to three inconsolable mothers who have lost their children as a result of knife crime. These children were murdered by their peers. As a mother of two young children myself, that is not something that I can live with, ignore or accept.
However, today I want to talk about something different—another aspect of youth violence, and one that is hidden and often under-reported. It is the role played by girls and young women, whose activities and exploits, both in and around gangs, so often fly below the radar. I will also touch on the emerging issues and evidence that gang members are using the uncertainty caused by covid-19 to recruit vulnerable girls, as they adapt their business to the models of the new normal following lockdown.
I am sure that we all want to see an end to violence, exploitation and abuse, but if we want to understand this whole complex picture, we must understand that gang violence and abuse is a gendered and intersectional issue that requires a different approach. Even the word “gang” can be problematic when discussing the risks faced by girls and women. A youth worker who I spoke to recently highlighted to me that the language used to identify this issue sometimes fails to communicate the impact suffered by girls and young women. As she put it to me:
“Girls running county lines are not in a gang. They are victims of gangs.”
Girls and young women face different risks from those faced by males. Girls and young women may experience rape and other forms of sexual abuse, physical abuse, online grooming in the form of job offers, and direct threats of violence to themselves or their families to make them move or store drugs, weapons or even cash.
Some of these girls start off as girlfriends and get emotionally drawn into a relationship with an exploiter, and they face the additional emotional obstacle of trying to escape from that relationship as well as other forms of exploitation. Young women often carry the emotional burden for gang members and their wider crew, because they are often relied on for emotional support and counsel. Unfortunately, some girls are forced into criminal activity, such as county lines—moving drugs between cities and rural areas. There have been press reports recently of young women dressing as key workers to avoid being stopped and searched while travelling during lockdown.
The perception that girls work only in low-key roles in county lines is now starting to be challenged, with professionals reporting that, increasingly, young women work in the same roles as young men. That highlights the full scale of the exploitation that is taking place. Also, because young women and girls often go under the radar, their associations are much harder to track than those of males, but that does not mean that we should not offer them support. These are some of the most vulnerable young women and girls.
In February, in my role as London Assembly member for Lambeth and Southwark, I released a report entitled “Gang Associated Girls: Supporting young women at risk”. One key issue that I identified was a lack of data. There was no reliable information about the number of girls associated with gangs. For example, here in London, the Metropolitan Police Service’s records as of last year highlighted on its gangs matrix only six females, in contrast to 2,492 males. However, also in February, the Children’s Commissioner estimated that about 2,290 girls were associated with gangs in England; that is about 34% of all gang-associated children. When I sent a freedom of information request to all London boroughs, I found that more than 1,000 young women and girls had gang associations identified as a factor in their assessments by children’s social services. Therefore, we know that the data is patchy at best.
The invisibility of gangs’ association with girls has dire consequences. Abianda, a social enterprise that works with young women, highlighted that and the problems that it causes. A report from the crisis support charity Hestia in July found that girls were being deployed in county lines operations specifically because they were less likely to be stopped and searched by the police, and that exploitative romantic relationships were being used to lure young girls and women into carrying out that dangerous activity. Therefore, while we as the policy makers fail to truly appreciate the role that girls are playing in gangs, the same gangs are deliberately using that exploitation—that gendered advantage—to pursue their criminal activities. They are evading the law and, because girls on the periphery of gang violence who may need support are not being identified, funding is being disproportionately channelled into supporting young men.
A lot of good work is going on to rehabilitate young men away from this criminality, but there is little support for young women and girls. The issue of gangs’ association with girls is largely absent from the public discourse about violent crime, with both media reporting and funding concentrating on young men who are involved with gangs. Unfortunately, that means that public agencies risk missing the signs of gang-associated girls and do not offer the right support services to help them. If we do not offer adequate support to young women and girls at risk of gang association, we miss a vital opportunity to tackle violent crime.
The Minister shares my passion to end the exploitation of county lines, so will she ensure that resources are put in to disrupt county lines, working on the principle of taking a gendered approach to ensure that those working to prevent county lines activity are always aware of the role of young women and girls in these operations? If we accept that the cause of gang-associated violence has a gender dimension, it follows that the solution should also adopt a gendered approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Young women and girls experience the trauma of gang-related violence in a different way and, as a result, they present differently in hospital settings. Redthread, a charity whose workers operate in hospitals across London and the midlands, has reported that when they talk to young women, they are less likely to present with a physical injury, such as knife wounds, and are more likely to present with psychological issues related to trauma, such as self-harm, suicidal ideation and overdoses. In response, that charity has placed a number of young female workers in accident and emergency departments specifically to support these young women and girls.
The St Giles Trust is another charity that helps young people who are caught up in gangs. It has found that when it works in a hospital and its staff are given flexible access to a range of departments, they can identify these females at risk of exploitation and criminal and sexual abuse. If staff can get to them earlier, it will save costs down the line and get better results for the young women and girls.
Gender-based support works, but we know that our local councils up and down the country are struggling to provide that tailored support because of severe budget cuts. Given the potentially life-changing benefits that will be produced by programmes such as these, run by charities, will the Minister lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that councils have the funding available to provide that bespoke care? The reality is that gang-associated girls are part of a bigger system that not only harms the young women and girls directly involved, but contributes to the wider criminal activities of gangs and their exploitation of children and vulnerable young adults.
We cannot address gang violence without taking a gendered and intersectional approach. We need a better understanding of the role that girls and young women face so that support services can be there for them. We need to look at targeted interventions to help the girls who are being exploited, groomed and abused. We need to continue to raise awareness with the authorities around the use of girls in county lines and other gang-related activities, and we need policy makers to change the language that they use in highlighting the issue. Most importantly, we need to continue to listen to what young women and girls tell us.
When we talk about youth violence, knife crime or gangs, young people are too often labelled as criminals and perpetrators, but evidence shows that the young people themselves have been victims of crimes. We need to remember that when we talk about them. We are all here today because we want an end to the criminal exploitation of all vulnerable young people. To do that, we need to recognise and understand the gender dimension of gang association and violence, and invest in solutions based on that reality. It is a difficult reality, but one that we need to face up to, otherwise we risk dealing with only part of the problem. If we do that, the girls and young women who we all care about, and will carry on advocating for, will continue to suffer and end up in prison, or, even worse, continue to lose their lives.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in my first ever Westminster Hall debate under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), my neighbour. A river splits us, but I know we are at one on this subject. I am pleased to speak in this debate because the subject has always been close to my heart.
Westminster, which I represent as part of the Cities of London and Westminster seat, has never really been considered a borough where there could be gang violence. In 2012, I became Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for community protection; up to that point, I had been the children’s services cabinet member. When the two posts were put together, we were able to understand, for the first time, the gang issue that Westminster was experiencing. We had gone from 19th in the Met’s serious youth violence table to third, and we were higher than Hackney. That focused my mind, because, as I said, Westminster is not a place that is associated with serious youth violence and gang activity.
I remember going to see the then deputy mayor for policing—he is now my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—and saying, “What do I do? How do I tackle this?” His advice was to tackle it straight away, to be firm and to put all our powers and services behind it, because it would only get worse. We did, and I established the first gangs unit in Westminster. We went and spoke to Hackney, because it had a brilliant gangs unit. We set one up, and it allowed us to understand the issues facing our young people.
The problem was drug-related, and there were pockets of it in Pimlico, in the south of my constituency, as well as in the Westminster North constituency. In Pimlico, it was more of a business, with young people using violence to secure their clients and their areas. It culminated in the horrific murder of a young man called Hani, who was hacked to death in Pimlico on a Sunday afternoon when people and families were going about their business. The boys who were eventually found guilty—and sentenced, rightly, to many years in prison—were from my own ward in Pimlico, which is considered a very safe and affluent part of Westminster. Citizens, local people, councillors and MPs have to recognise that this is going on all around us. We in this Chamber may live in very safe environments, but our young people walk very different streets.
I welcome this debate on girls in gangs. As part of my preparation, I spoke to the head of the gangs unit at Westminster, Matt Watson, about girls. His view—it is one that I share, given my experience—is that girls in gangs, or girls who are victims of gangs, are hidden. What the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about the data is absolutely right. If there is one thing that we want the police to do, it is this: when they stop groups of boys or young men and there are girls present, take the girls’ details. The girls are usually ignored.
From my experience with the Met, it absolutely wants to work with local authorities and charities that are involved in work on gangs. If we can ask the Met to introduce best practice in taking data from young girls, that will help. The sooner we know about the involvement of young women and girls in gangs—whether as perpetrators or victims—the better. They are often used as weapons or to send a message to members of an opposing gang. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we often do not know about them until they are at the most traumatic time of their lives in hospital.
I would like us to consider some other issues as a country. I am sure the Home Office has already considered this, because there is some funding for it, but I think there should be more funding and encouragement for relationship programmes. It is not fair to keep burdening schools, which are often seen as the place for such things because we know—or hope—that children go to them every day, but there needs to be a lot more education about what healthy relationships are for girls as well as boys. I have two teenagers, a 14-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl, and I know it is equally important to teach them what a healthy relationship is.
In 2020, we cannot get away from the fact that boys, in particular, will access horrendous porn images on the internet from a very young age. Their first experience in a sexual relationship is often based on what they have seen on the internet. We need to build up more substantial programmes on healthy relationships, and we need to help parents. I have had too many experiences with victims’ families where the mum and dad never expected their child—their son, who is now dead—to be involved in a gang.
We all know that our teenagers live secret lives, and we did the same as teenagers. We often did not want our parents to know what we were involved in. That is part of growing up, but I think parents, grandparents, carers and young people need to understand what a healthy relationship is and have signposting when they know that something is not right. I am convinced that young women realise in the bottom of their stomach when something is not right, but they do not know where to go for help.
I also reiterate what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about exploitation and abuse, which is very much gender related. I worry about the music industry. I do not want to be seen as a middle-aged woman telling young people that they should not be listening to drill music—that is not my position—but we need to explain to young people how we should view women and relationships and how men should see themselves. The music industry, and elements of it within drill and rap in particular, has questions to answer on what it allows to be published. I have been appalled by the misogyny and utter glorification of violence in some of the videos I have been shown, and it makes an awful lot of money on the back of that. We must take that on and hold the industry to account. I do not believe in censorship; this is about standards, and these are our young people.
I welcome the debate, which is on a cross-party concern. We need to take the politics out of it. Our young people, no matter what age they are, but particularly those aged under 18, whether boy or girl, must be considered victims if they are mixed up in a gang. No child of 15 should be peddling drugs. There will be a reason why they are doing so, and the story behind it is usually not a good one. I would love to see the Home Office take the great work it has already done to the next level.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I also welcome the debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). Vulnerable young people are coerced into county lines and gangs on a daily basis, attracted by the draw of money and a route out of poverty and deprivation. County lines offenders use sexual exploitation to recruit vulnerable women to their gangs, with male gang members grooming vulnerable women through sexual relationships. The National Crime Agency says that women may not acknowledge that they are victims due to the nature of their grooming—they will often believe that they are in relationships—and those exploited are subjected to sexual violence control as part of county lines offending.
Liverpool is the most prolific county lines area outside of London, with drug dealers and gangsters exploiting children and young people to sell their drugs, using the rail network on Merseyside to run their county lines drug operations. Children and young people, including girls and young women, are manipulated and exploited to transport drugs around the country. Poverty and social and economic inequality have a disproportionate impact on black young girls and women, who are experiencing a widening of the educational attainment gap and affected by systemic and deeply entrenched institutional racism.
Social and criminal justice go hand in hand. Crime disproportionately affects poorer communities and those who commit crime are more likely to suffer from the causes of social breakdown. Gangs thrive when communities experience low employment, high family breakdown, addiction and poor educational attainment. We know that gang and youth violence has become a serious problem, which is witnessed with high numbers of lives lost as a result of these crimes.
Sadly, there is no reliable information about the number of girls associated with gangs. According to some data, the number of young women involved in gangs appears small. For example, on 2 July 2020, 0.2% of individuals on the Metropolitan police’s gangs matrix were females—six were listed on the matrix. However, estimates do vary. The Children’s Commissioner estimated in February 2019 that about 2,290 girls were associated with gangs in England—34% of all gang-associated children. The data on girls and young women associated with gangs are often marginalised in discussions about gang violence. Girls and young women often become involved as a result of relationships with male gang members. A lack of positive role models and low self-esteem can push girls into the arms of gang members, but there is still little empirical evidence about how many girls are involved in the gangs, the extent of the problems that they face, or how best to tackle the issues.
Gang life takes a toll on young girls’ lives. That includes the effect on their education, sexual exploitation, and an increase in criminal activity. London’s Rescue and Response county lines project has identified the fact that women face particular challenges in county lines. The Government say that they are targeting funding to support women and girls affected by gang activity, but more evidence should be collected about women and girls involved in gangs. More funding should be made available, so that gender-specific services can be provided to women and girls affected by gangs, and police officers should be trained to identify women and girls involved in gangs. That training should be developed in partnership with specialist organisations.
More funding should be made available for early intervention and preventive projects to support girls and young women, and to provide greater opportunities and more hope to disaffected and disenfranchised young women, encouraging them away from gangs and county lines.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate. She made many profound points and was right to highlight the imbalanced focus on the harms experienced by boys in gangs, versus those experienced by gang-associated girls. That has led to disproportionate funding of support for girls to deal with that trauma.
The National Crime Agency believes that girls are under-represented in its data both as offenders and as victims of exploitation. A clear picture is not available, as there are intelligence gaps, but it is well known by the police and service providers that girls are used for county lines operations as they are less likely to get caught. That issue was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) in describing her experience of what is happening in Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the example of young women being coerced into dressing as emergency workers to escape detection when carrying drugs through the national lockdown earlier this year. That shows the seriousness of the situation.
The NCA gives details of sexual violence being used to control those who are exploited, and of children and females being offered between county lines offenders for sexual activity. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said:
“Sexual violence against women and girls is rooted in centuries of male domination. Let us not forget that the gender inequalities that fuel rape culture are essentially a question of power imbalances.”
It is important that we focus on that because, as other Members have said today, the exploitation of women and girls is greatly under-represented, as it is not easily identified. The imbalance is clear in gang culture. As we have learned from speeches today, young and vulnerable girls are routinely targeted for grooming and exploitation by gangs, and girls are often lost in the narrative around child criminal exploitation. That is another point eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.
That violence and exploitation is a devastating human rights violation and it is largely under-reported because there is impunity, and because of the silence, stigma and shame surrounding it. We must redress that imbalance by raising awareness of the issue so that girls are no longer ignored, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) pointed out in her eloquent and passionate speech. The psychological, sexual and reproductive health consequences that the girls in question will experience at different stages of their lives must be prevented through early interventions.
One reason why there is such under-representation of the issue in relation to girls and young women is that the damage is often hidden and psychological, whereas boys and young men present to hospitals with serious injuries, thus alerting various authorities. The Public Health England report, “The mental health needs of gang-affiliated young people” states:
“Girls involved with gangs can be particularly vulnerable to mental health problems resulting from sexual and intimate partner violence”.
The report also says:
“Trauma-based mental health services may be particularly important for female gang members, along with gender-sensitive responses that acknowledge the importance of positive relationships and improved self-esteem as an exit from crime and violence.”
Again, that point was made in all the speeches we have heard so far. It is something that we need to focus on.
More action needs to be taken by the Government to support services that can help girls get out of gangs through CAMHS and Public Health England, and by investing in local government. People in positions of power must understand the problem and work tirelessly to address it. Although we must ensure that gang-associated girls are given the support they need to recognise unhealthy and abusive relationships so that they can get away from exploitation and get the right care in order to recover, we must also empower such girls. Girls should not feel that they are at fault for not recognising abuse, or that it is their sole responsibility to prevent such crimes. They must know that it is always the perpetrator’s responsibility and that the abuse is not inevitable. Again, that is a point that has been made in the debate: girls and all young people involved in county lines and gang violence are victims. That is something that needs to be at the heart of any solution.
A number of organisations are doing exceptional work in these areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has already mentioned Redthread and St Giles Trust, but I also want to highlight the work of two organisations from the north-east that are funded by Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner Kim McGuinness’s budget. One is called SCARPA. Through its work with vulnerable children, it has identified and worked with more than 30 girls who are at risk of harm and exploitation due to their association with gang members. Another organisation, Edge North East, mentors girls and young women involved in gangs. Young women have reported being victims of physical and sexual violence and being forced to do drug runs, to carry and store weapons, and to drive vehicles for drug deals. They have even allowed their bank accounts to be used to stash money.
Although I appreciate the complex nature of gangs and the many life experiences and events that can lead individuals down the wrong path, the best way that society and Government can support girls at risk of such crimes is to prevent crime and remove the threat. It is the responsibility of society to teach young boys and men that we have zero tolerance of abuse and exploitation of any kind, and that abuse and exploitation of gang-associated girls will no longer be ignored or hidden away.
I firmly believe that prevention is better than cure, but I note with concern that in a February 2019 report titled “Keeping kids safe: Improving safeguarding responses to gang violence and criminal exploitation”, Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, said:
“Tackling gang exploitation needs a paradigm change in thinking, which stops treating these children as criminals responsible for their own situation and instead sets out to protect them.”
New local safeguarding arrangements with a focus on contextualising safeguarding have the potential to make that happen, yet there are few signs that any adequate plans are in place.
Public services have been slashed in recent years, and we urgently need reinvestment in order to protect young people from the risk of gang violence and exploitation. Again, I heard what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about her experience when she was a councillor in Westminster, and about the joined-up services and setting up the gangs unit. That is something I would like to see mirrored in all our boroughs. Services should be improved and made secure.
We need to mention that until we catch people higher up the food chain—those who keep their hands clean while reaping the profits of drug dealing carried out by the unfortunate foot soldiers on the frontline, or on the county line—we will allow the constant repetition of the cycle of exploitation and abuse. That is an issue we seriously must address.
I want to ask the Minister four questions. Will she commit to raising greater awareness of the hidden experiences of gang-associated girls among the public servants who encounter them as well as the general public? Will she press for greater public sector funding for support for youth services, mental health services and early intervention work, including areas of healthy relationships and family support? Will she ensure that there is a targeted approach to deal with gang violence and exploitation against girls? Lastly, will she confirm that there is a robust strategy in place to go after the middlemen and those higher up, who are directly responsible for drug dealing, gang exploitation and violence but who act with impunity?
Any Government’s first responsibility is to keep their citizens safe. The fact that girls in this country are not safe in their own communities means that the Government have much more work to do to fulfil their first duty. I know the Minister will take this issue very seriously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing this debate to the House. It is an incredibly important and emotive subject and one that I do not think is discussed often enough: indeed, we all agreed this during the debate today. All Members who have contributed today have referred to the hidden aspect of these crimes. Much of what happens in gangs is hidden from view by definition—it is the modus operandi of gang leaders—but this is a particularly hidden and pernicious aspect of gangs’ ways of operating, as we have all acknowledged, so I am grateful to hon. Members for raising the subject today.
I note also, with some regret, that although there are only five of us in the Chamber, two of the three largest exporting areas for county lines are represented—London and Merseyside—so hon. Members have brought their own personal constituency experience and expertise to the debate. I want to reassure colleagues that tackling serious violence and the exploitation of girls and women is an absolute priority for the Government. I do not use these words lightly. Hon. Members have been kind enough to indicate the interest and the attention that I have paid to it personally, but this goes across Government. I hope that, in a moment, I will be able to lay out some of the steps we are taking to tackle serious violence, but particularly the victimisation of girls and young women in gangs.
By way of demonstration, we have invested £119 million this year alone to provide extra police resources to drive down the scale of violent crime that we are seeing on our streets, to fund violence reduction units in the 18 force areas most affected by crime and violence, and to fund specialist county line operations. We have also spent over £200 million on early intervention to ensure that those most at risk are given the opportunity to turn away from violence and lead positive, safe lives. But it is, of course, critical that the investment works for girls and young women. We are, after all, half the population.
When hon. Members refer to the different experiences of girls and young women in gangs, I could not agree more. We know that girls and young women are subject to serious and appalling harms, ranging from threats to themselves and their families to sexual exploitation and abuse. Their experiences are often different from those of boys and young men in the very same gangs. The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to evidence from Redthread, an organisation that the Government are pleased to support and work with. Girls present with different injuries when they come into hospital from those with which boys tend to present, which shows the nature of the harms faced by girls and young women in gangs.
There is evidence that girls and young women are playing a more active role in the drug markets, mirroring the operations of their male counterparts not just in London but across the country. We are hearing reports of that, and it has been referred to during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) used a line that sums up the experiences of these young people on our streets: these young people in gangs “walk different streets” from us. As a Minister but also as a Government, we are keen to try to get the message across to our constituents that it is a matter for all of us to have open eyes, to watch and listen, and to see if the young people we live next to in our communities are safe and well, or if in fact they are being groomed in the ways described this morning.
On 3 June, I held a virtual meeting with a number of charities and organisations that provide vital support to young people affected by county lines exploitation. That is part of our day-to-day business. Frontline workers at the meeting, including those from Abianda, reflected on the specific challenges faced by girls and young women who are drawn into county lines activity. One very powerful advocate told me that young women were being used not just for their physical capabilities in terms of moving drugs around, but also to launder the proceeds of those crimes. Those young women’s bank accounts are being used by gang leaders and that has huge repercussions, not just in the short, immediate term, but also in the longer term. Once those women have escaped the gangs, their credit ratings, for example, may well still be affected by the activities. We know that those young people face terrible harms, but we must understand that there are long-term implications for their experiences as well. I wish to assure the House that those insights and those of all the organisations we work with—St Giles Trust and Redthread, to name just two—inform our policy response to those issues.
Rightly, there has been attention on Government investment. We have invested some £176 million through the serious violence fund to address the drivers of serious violence at local level. That includes the vital investment in violence reduction units. The point of those units is to provide a localised understanding to reduce and prevent serious violence within local communities and to tackle its root causes. We have been very keen to ensure that the units have the freedom to develop policies that work in their local areas. As such, what may work in a particular part of London—not even across London—such as Westminster may not be appropriate for Vauxhall and similarly, may not be appropriate for Liverpool, Riverside, so we are keen that the units have freedom and flexibility. However, the objective of those units is to drive down serious violence. The role of the violence reduction unit, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Vauxhall in her report, for which I thank her, is critical in identifying the local risks and drivers of that violence, as well as the local response to those drivers.
We are beginning to see violence reduction units taking important steps to commission the support and interventions that people at risk need, including girls and women. For example, the West Midlands violence reduction unit is working with the St Giles Trust to embed a senior youth violence and exploitation worker in Birmingham women’s and children’s hospital to provide guidance and support to girls and young women who have experienced violent crime or potential gang exploitation. Violence reduction units are also delivering interventions to support healthy relationships and to prevent domestic abuse.
In my work on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I hope I have made it clear that, if we can tackle domestic abuse, that will have many ramifications outside the home, including violence on the streets. For example, the Northumbria violence reduction unit is delivering interventions targeted at women and children experiencing domestic abuse during the covid-19 pandemic. The South Yorkshire violence reduction unit is using cutting-edge technology to role-play challenging scenarios to assist frontline practitioners in their response to domestic abuse. I think that line means that we are trying to help frontline practitioners get a practical grasp on how they deal with situations in cases as they arise.
In addition to local action, my Department is funding gender-specific, tailored services to support girls and young women experiencing exploitation related to gangs and county lines. Young people’s advocates in London, Manchester and the west midlands provide dedicated, one-to-one support directly to gang-affected women and girls, especially those who have been victims of, or are at risk of, sexual violence. With Home Office investment of up to £860,000 this year, the St Giles Trust will be delivering one-to-one support in London, Merseyside and the west midlands—the three largest county lines-exporting areas—which will help over 200 vulnerable children and young people who are criminally exploited by county lines gangs, including with specialist support for girls. We continue to fund Missing People’s SafeCall service, which is a specialist helpline providing advice and support to children, young people and families who are concerned about county lines, criminal exploitation and gangs. In addition, we are investing more in rape and sexual abuse support services, with £24 million being made available over the next three years to provide advice, support and counselling.
The hon. Members for Vauxhall, for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) all referred to the grooming of girls and young women, particularly the classic grooming example—if I may call it that—of the boyfriend-girlfriend model, whereby the boy or young man draws the girl or young woman into his world by forming a relationship, and she is then much more vulnerable to him when he suggests that she does things that she feels utterly uncomfortable with, or indeed scared by. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster called for relationship education for girls and boys, which is really important: we want young women and girls to be resilient and to have the confidence to say no, but we must also ensure that boys and young men have a good understanding of what a healthy relationship is. I remember meeting a harmful sexual behaviours youth worker—just having to have someone with that job title is incredibly depressing, but that very good youth worker recounted to me that a young man he was working with at the time thought that it was normal for girls and young women to cry during sex. We need to take a step back and think about what has gone wrong, not just in that young man’s life but in the lives of those girls, and why some of our young people believe that that is an acceptable way in which to conduct themselves.
We are very conscious of the importance for girls and boys, young women and young men, of understanding and building healthy relationships. That is why we have made relationship education compulsory for all primary-school pupils, and relationship and sex education compulsory for secondary school pupils. Health education has been compulsory in all schools since last month, September 2020. These subjects will ensure that children understand that violence and abuse is never acceptable, and know what positive, healthy and respectful relationships should look like, which in turn will help to prevent abuse. We want girls to know that it is important to report abuse and share concerns that they have about themselves or others, both online and offline. To help them do so, we have provided £6 million to develop a programme of support for schools, which will include tools to help schools improve their teaching practice, training support and high-quality resources. That programme will also include information on parents’ rights and involvement in the curriculum.
However, we can do more, and we are doing more. We have introduced new knife crime prevention orders as an additional tool to help the police to steer young people and adults away from knife crime and serious violence, and we have launched an eight-week public consultation on the design of new serious violence reduction orders, which will make it easier for the police to stop and search those previously convicted of knife-crime offences, but we also need longer-term action to prevent vulnerable young people from being drawn into crime. That is why, as I said at the beginning of my speech, we have invested £200 million in the 10-year Youth Endowment Fund to ensure that those most at risk are given the opportunity to turn away from violence and to lead positive lives. Importantly, that helps in evaluating schemes across the country to see what works and what does not, so that we can help local commissioners understand where their money is best invested.
All hon. Members raised the point about data—it is a fair point. I spoke at the beginning of my speech about the hidden nature of girls and young women’s involvement in gangs. Following today’s debate, I will engage further with the violence reduction unit network to ensure that all VRUs are actively considering gang-affected girls and young women when identifying the drivers of serious violence acting in their local area and ensuring an effective response. We are already working on that, but I will very much take that point forward. VRUs are doing really good work in bringing together local partners to tackle violence and the drivers of violence together. We will very much use our learning from the progress to date, including those units that are already delivering support to girls and young women in their areas, to make sure that no young people affected by violence are forgotten.
I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall for raising the issues in this debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. As always, I pass on my sincere thanks to those who are working right now to protect and support victims of serious violence. We know that serious violence is evolving and there is a threat from county lines activities and from sexual exploitation and abuse—much of that leads to serious violence. That evolution requires us to be flexible and to keep looking for new responses to the changing dynamics. We are absolutely doing all we can to support victims of serious violence and abuse, including young women and girls, but we understand that, although we have made some progress in setting up VRUs and so on, we are absolutely committed to a truly comprehensive response to protect our young people from these horrific crimes and to help end the harm that they cause.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank all hon. Members for their attendance this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for highlighting her experience of dealing with this issue on the frontline as a councillor. Dealing with some of the things that have come across her desk in children’s social services in an inner-London borough such as Westminster will have been very difficult and challenging. I thank her for her work highlighting these issues with the police, and for touching on the important role of relationships with our young people, both boys and girls. I remember my relationship discussions in school, when it was something that only girls had to talk about. It is important that we are now making sure that our young boys and men understand what it is to be in a healthy relationship, and that we are teaching our girls about saying no and why it is okay to say no. Teaching our girls and boys to respect their bodies is something really important that parents, teachers and youth workers should be working on.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for highlighting the fact that this is not just an issue in London, but across the country; we must make sure that we have solutions to address that. What is happening in Vauxhall will be different from what is happening in Liverpool, Riverside. My hon. Friend also highlighted the fact that the basis of the issue is poverty and deprivation. We need to look at how we make sure some of our most vulnerable citizens in society have opportunities and access to jobs, housing, employment, training—all things that have now been made a lot harder on the back of the pandemic. It is important that we think about next steps, once we have helped these young women and girls, into a life that is better for themselves and their families.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for raising the important role that CAMHS plays through early intervention. Funding for the service, which is often overstretched, is important. We know that the case loads of some of our social workers continue to grow. Again, it is about making sure that they get funding and support, putting aside party politics and working across the country to make sure that that happens.
I thank the Minister for highlighting some of the initiatives and funding that have already gone in. It is important to ensure that VRUs across the country have a localised approach and that funding is targeted at a local level to address local issues. We must continue to acknowledge that this issue will not disappear overnight. The issue cannot be resolved just with funding. It requires a different approach.
I am happy that the Minister said that she will take away the idea of looking at the data. We cannot deal with something unless we understand the data behind it. We could be throwing money at a problem when we do not know its real cause. The commitment to VRUs looking at the data specifically on girls associated with gangs is really important.
Lastly, politics aside, all of us want to see our young people flourish. No child is born with the intention of holding a knife, carrying drugs or carrying guns. We have to let children be children. Our young children are being forced to grow up too early. We have to ensure there are positive activities for our young children to engage with, and that they have schooling opportunities and access to safe homes. I hope the Government will continue to invest in those things, continue to work with local councils who know their local areas, and, when we are talking about criminality, continue to remember that these are young children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gang-associated girls.
Cultural Attractions: Contribution to Local Economy
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of theatres, live music venues and other cultural attractions to the local economy.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I am delighted to have been able to secure this, my first lead Westminster Hall debate, on such an important topic. As the covid pandemic continues to threaten people’s health and livelihoods, hon. Members across the House have rightly been highlighting sectors of the economy that remain at particular risk. I applied for this debate to highlight one such sector—arts and culture. In March, theatres closed their doors. Gig venues and clubs across the country turned off their sound systems, and museums and galleries turned off the lights. Some have reopened, with social distancing measures and other restrictions in place. Many in my own constituency, including the commercial theatres, remain unable to reopen because of the simple fact that it is not financially viable to operate within current restrictions. I hope that over the course of the debate, other hon. Members and I will be able to convince the Government and the public of the reasons why those businesses are vital to our communities and worthy of ongoing support.
I am keen for other hon. Members to play their part in the debate, as I am acutely aware that when I speak on these issues, representing the Cities of London and Westminster, I am often—and easily—accused of being London-centric. I hope, however, that through our contributions we will be able to show that the arts and cultural sector contributes massively to local economies up and down the country. I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer in my constituency, from theatreland to iconic live music venues such as Ronnie Scott’s, the 100 Club and Heaven, as well as the Barbican centre, the Royal Albert Hall, the Royal Opera House and the Coliseum.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I reel off some statistics to support the argument that arts and culture are vital to the economy. In 2019, 18,000 performances across west end theatres attracted more than 15 million audience members, providing a gross revenue of £800 million. In 2018, the gross value added of arts, museums and galleries in the west end alone was more than £1 billion. It is estimated that across London there are 97,000 jobs in music, performance and visual arts, and more than 17,000 in museums, galleries and libraries. VisitBritain research suggests that a quarter of tourists who come to London come specifically for its cultural offer. Those statistics show, I hope, the direct impact of the arts and culture in supporting the wider local economy. Modelling shows that for every £1 spent in theatres, for example, £5 is spent in the wider local economy—in bars, restaurants and shops.
Theatres, live music and cultural venues play a vital role in the ecosystem of the west end, and it is the same across the UK. Figures provided by UK Music suggest that every £10 spent on a ticket for a live music venue is worth £17 to the local economy. One Ed Sheeran gig in Ipswich last year brought in £58 for every £1 spent by the council to put on the concert. The net value to the local economy was more than £9 million.
What impact has covid-19 had, and what impact will it continue to have? The Heart of London Business Alliance, a business improvement district in my constituency, is about to publish a report on the economic benefits of the west end and the heart of London arts and cultural sector for the wider economy, and the case for covid-19 support. It has been kind enough to provide me with an advance copy. The report models four scenarios and the predicted impact for the economic output of arts and culture in the west end. Scenario one is repeated lockdowns, scenario two is strict rules and social distancing in place, scenario three is seasonal covid with occasional softer social distancing remaining, and finally, scenario four, which is a return to normality—something I think we all wish for. For the arts and culture sector, scenarios one and two are modelled to have very similar outcomes. Employment in the sector in the west end would fall by 95% by 2024. Even in the best circumstances of a return to normality, the arts and culture sector is projected to produce 10% less in 2024 than in 2019. Those models make for challenging reading and I strongly encourage the Minister and her officials to read the report in detail.
Venues in my constituency have worked incredibly hard to find solutions to open under current social distancing measures. The Barbican centre in the City of London has been trialling a new approach to concerts with the Live from the Barbican series, involving 300 socially- distanced audience members in the hall alongside a pay-per-view live stream that enables audiences to watch from wherever they want. I am delighted to report that those concerts have sold out, with encouraging interest and early sales for live streaming.
In the west end, Andrew Lloyd Webber has undertaken heroic action to introduce measures to prove that theatres can be socially distancing-friendly at a capacity that works for safety and for his theatres’ commercial viability. What can we do in this place and what can the Government do to support the sector in the return to normality scenario?
I pledge huge gratitude to the Culture Secretary and his team at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, including my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and Culture, who is responding to this debate. I know they have worked tirelessly since lockdown to support the arts and culture sector. I recognise their huge achievement in securing £1.5 billion in support for the arts. However, there is more to be done if we are to secure our arts and culture sector once we have beaten this dreadful virus.
I encourage the Government to continue funding jobs in sectors that remain unable to recover because of restrictions that are in place. As those businesses remain closed through no fault of their own, they will likely lose all access to current support measures when the furlough scheme ends. The sector has been hugely grateful for the support so far, but that support needs to continue. I ask the Minister to persuade the Treasury once again to reassess the support it offers the self-employed, as many in the sector are freelance and work in a mixture of self-employed and employed roles, depending on their contract and the employer. Too many have gone without any support at all. Current Government support has been more focused on salaried staff, and there is a worry that freelancers will drop out of their profession, leading to a shortage of expertise when we are back up and running.
I think all of us in this hall accept that theatres, live music and cultural venues need clear signposting as to when they will be able to open. Theatre productions, for example, have lead times often in excess of six months before opening, so require as much notice as possible. I urge the Government to extend the 5% VAT reduction for at least three years, in line with recommendations from the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I support the introduction of a Government-backed insurance scheme for live music, theatre and performance to allow venues, producers and creators to proceed with developing projects in confidence that, should they not be able to do so, the Government will support them. We have launched a similar and very successful scheme for the film industry and, knowing how much it costs to put on a commercial theatre production, such an insurance scheme would prove beneficial for the whole industry. With that, I thank hon. Members for joining me to take part in the debate and I look forward to hearing their contributions and the Minister’s reply.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a time limit of three minutes.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
As always, it is an honour to appear under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. This is an important discussion and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing the debate. Theatres, live music and cultural venues are an essential part of what we are as an island nation. It is what sells Britain plc to the rest of the world and I have been heavily involved in it for years.
According to the Creative Industries Council, our industry is estimated to generate £48 billion in turnover and to support nearly 400,000 jobs. The building blocks of this national contribution are, of course, individual local economies. In Clacton, our local economy is hugely dependent on tourism; it represents some 17.4% of all employment in the area. We have wonderful venues, such as the Prince’s theatre, the West Cliff theatre and my own Frinton summer theatre, which I used to run years ago. We also have 19th-century Martello towers, our two famous piers, the beautiful Walton backwaters, the sunshine coast and amazing beaches, all of which bring many people to our wonderful coastal area. Those people take advantage of our tourism offer and they come to our cultural centres.
Tourism in Tendring is worth some £392 million, and for a district such as Clacton that is vital. Without strong tourism in Clacton, we would be in real trouble, but that is what we could face if we lose the venues and attractions that bring people to our area. Yes, we have the culture recovery fund to keep these establishments open, but we now need to create domestic demand. We need to get people from the UK to come to UK resorts and keep us going.
We need to find a way to bring people safely back to the theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned Andrew Lloyd Webber. What a wonderful example—he fogs the Palladium, fills it with an alcohol gas and cleans everything up. The Palladium has self-cleaning handles. We must be creative; we are the creative industries, after all.
We need to get people back into theatres, but as my hon. Friend mentioned, that is also about the restaurants, the bars, the taxis and all the surrounding ecosystem. Those have to be supported too. Like the eat out to help out scheme, I envisage a voucher scheme that would help people to get back into the theatres, and I put that proposal to the Minister now. There must be some means whereby theatres, which would have to operate on a lower percentage in order to keep people safely spaced, could be helped to open with a voucher scheme. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with that. There could also be something to help with the food offer in our local restaurants around the theatres.
We need to begin to focus on returning people to these establishments in a safe way, because if we do not do that, when Government support for theatres ends we will be in real trouble. We have a global gold standard in our theatres and we must protect them. Finally, I have to say something about freelancers, such as actors and musicians. We must ensure that they are protected, so I say to the Minister, “Look after the freelancers too”.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate, and I will also say how proud I am to see her leading the debate today. Not all hon. Members will know that I used to teach her at Radyr Comprehensive School in Cardiff. It is wonderful to see her leading our debate today and it is a privilege for me to participate in the debate with her. I am sorry that she ended up the way she did, Mr Walker. [Laughter.] It was despite my best efforts, but there we are.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) who, like me, is a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on his speech. As ever, he made his constituency sound like a wonderful place, although he was unable to establish, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did with her constituency, that we can literally find heaven within it.
I always like to stress the importance of the value of the arts and culture in and of themselves, as well as their economic benefits. In and of themselves, they are valuable and we should encourage them. Nevertheless, it is important to note that places such as the Sherman theatre in Cardiff, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), make a wonderful contribution—and an important economic contribution too. Cultural and creative industries contribute £10.8 billion a year to the UK economy and £2.8 billion in taxation, and they support over 360,000 jobs. This was also the fastest growing sector of the economy; we should not forget that.
In Cardiff, we have wonderful cultural facilities too. Recently, the Womanby Street campaign tried to protect our music venues—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) was very much involved in that. We have the wonderful Millennium centre in Cardiff, which is also in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the Chapter arts centre, a world-leading contemporary arts centre in my own constituency. All of these places are wonderful, but they have all been very badly affected by coronavirus and the lockdown.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Womanby Street campaign; I was proud to work with him on it. Does he agree that Eluned Morgan, our Welsh culture Minister, has been doing an excellent job in securing a package to support our industries, including freelancers, crucially?
Kevin Brennan
I agree. She is another of my protégés, and is doing a marvellous job as arts Minister in Cardiff.
Through the Minister, I say to the Chancellor that he must stop the talk about people in the creative industries going on to do something else. In a report today on the ITV website, the Chancellor suggests that musicians and others in the arts industry—actors, creatives and so on—may need to retrain and find new jobs. When asked whether he was suggesting that some of the UK’s fabulous musicians, artists and actors should get other jobs, the Chancellor said that although there is still work available in the creative industries,
“as in all walks of life everyone’s having to adapt.”
That is true and all very well, but he is in danger of becoming the Aunt Mimi of Government if he is not careful. For those who do not know, Aunt Mimi was John Lennon’s aunt, who brought him up and told him to get a proper job rather than going into the music industry. Those are proper jobs! Roles that are involved in our creative industries—actors, such as my brother or the hon. Member for Clacton; musicians; directors; or whatever freelance or employed role—are proper jobs in the fastest growing sector of our economy. It is about time that the Government acknowledged that.
In all fairness, some parts of the Government do, and I welcome the package that they have brought forward—although that money needs to be distributed now—but the view that those are not proper jobs has got to go. The Chancellor has to stop saying that. The Minister may not feel free or at ease to say so in the debate, but will she say privately in the halls of Government that that kind of talk has to stop? The Government’s job is to provide a bridge to the future for what is a very viable creative sector. There is a bright future for it and for those who work in it. We need to acknowledge that and provide more support to enable it.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
In the early 1970s, when I was seven or eight, I was taken to a performance of Bach’s St John Passion because my mum was singing in it. It was electrifying and magical, and it changed the course of my life. Eight years later, Bob Dylan had a similar effect. That is because great music, art and live performances change lives. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) rightly said, it is about not just the economic cost, but the social cost, particularly and ironically when, in a time of so much fear, uncertainty and loneliness, live performances and venues are so important to society.
Just outside my constituency sits the site of the Glastonbury festival—some of the far-flung campsites are in my patch—which brings in hundreds of thousands of visitors a year; supports gazillions of businesses such as pubs, hotels, restaurants, catering, transport, you name it; and brings in about £45 million a year to Somerset. Businesses are devastated. Many of them are really struggling because this year there was no Glastonbury festival.
This is not just about the big festivals, however; smaller venues are also affected. The Cheese & Grain in Frome is a member-owned social enterprise and registered charity that provides a huge boost to the cultural, economic and social life of Frome. It is now looking at making 40 of its 53 staff redundant and, having been closed for eight months, it may become insolvent. I know that the Chancellor is being held upside down so that people can steal money out of his pockets all the time, but if we do not help those businesses, they will go under and be devastated. I wrote to him and suggested a tourism and cultural resilience fund, with targeted support and grants to carry those businesses through the winter, and I urge the Minister and the Government to consider that carefully.
I have also said that the furlough scheme should be extended for businesses that are unable to open, and again, I hope that my words are being heard. In the west country, it is particularly important because the incidence of covid is very low, but the economic cost is very high. We must keep changing lives and supporting those whose businesses change lives.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to take part in this debate instigated by my fellow west London MP, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken).
For one of the smallest London boroughs, Hammersmith and Fulham packs a big punch creatively in the arts, theatre, live music and exhibitions. These institutions are the lifeblood of our cultural life, but also a main driver of the local economy. We have lost some iconic venues in the last few years, such as Hammersmith Palais and the Earls Court exhibition centre, but we have Olympia, which is undergoing a major renaissance, the Hammersmith Eventim Apollo and Shepherd’s Bush Empire, and three fantastic theatres—the Lyric, the Bush and the Riverside—all of which were thriving before covid hit and had new or substantially enlarged premises.
We have a lot of good smaller venues, such as Bush Hall, which has provided live music for 20 years. They are particularly vulnerable, because they do not have good income streams or reserves of finance, and many of them are in danger of closing down as we speak. The Lyric is consulting on losing about 20% of its staff. None of these theatres can stage productions, because on a 30% capacity they cannot make productions commercially viable.
They all do excellent community work, which does not appear to be reflected in the Government’s funding. Notably, the arts fund was directed to prioritise institutions of national or international significance, but that does not cover the whole body of good work that the institutions do. For example, there would have been 45,000 visitors to Christmas shows at the Lyric on Hammersmith Broadway. The Bush theatre is in one of the most deprived parts of my constituency and it drives a large part of the local economy. That is all suffering at the moment.
What do we need? We need a payment support scheme—either grants or loans, as applicable to the type of institution—to keep those institutions above the water line for the next year; it probably will be a year. We need support for freelancers—70% of people who work in this area are freelancers—and that has not been in place throughout the crisis. We need insurance, because without proper insurance schemes it will not be possible to put together productions and put them on at the risk of another lockdown. We need clarity, because it takes at least three months to put together such exhibitions or productions. We need the Government to say: “We will support you until lockdown has ended”. That is the only way we will achieve something. Without that, I fear for the cultural sector across my borough, which I care for deeply, and across the country. I hope the Minister will respond to this.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my neighbouring colleague, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for securing this important debate and for her important work on this issue over the last few months.
My constituency in Vauxhall is close to Westminster and we have a fantastic cultural centre. It contains many of Britain’s iconic cultural institutions—familiar landmarks to many people around the world—including the London Eye, the National Theatre, the BFI on the south bank and the South Bank centre. The origins of the South Bank centre date back to the festival of Britain, and it houses the Hayward Gallery and the Royal Festival Hall, which is home to the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
The south bank area of my constituency not only contributes to our culture’s enormous identity, but generates so much income and employment. My constituents work in a number of these organisations, and in the many auxiliary bars, hotels, restaurants and shops that support millions of tourists and visitors every year. These people are skilled freelancers—the backstage workers—and they need our support. Without them, these organisations would not be able to function.
Alongside those big, hard-hitting cultural heritage sites, we have smaller but no less important sites: live music venues and theatres, such as the Young Vic theatre and the historic Royal Vauxhall Tavern. Aside from their cultural importance, what makes them so special is that they are embedded in the communities where they are located. They bring a cultural, economic and social enrichment to the lives of our residents in the form of employment, and artistic and creative support programmes.
Last month, I had the honour of attending a socially distanced 50th anniversary celebration for the Young Vic theatre. The Young Vic is an incredible, innovative theatre that is embedded in schools and the community. Under the leadership of the inspiring playwright and director Kwame Kwei-Armah, it runs a year-round programme for residents, championing diversity. For those people who are traditionally under-represented in arts and culture, that is so important.
These organisations, from the smaller theatres to the big ones, will continue to suffer under the financial challenges of covid. We have seen a dramatic fall in audiences—and, in some cases, no audiences whatsoever. Many of my constituents who work in the sector will not return to business as usual, even as the lockdown eases. They will continue to be hit hard. In July, I welcomed the Government’s financial support, but it is now October and we have not seen that money come through. Will the Minister confirm when theatres will finally see the money, and will she lobby the Chancellor to ensure that our amazing culture sector gets the targeted support that it needs?
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), a fellow former council leader, for securing the debate. When I was first elected as the Member for Northampton South, one of my hopes and aims was regeneration of the town centre, both physically and in what it had to offer those who seek a cultural experience. Northampton has a lot to offer, from the iconic Royal & Derngate theatre, which I have visited many times, to the host of historical, archaeological and artistic treasures found at Northampton Museum and Art Gallery. We look forward to that development. There are also a large number of community-run drama projects, historical attractions and music venues that add to the cultural tapestry in Northampton.
I thank the Government for the £1.57 billion support package for the sector. Many businesses have been in touch thanking me for that support, but my worry, which is shared by many, is that a further support package will be needed to keep many of our local theatres and attractions open. As a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I know that local councils would like the Government to adopt a place-based approach to recovery by ensuring that councils are at the table for discussions, including at the new cultural renewal taskforce and the Tourism Industry Council. Councils are one of the biggest investors in cultural activity, spending around £1.1 billion a year, so they should be part of future discussions.
One often overlooked part of the culture and leisure sector is betting and gaming organisations. I have visited both Aspers and Grosvenor casinos in my constituency and, as the lockdown eased, I was invited to look at the covid-safe measures being implemented at considerable cost, including limits on capacity, perspex screens, hand sanitisers and social distancing. I was impressed by their efforts to comply with Government guidance, but the 10 pm curfew has put at even greater risk what has been, in these changed times, a precarious survival. I hope the Government will look at the 10 pm issue urgently. Otherwise, I am afraid that many casinos, including those in my constituency, will not survive. That is not to say I am a great fan of gambling; I just think it is better in a regulated environment for reasons of taxation and supporting the vulnerable.
I am grateful for the previous Government support, but, as we approach Christmas, the Government must look at how we can safely reopen this vibrant and vital sector, and focus on this. Although many economic sectors will suffer downturns and huge disruption as a result of the crisis, other distinct sectors either cannot operate at all, or cannot operate for practical purposes as a direct result of specific Government rules, sectorally or locally. They have an especial claim for direct compensation or support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing the debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with support from the Musicians’ Union.
I start with a message to all who work in the creative industries, and to musicians in particular: you are viable, you do matter and you deserve better, because you are the lifeblood of my constituency and our country, not just economically but for our soul. Everyone in the Chamber knows that. I think of the Wales millennium centre, the Glee Club’s stand-up comedy, the theatre and events sector and the amazing film and TV that goes on in my constituency. I think of dance, live music and so much more, which is crucial for our economy and crucial for our soul. All of this is devastating for me personally, as a singer and performer—I know that many others in this room who have come from the industry, whether professionally or semi-professionally, will be feeling the same—and it is devastating for my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth.
Yes, some are adapting. BBC Studios has adapted in a covid-safe way in Cardiff South and Penarth, and the world-leading Iris Prize lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender film festival is starting tonight virtually, online. That is fantastic, but many others simply cannot adapt in a way that is economically sustainable for them and those who work in their industries, and unfortunately the response of the UK Government has been too slow and too little, and too many are falling through the gaps. One major local music body has told me in the past two days that the Chancellor’s declarations about viable jobs are meaningless and insensitive in this context. I want to draw attention to the demands by the Musicians’ Union and many others in this sector, who have said that not only do we need to get musicians back to work safely as soon as possible—70% of them are currently unable to do more than a quarter of their usual work, in order to get the income that they normally rely on—but we need to expand the self-employment scheme, because 38% of musicians are ineligible for the schemes the Chancellor has set out. We also need individual support.
Kevin Brennan
Did my hon. Friend see the protest outside Parliament today by the Let Music Live group, where musicians came together to play some of Gustav Holst’s music? I join him in congratulating the Musicians’ Union on their work, including that of Horace, the general secretary, and Naomi Pohl, the wonderful assistant general secretary. I declare my own interest as a member of that union.
Stephen Doughty
I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. The scenes outside Parliament today were incredibly powerful; I was not able to be there in person, but I saw them online. They show the scale of devastation in the sector, but also those people’s wish to be able to perform and earn their livelihoods as they otherwise would.
We are well aware of the concerns that are affecting individual freelancers in Wales. The Welsh Government have announced a specific fund for freelancers; I am told that Arts Council England has been told that the money cannot be used to support individual freelancers in England, and I wonder if the Minister can explain why that is the case.
I am aware that over the past 24 hours, there have been some concerns and frustrations in my own constituency about being able to get funding from the freelancers’ scheme in Wales, which shows the huge demand and desperation that is affecting so many people. I want to reassure those who have raised concerns that I have been speaking to Ministers, as have others, and we have been assured that a second phase will be opening very soon, because the Welsh Government recognise that the demand is there. However, that scheme does not even operate in England. In Wales, a total fund of £53 million has been announced for the arts and culture sector; that is the most significant fund across the UK, and £7 million of it is ring-fenced for freelancers.
I will end by reflecting on a couple of the heart-rending messages I have received from constituents, showing the human cost of this crisis. One constituent, who is a friend and a musician, wrote to me saying, “I know many fully professional musicians who are in utter panic. It is their sole livelihood, and it is devastating to see them with distress etched on their faces.” He is thinking of leaving this country. We will lose this talent; it will go elsewhere. Another writes, “I am leaving the profession. There is no hope.”
We need to see better from the Chancellor and from Ministers. I was deeply concerned by the Chancellor’s comments today, when he said,
“It’s a very sad time…I can’t pretend that everyone can do exactly the same job”.
We all need to do better. We need to do better as a country, and we need to support these people through this crisis; otherwise, the cost will not only be to our economy but, crucially, to our country’s soul.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Charles, and to see the Minister in her place. Like many others, I express my thanks for the package the Government have put in place for the arts sector, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). She is right that as London MPs, we are extraordinarily proud of our city’s cultural offering and the economic benefit it gives to this nation. It would be remiss of me to not point out that this cultural offering is not just in central London. In Wimbledon, we have the New Wimbledon theatre, the home of panto; the Polka theatre, which is the best children’s theatre in the country; the Lantern arts centre, of which I am a patron; and many other small venues.
I will focus my remarks on the events industry. Back in March, I first mentioned in the House the problems that the supply chain into the hospitality industry and the live events industry was likely to have if support packages were not in place. The people who work in that industry—caterers, photographers, event planners, exhibition organisers, audio-visual engineers, musicians, actors, and more—simply have not been able to work at all, because events and exhibitions have all been stopped by the pandemic. I would suggest that it has affected this industry more than most others, and perhaps most of all. The Chancellor has put in place an extensive package, but there is a good case for looking at the industry.
In Wimbledon, as in so many parts of the country, we have extraordinary businesses—viable businesses—such as White Light and Oxygen Event Services. Only yesterday, the managing director of another events company—Nineteen Group—wrote to me saying that the sector does not want to go into hibernation; the exact opposite is true.
Like everybody, those businesses would like certainty. Like everybody, they want more help with money for jobs. I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), but he is right to say that one of the things the Government could do would be to put in place a guarantee package that would allow the industry to start having some certainty for planning for events for when we finish covid, hopefully at some stage next year. At the moment that certainty is not there, and a Government guarantee would work.
I had a Zoom meeting with my constituents Mark and Judy Faithfull last week. They pointed out that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and other Government Departments have been involved in test events. There was a test business trade exhibition, a test trade event at the Hilton in Canary Wharf in September and a test banqueting event. The industry does not understand why other parts of Europe and the world are looking opening up test events. Will the Government look again at the test events they attended, which proved that such events could be covid-secure? Will they look to open those up, so that the industry can thrive?
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate.
I am delighted that Coventry is set to become the UK city of culture in 2021. In the run-up to that event, however, our theatres, live music industry and other cultural attractions have been hard hit by the pandemic, with too little support promised far too later. Concerns raised by people in the arts and culture sector have been ignored by the Government. The arts and culture sector in Coventry enriches lives and employs hundreds of my constituents. Venues have rightly closed their doors to the public because of the pandemic but have, unforgivably, not been supported enough financially by the Government to ensure their viability once they open their doors again. Our theatres, live music venues and other cultural attractions play a big role in our local economy. Not only do they provide jobs to my constituents, but they ensure that other local businesses surrounding them benefit from increased footfall.
I want to pay tribute to community institutions such as Imagine theatre and Belgrade theatre, which have brought tears of laughter and joy to adults and children alike across Coventry. It is what they do best, but there is no such joy for them now. Without urgent care and consideration from the Government, my constituents might not have access to theatres to look forward to once the pandemic ends. Both of those prestigious theatres are confronted with potentially 22 months with no income whatever, with their productions postponed to 2021. They have no income, but the Government expect them to take back staff from 1 November through the job retention scheme.
Can the Minister tell me how the Government expect our theatre businesses to survive? The sector is facing mass redundancies, and many businesses will be bankrupt. How can we expect such industries to thrive post covid, or to be part of rebuilding our society, if the Government are not investing in them now to ensure the viability to safeguard jobs? If a better package is not delivered soon, up to 800 jobs could be lost from those two theatres in Coventry alone. That is 800 jobs too many.
We must do everything we can to support businesses in our arts and culture sector, both in Coventry and across Britain. Venues are a shining source of entertainment and culture, showcasing the very best of our country. The post-pandemic viability of the industry will depend on action—not taken later, not taken if or when it folds, but taken now. I am willing to work with partners, including the Government, to safeguard the sector.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Sir Charles, for my first Westminster Hall debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing it.
My son’s realisation that we were not living in normal times came about two weeks ago. We were talking about what we will do for Christmas, and he said to me, “We’re not going to be able to go the pantomime this year, are we?” That is something that really struck me. Going to the theatre to watch a live show, especially with children, not only brings families together; it makes everything great about being in Britain.
We all know why difficult decisions to pause performances have been taken, but we must not underestimate the wider, long-term impacts of those decisions. Understandably, a lot of the discussion around the theatre world is focused on the west end and major regional theatres such as the opera house in Manchester or the Liverpool Empire. This debate, however, is also about the contribution to the local economy. Just for a second, I want to highlight the contribution that live events make to our sense of community, such as the amateur dramatics society that uses the village hall to put on a run just for three or four nights. Those am-drams are the training grounds for future performers and technicians; everything that will make our vibrant theatre sector just as vibrant for years to come.
I want to highlight the impact for Warrington’s local economy of the closure of our local theatres. I am grateful to the team at Culture Warrington, which has provided me with some detailed insight into what has happened in the sector. The Pyramid arts centre and the Parr Hall stayed empty since mid-March. Losses for Culture Warrington are likely to top £1 million. I know they have been able to use some of the Government schemes but, sadly, redundancies are following. It is not just that performances are not going ahead, it is that the pre-theatre dinners, the after-show drinks and the wider impact also are not happening.
I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the £1.5 billion package the sector has benefited from. In recent weeks, however, I have been particularly struck by conversations with my constituents Dale and Adam Wilson from Great Sankey, a father and son who own sound and lighting company WH Leisure, which, in normal times, would be distributing and setting up equipment all over the country right now. They need additional support through the months when, frankly, they would have been making the money that keeps them afloat through the slower periods next year. With venues closed, we know that thousands of highly skilled technicians who work behind the scenes and put on the shows cannot return to work. Those are the people we need to offer additional support to. Their jobs will return once the Government allow performances to return.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I have the honour to represent Liverpool, Riverside, covering the city centre and the waterfront, with its world heritage status, which attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors in a normal year. There are five art galleries and four museums, including the International Slavery Museum, which is the only one in the country dedicated to the history of the transatlantic slave trade. People will have seen our streets and listed buildings in shows and films. In 2017, 289 films and TV shows were shot, contributing over £11 million to our local economy. We have five theatres, including the Everyman and Playhouse, two large arenas and music venues—too many to count. Liverpool is not a UNESCO city of music for nothing.
We might be synonymous with The Beatles, but the city has a rich and diverse music history that reaches back to the 18th century. Our Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra is the UK’s oldest continuing professional symphony orchestra, and it marks its 180th anniversary this year. We are a city that leads culturally, from the Merseybeat sound to Eric’s and the punk scene in the 1970s and 1980s to the global clubbing brand Cream. We are home to the annual Africa Oye, the largest festival of African music in the UK, and the Liverpool International Music Festival, which was the largest European music festival in 2018.
Liverpool has gone from strength to strength since its capital of culture days in 2008, doubling its visitor numbers and becoming synonymous with cultural innovation and creative excellence. We have a thriving independent sector and when our city does culture, it does it big, it does it loud and it draws people in. We only have to view the numbers who have visited our Giants spectacular. Liverpool boasts around 68 million visitors annually, bringing more than £5 billion to the city region and creating 57,000 related jobs—or it did, until covid-19. What was a booming sector is now facing a serious threat to its existence. While the additional culture recovery grant funding announced earlier this year by the Chancellor was very welcome, it is short term, a stop gap, a sticking plaster on a gaping wound: it does not address the looming funding crisis for many of our arts and cultural venues.
Liverpool is now under further local restrictions, which will severely limit visitor numbers and will pose a significant threat to the sustainability of our venues. At the heart of our famous and rightly celebrated scouse culture are people—performers, actors, musicians, producers, technicians and support staff. They are what makes Liverpool’s cultural sector punch above its weight. I will end with a quote:
“If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.”
That means financially supporting all of our artists.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this debate. She represents the west end—the national showcase for the world-leading UK theatre industry. However, it is an industry that extends throughout our four countries, and it is important that the roots are nurtured so as to ensure that the industry does not wither away.
In Waveney, there are five main theatres, which complement each other well and are deeply embedded in their communities—the Marina, in the centre of Lowestoft, with its 800-seat auditorium, the Players Theatre at the nearby former Bethel church run by the Lowestoft Players—one of East Anglia’s premier amateur theatre groups, for whom I am an ambassador—and the Seagull theatre in Pakefield, the Fisher theatre in Bungay and Beccles Public Hall, which are all run by volunteers. I shall briefly outline why those theatres are so vital in the area.
First, they are crucial to the future of our town centres, which are facing enormous pressures and undergoing dramatic change, not only as a result of covid but also due to the fast-changing face of retail. Secondly, the theatres are doing so much great work in the community. The Seagull runs dementia classes and engages with care homes and schools, as does the Marina, which, in 2019, in addition to performances, clocked up more than 5,000 engagements through its community outreach work. Thirdly, theatres nurture talent and enable people of all ages and all backgrounds to fulfil their dreams and realise their full potential. In 1953-54, Sir Michael Caine spent a year in Lowestoft in rep at the Arcadia, which is now the Hollywood cinema.
Finally, we must not forget what goes on back- stage. UK theatre has a well-established world-leading supply chain, which cannot function when there are no performances. In Lowestoft, Scenic Projects designs and builds sets and scenery, which it transports around the country.
The theatres in Waveney are getting out and helping themselves. The Marina has launched its survival fund and the Fisher theatre and Beccles Public Hall will be putting on special socially distant pantomimes, “Raiders of the Lost Panto” and “Inside the Snowglobe”. However, covid-19 has stopped them all in their tracks. The cultural recovery fund is welcome, but the money needs to get out quicker and get right across the country. Moreover, more support is required, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) has articulated in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate.
The Minister will have heard me speak last week when I was very proud to have an Adjournment debate on grassroots arts and culture in my home town of Luton, which I am proud to represent. Our creative sector promotes community cohesion, develops social capital and fosters happier, healthier lives. As many others who have spoken have said, so much of our culture takes place in our town centres, and that is why it is so important that we must secure the vibrancy of our cultural sector once more. I am proud that Luton town centre has had its purple flag status since 2018, which means it is safe, diverse and enjoyable for a night out in arts and culture. Like others today, I was infuriated by the display by the Chancellor of apparent contempt for those working in the creative sector, saying that musicians and artists should get another job if they are struggling due to coronavirus. Yesterday, I was contacted by many local pubs and music venues who say that there is demand for live music and that they want to operate safely. We must try to do what we can to save them.
We all enjoy and consume arts every day, as they have numerous social and economic benefits. People working in the creative sector should not be left excluded and their role in society deemed unviable. Last week I was proud to take part in the WeMakeEvents demonstration outside Parliament, supported by BECTU and Equity, because the sector is so vibrant and important in all our lives. The sectors are viable. They will be important after the pandemic and will play a crucial part in building back better. They must receive support. We cannot afford the skills to be lost.
This weekend I had the best and the worst of it. The best was that I went back to the Hat Factory in Luton and watched live theatre. In a 100-seat theatre there were 21 of us. We were socially distanced and covid-secure, and it was great to see the staff so proud to open their venue again. The same weekend I had the worst of it with Cineworld announcing tens of thousands of jobs being lost, including those in the Cineworld in my town centre. That is terrible news, and I have already had constituents getting in touch because they have been laid off with such little notice.
I have mentioned before to the Minister that Luton is a brilliant case study of how embedding culture in a local area’s growth strategy could provide a basis for building back better. Last year, our programme of culture, “people, power, passion”, employed 84 artists and trained 13 young people from diverse backgrounds. That is something to be proud of in our town. I will make sure I write to the Minister to invite her to visit Luton and our cultural offer.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I am going to speak up for Glasgow Central and our renowned cultural offer. We are also a UNESCO city of music. I want to talk about the many people that work in the communicative sectors, both in the limelight and behind the scenes. The band Ash tweeted earlier:
“Not just musicians though is it? It’s our technicians, our engineers, our management, our agent, our promoter. It’s the venues, their staff, the production companies, transport, storage. It’s roughly one million people you’re throwing on the job market”,
by not supporting the industry further. I would add to that the restaurants, bars and hotels and all of the people that work in them. An entire local ecosystem is at risk without further support in a sector that is worth £111 billion to the UK economy.
Some of the comments from the Chancellor and the Treasury have been quite hurtful to many people in terms of their role within the sectors. I will read a comment from one of my constituents, Jazz Hutsby. He writes,
“My partner and I are freelancers within Live Events and The Arts. To call this a career would not describe what our jobs mean to us. We have dedicated our lives to our practice, we trained specifically for this role. We are specialists in our field, make no doubt that we do not need to “get better jobs”, or to “upskill”. What we need is effective support. The rhetoric from Westminster over the last week has been, quite frankly, disgusting. Our vocation, our lives, have been deemed unviable. This was, as I’m sure you are aware, quite literally what the Chancellor suggested.”
I can tell the Minister that that was written before the comments on ITV earlier today. There is so much more that Jazz points out that needs to be done to support the sector by all Governments and by local government, and I will seek to pursue those issues with whoever can help.
I want to talk about the events and conferences sector because the Scottish Events Campus in my constituency of Glasgow Central employs more than 200 people, with additional people that come in for events. Exhibitions are worth more than £11 billion to the UK economy, but they and their suppliers have little or no support, and the ending of furlough could mean unemployment for around 114,000 people in the exhibitions sector, which is completely avoidable if the Government choose to support the sector. It is and will be viable. It just needs bridging to get to that point. Further job losses have been announced in Cineworld, and potentially the Odeon, which will affect my constituency.
Lastly, I want to talk about the museums sector. Museums Galleries Scotland has pointed out that as of last week only 160 of Scotland’s 423 museums and galleries are open. That is 38%. That might be a high point for the year as we go into winter and some have to close down for that. Some museums cannot open because they do not have the capacity to do so safely, social distancing makes their business model unviable, and their staff have been redeployed, or their volunteers are too vulnerable to come back in. The Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions found that only 28% of attractions that have reopened are opening at an economically sustainable level.
We need such sectors. We need them to survive for all our health and wellbeing, and for the cultural joy that we draw from these things. The Government need to get their finger out to provide the extra support to see them through the winter.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
There has been great self-discipline from Back-Bench colleagues and we have had two no-shows, so the Front-Bench speakers each have at most 11 minutes, which leaves the mover of our debate two minutes at the end. I call Gavin Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I do not intend to take up 11 minutes, Sir Charles, unless I am intervened on several times. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the local MP, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), on securing this important debate. She set out the stark statistics, and the real issues facing the creative sectors, very well.
There have been some fantastic speeches this afternoon. I do not have time to touch on them all, but the point made by both hon. Members for Cardiff, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] Apologies: he is lurking behind me—we can do the panto bit now. The point about the Chancellor’s attitude to those who work in the creative sector was very well made and one with which I very much concur.
I also agreed with the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) when he mentioned the importance of panto. My children would ordinarily be very much looking forward to Paisley’s PACE Youth Theatre panto this Christmas, but sadly that will no longer take place.
Of course, in the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), that great Renfrewshire commuter town that lies to the east of my constituency, we heard some fantastic points, particularly about the Scottish Event Campus in hers, which I frequent often.
As we enter the fag end, as I like to call it, of 2020—it has been that sort of year—we are looking to put this pretty desperate year behind us. If there were any justice in the world, we should be looking forward to Paisley celebrating its tenure as UK city of culture 2021. I have never spoken again to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury since he, as a Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister, announced Coventry as the winner of that competition—but in all seriousness, I wish Coventry well in 2021. I am sure that, despite the difficulties presented by the situation that we all face at the moment, it will deliver a fantastic and impactful programme and secure a great cultural, economic and social legacy from that.
The word “culture” still elicits a curious response from many. Culture is for everyone, but many still instinctively think of highbrow sophistication, snobbery and elitism at the opera or theatre. That is a long-held but unfair reputation. People are just as likely to sit next to a snob at a stand-up comedy act—as I did at the Stand in Glasgow last time I was there—as at the opera. In case anyone thinks that I am doing opera down, I should say that in my stint as the branch fundraiser, one of the more risky events—that ended up being one of the most successful and enjoyable events that Renfrew SNP ever held—was an opera concert at Renfrew town hall.
The truth is that culture, in whatever form, enriches us all, individually and collectively. That is the case whether it is live music in stadiums, village halls or the pub; theatre, including panto, and opera and theatre productions big and small; stand-up comedy; or, of course, museums and galleries.
Alison Thewliss
Missing from my hon. Friend’s long list is ballet, of course, and Scottish Ballet is based in my constituency. Does he share my sadness that its Christmas productions will not be going ahead as normal this year? And unless there is further support from the Government, there might not be theatres for it to host its productions in in the future?
Gavin Newlands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course—how remiss of me to forget ballet, particularly as my daughters are both dancers themselves. My hon. Friend made a very good point, and I hope that the Minister was listening to it.
In many of these sectors, the people who derive a livelihood from them, be they performers or staff who facilitate and assist the performers, are in severe financial peril. Of course, the Scottish Government have acted when the UK Government would not, or before the UK Government when they did. The Scottish Government were proactive and announced a £30-million creative, tourism and hospitality enterprises hardship fund, and £10 million has been provided to protect vital performing arts venues, with an additional £59 million announced in August.
We need the UK Government to step up. One has just to look, as others have mentioned, at the announcement by Cineworld of 5,500 people losing their jobs as the chain mothballs itself until the spring. That decision just proves the utter inadequacy of the so-called job support scheme. The Chancellor says that the scheme exists to provide support for viable jobs, so does the Minister think that cinema and the jobs that support it are no longer viable? Of course they are. These are the sorts of jobs that any job support scheme worth its salt should be protecting.
There are also the 125,000 jobs supported by concerts in the audio-visual and events sector, with companies such as Adlib and FE Live in my constituency, without which concerts just could not be delivered.
While we are on the subject of supporting those who earn their livelihood from this sector, let us turn to the self-employed, whom many have mentioned and who constitute a large number of workers in the creative industry because of the preponderance of freelance actors, performers, technicians and so on. We have heard today from Members across the Chamber that the Chancellor’s support for the self-employed is simply not enough. Not only is the level of financial support not enough, but not enough people qualify for support. Whereas the UK Government have failed to help those people, the Scottish Government have provided £185 million of targeted support for SMEs and the self-employed, and £5 million for creative freelancers specifically. The Chancellor must rethink his approach or a great many people across the UK will face a long, difficult winter.
Creative industries in Scotland account for 70,000 workers and 15,000 businesses, and are estimated to support about £9 billion of activity within the wider Scottish economy, contributing £5.5 billion to Scotland’s GDP. Edinburgh of course, has its world-renowned festival and fringe. The fringe alone provides 3,000 jobs and £173 million to the Scottish economy. We absolutely recognise the vital role played by creative businesses, which employ tens of thousands in Scotland. As others have said, the UK Government’s focus on financial viability alone ignores industries’ true value. Local live music venues provide meeting places and community hubs, and cultural events such as the Edinburgh fringe elevate global awareness of Scottish and British arts and culture. Not only that, but they bring culture and entertainment from all over the world to our doorstep.
The cultural sector is vital for preserving our national heritage, and connecting people. Its preservation is more important than mere economics. However, of course, the vast majority of Scots’ cultural engagement and entertainment is found not at the Edinburgh festival but in communities, towns and cities the length of the country. Ninety-three per cent. of the grassroots venue network faces permanent closure, and 34% of musicians are considering abandoning the industry completely. Those are stark figures, so I am glad that the £2 million-plus grassroots music venue stabilisation fund was announced by the Scottish Government. One of the recipients of that lifeline grant was the Bungalow in Paisley, a well-known venue and community interest company, which, for the past 40 years or so, has put on its stage every musical genre of up-and-coming-talent, spanning punk to big band jazz. Bungalow co-director Tommy McGrory said:
“This money is our lifeline. Without this money, we would find ourselves in a very serious position. We have just been limping on.”
It must be said that the Scottish grassroots music fund is, in relative terms, six and a half times the size of the UK Government’s comparable scheme for England. They must do more for this vital sector.
I have, despite what my colleagues may think, relatively broad cultural taste, but, to be honest, it is grassroots venues, be they live music or stand-up comedy, that I really miss—even some that are outwith my constituency, such as the 180-year-old Gellions bar in Inverness, the city’s oldest venue, which has bands such as Schiehallion featuring among the 650 gigs played there in a normal year. Live music is critical to venues like the Bungalow and Gellions bar, and as long as clinical advice continues to ensure that no indoor live music or comedy can be performed, the venues and performers must be supported.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that Paisley was robbed of the city of culture award, and it should be warming up to embark on its 2021 programme with the ninth year of the Spree festival, an extremely popular and growing celebration of music, arts and comedy, which should have kicked off this very Thursday. Sadly, it is just another event that has been cancelled because of the pandemic. It is fair to say that the bid itself will leave a legacy in the town for years to come, with £22 million being spent on plans to preserve Paisley town hall’s place at the heart of life in the area and turn it into a landmark performance venue, and £42 million on the transformation of Paisley museum into an international-class destination telling the story of the town’s pattern, heritage and people. I very much look forward to those great venues reopening, but I sincerely hope that, when they do, Renfrewshire will not have lost many of its grassroots and small venues, for that would amount to a pyrrhic legacy.
The SNP Scottish Government have supported the Scottish creative industries, but would like to do more. To do so, they need the financial powers and funding. The UK Government have tools at their disposal. As others have mooted, they could extend the 5% cultural VAT rate on tickets, in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. They could also provide a Government-backed insurance scheme to provide the music industry with the necessary confidence to reopen. Whatever they choose to do to support reopening they need to act now to deliver fuller support for those vital businesses, so that the Scottish Government can use the consequentials to support the Scottish creative and cultural industry. The UK Government must act now, or the damage of collapsed businesses and lost talent may be irreparable.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing this important debate. No one is a more passionate advocate for the west end than the hon. Lady.
Is it not delightful to be back in Westminster Hall, having proper debates? I cannot say how grateful I am to everyone who spoke in this debate. We have seen, across all parties, how everyone in the debate really cares about the cultural sector and the cultural industry. That includes people who worked in the industry, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), or as I did for three decades as a freelance actor and writer; musicians such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is a fantastic musician, and I urge everyone to buy his album; or people whose children are interested in the arts. We all know, too, the impact that the arts have on our own communities, for wellbeing, tourism and so on.
Obviously, we are in a difficult time. I will go through some areas on which great points have been made. On the events sector, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) talked about tests being done—can we see those tests being rolled out to open the sector up? The events sector feels absolutely abandoned and left to one side.
On community and how mental health is supported by work done in communities, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about the work in their constituencies. In Hammersmith, I know that work is being done on equality, inclusion and diversity. My concern is that, as we get our sector back on its feet, such work will be the low-hanging fruit that we will lose across the piece—that work with communities and schools, and on bringing on new writers from diverse communities. It is vital for such work not to be cut as we try to survive.
Pantomime is the first chance that most young working-class kids have to go to a theatre. The concern for pantomime was mentioned by the hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter). Last week, in a great demonstration, in the panto parade we saw a lot of the freelancers in their pantomime dame costumes. The dedication they give to their sector is really a joy to behold.
In Vauxhall, we have the Young Vic. I am so excited about the work being done there, and about its anniversary. On our museum sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, when we go to Liverpool we all know about the vibrancy and energy we get just from being on the streets, because the music-based passion for culture is at every corner.
Concerns were expressed about the involvement of councils and how we should support them. Theatres and music venues are civic centres. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) said that the council is one of the biggest investors, and that is absolutely true.
With tourism, we cannot get away from this—in the majority of our communities, tourism is held up by our cultural offer. My friend from the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, the hon. Member for Clacton, talked about his constituency and about the voucher suggestion—the seat out to help out. Any support for our regional theatres to open would be welcome.
Let us not forget the issue of freelancers. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) knows this perhaps more than others, because the BBC is in his constituency, but the BBC is held up by limited companies, freelancers, PAYE freelancers and creative freelancers, who come in and out for shows. They really need our support. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has done so much to raising the issue of the excluded and freelancers.
The Minister has shown great dedication in this area. While the Chancellor clarified his statements to ITV by saying that they were not specifically about musicians, there is a sense that the creative industries feel misunderstood, as we heard this afternoon. They will be the last to come back and the least supported. There is a sense that they are not viable or that the people in them could retrain. As we know, musicians spend all their lives, day in day out, learning their musical instruments. To be told to become a care worker instead will only lead to poor mental health and depression because they are not doing the thing they have trained for. The Minister is assiduous and I am sure she will take that point back to the Chancellor. What was said on ITV has impacted us all and deeply upset the industry, which does not feel that the Government understand its value.
We all want to see our venues get back to normality. We have heard today about their financial impact. We have also heard about the cultural hub of a community in terms of visitors, support for local restaurants, taxi firms, employment and our local economies more widely. During the summer months when restrictions were easing, we had a sense of positivity and excitement, but with local restrictions it is unfortunately unlikely that those activities will flourish.
The Government’s furlough scheme and self-employed income support scheme are very welcome. I am very grateful and I know other hon. Members are also grateful that that has been extended. However, it has been extended in a way that makes it impossible to use. How does a venue that cannot open contribute to a workforce’s salary? Sadly, we heard today about the RSC potentially laying off hundreds of its staff, which will be devasting for them and their communities. We have also heard from the sector that delays in the cultural recovery fund have brought great anxiety.
I thank the Minister for her letter, which I received today, regarding my concern around the “crown jewels”. In my mind, the crown jewels are our community offer as well as the west end—the ecosystem of regional and community theatres that the west end needs. We are all intertwined—push over one domino and the rest of the dominoes will fall. It is really important that the money does not only go to the crown jewels.
When I put a call-out on social media for freelancers to tell me their experiences of what is happening—perhaps slightly foolishly—my inbox exploded and I received over 4,000 responses from people I know and care about. Couples have lost a year’s work and still have childcare costs and a mortgage, and they are leaving the sector. We have heard from the Musicians Union that one third of musicians are thinking of leaving the sector. The support for freelancers could not be more needed. Cineworld’s 5,500 workforce is a tsunami of job losses. The training is not there for people who want to retrain. We have to put support in as fast as possible.
In the time I have left, I have a number of questions for the Minister that I hope she will address in her response. I work with a culture committee of people in the sector and we had a meeting this morning. My understanding is that there is still no news of who has the money. Will the Minister explain the delay? On what date will the successful organisations receive their funding? A number of organisations did not apply for funding, because of the restrictions. For example, to show that they have tried everything to stay afloat, they have fired all their staff, or they were unable to show that they could spend all the money from the Government by 31 March. With stage 5 now kicked further into the year, have those criteria changed? Does that mean that those organisations that originally did not apply because they did not fit the criteria will now have an opportunity to apply? Clarity on that would be extremely helpful. What was the total number of organisations that applied and what was the total amount of funding applied for?
For concerts and theatre to return with confidence, we really need an answer about insurance. I asked the Minister a question about insurance in DCMS questions, but she was unable to give me an answer. I am sure that there are lots of conversations going on with the Treasury. We have insurance for film and TV, and that is why they are back up and running. What does she know about the negotiations that are happening around insurance? Can she at least give us a chink of hope around that issue?
Have the applications for loan supports been greater than expected? If so, will the cost of additional loans be taken from other funding pots? Would the Minister explain the 10 pm curfew that applies to music venues but not to theatres? What evidence can she share with us that the 10 pm curfew will save lives? In order for venues to reopen, they have to spend money on covid safety costs. Will they get that money back, even if they do not get money from the ACE funding? Is there a contingency fund in place to help venues that reopen but have to close again? What framework is in place to support local authorities and metropolitan Mayors to work together to support those who need support? Finally, I was surprised to learn that the cultural taskforce has been wound up for now. Can she elaborate as to why that is? Is there a feeling that its job is now done? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The Minister has a lot to get through. Will she leave two minutes at the end for the Member who proposed the debate?
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure, Sir Charles, to serve under your fantastic stewardship, and to be back in Westminster Hall.
I will begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this really vital debate and on presenting her case so articulately. I also congratulate everyone else who has taken part. I feel like I have been on a whistle-stop tour up and down this country of some of the marvellous and magnificent arts and cultural venues that we have from Liverpool to Lowestoft, and from Clacton to Glasgow. We are world-renowned for our incredible arts and cultural sector, and we are very lucky to have great champions up and down our nations to support it here.
I thank the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) for her contribution. I must put on the record the fact that she is always very pragmatic and supportive in the way in which she approaches her role, and she asks legitimate questions; I will try to answer most of those she asked, but if there are any that I do not manage to answer today, I will, of course, write to her with the answers. This is a terrible time and it is really important to work as constructively and co-operatively as we can to support this sector, which we care so passionately about.
It has been evidenced today by what people have said that our cultural and creative sectors are one of the UK’s greatest success stories; in this regard, I think that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster speaks on behalf of a London constituency, as did many other speakers, but up and down the country the attractions that we are discussing are the heart of an ecosystem.
My hon. Friend talked about the co-dependence of west end theatres and live music venues, museums and galleries, and the health of the hospitality sector, including hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, taxis and, of course, the night-time economy. That situation is reflected up and down the country, with a theatre or gallery offering a cultural heart to a community. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who I think is no longer here in Westminster, said that in many cases cultural institutions were embedded in the heart of a community and driving economic prosperity in a range of other sectors that support or surround them.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) very kindly invited me to articulate my commitment to those who work in this sector and of course I am very proud to do so, as I am committed to them. These are proper jobs; these are jobs that are vital. Indeed, the people doing these jobs can do something that very few other people in this world can do. They can not only entertain but educate, they can lift spirits, they can improve mental health and wellbeing, they can take us to places that we have never been to before and open our eyes to the world around us, and they can genuinely offer young people from some of the most difficult and disadvantaged backgrounds a glimmer of hope as to what they can be, where they can go and what the world can potentially offer them.
I recognise the devastating impact that covid-19 has had across the arts and culture sector, on businesses and their staff, on freelancers, on those who rely on the sector and on many other people who helped to make it such a success.
As many hon. Members have articulated, the Government stand with the culture sector. We are making the biggest ever one-off investment of £1.57 billion, with hundreds of millions in loans and grants due to be allocated in the days ahead. That is in addition to the £160 million emergency fund that Arts Council England made available at the outset of the pandemic to venues that were struggling over the summer.
I will leave the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) to pick a fight with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) about which city was the most deserving of the city of culture. I am looking forward to coming to Coventry to celebrate with her in the year ahead. She said nothing had been done, but Coventry alone has had £2,123,690 in support from Arts Council England this year. Of that, over £730,000 was emergency funding for support through the covid crisis. That is before we have started finally allocating the rest of the culture recovery fund.
We are doing everything we can. The funds will be used to help support the performing arts, theatres, museums, heritage, galleries, independent cinemas and live music venues across the country, and we are determined that every region of the UK should benefit. It is also vital that the work of the Department is able to continue to support and celebrate people who are so vital to the cultural life of the nation and the communities that they work in. We want the money to go right across England. We want to ensure they get that funding, as well as the funding from the Barnett formula. That money will help the levelling-up agenda, and that is why we included the geographical balancing criteria in the fund. I am pleased that the first funds to be allocated went to grassroots live music through the emergency grassroots music venues fund, and to independent cinemas through the £30 million British Film Institute fund.
Of course, our world-beating cultural and creative industries are absolutely nothing without the people who work in them. Without such people, they are just buildings. We know the importance of protecting jobs and livelihoods in the creative arts sector. Through the furlough scheme we have protected 303,000 jobs, with claims totalling £1.47 billion. The self-employed income support scheme was taken up by 64% of eligible arts and entertainment workers, with grants totalling £153 million. The Chancellor has announced that the scheme will be extended. The universal credit system has been extended and made more generous, but we know that so many people are still falling through the gaps and are not being supported.
The situation is heartbreaking. My father has been in broadcasting for what feels like many hundreds of years, but I think it is about 55. He was a freelancer for all of my childhood. I know how stressful it is for a family—now more than ever. The one thing that such people want to do, more than anything, is to get back to work. The £1.57 billion culture recovery fund will help to do that. It will help to secure the future of the performing arts and live events sector, and it will help to protect jobs. However, the sector needs money in the meantime. That is why, to complement the Government funding, ACE has announced £95 million of additional support for individuals and freelancers. It is also opening another round of “Developing your Creative Practice”, which is an £18 million project to help individuals in the arts to develop new creative skills.
I understand that operating with reduced seating capacity is just not viable for some venues at the moment. I want to see such institutions reopen their doors as soon as it is safe for them do so, and we are working extensively with the sector on how to achieve that. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen asked about what sorts of committees and cultural hubs are working on this issue. We have various working groups that sit under the main cultural board. In some cases, the working groups have been meeting weekly since February, and they continue to do so. The work on this issue is by no means done, and it continues regularly.
Last week, I visited the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra at the Lighthouse in Poole. It shows that the dedication and passion of such cultural institutions is bringing our arts back to life. The stage has been enlarged so that the whole orchestra can fit on it and play in a socially distanced way. By doing that, it has ensured that the orchestra’s weekly Wednesday night performances have now restarted, with a mixture of live—socially distanced—and livestreaming audiences, courtesy of the venue’s incredible first-class digital team. They have already sold 11,500 tickets for performances between now and Christmas. That is an absolute credit to their tenacity, talent and overwhelming determination to bring their magic back to the audiences who utterly depend on them. I give credit to them and to others up and down the country who are doing the same.
A number of west end theatres have made steps towards reopening: Nimax Theatres, which owns the Apollo, Duchess, Garrick, Lyric, Palace and Vaudeville theatres, is planning to welcome audiences back with a combination of some previously running shows, as well as some new stuff. The National Theatre is preparing the Olivier auditorium for some socially distanced in-the-round performances.
We are aware that many in the sector would like greater clarity on the potential transition to stage 5, given the planning that they need to do to remobilise and the lead-in time required for programming, casting and rehearsing. We have always said that, of course, further openings will depend on the public health context. We have a venue-steering group, including representatives from leading sector organisations, as well as Public Health England and other experts, to develop an action plan for maximising activity under stage 4 and for how we proceed to stage 5, which is the silver bullet—opening everything up. DCMS will continue to work with the sector to establish an appropriate pilot process for testing and return to stage 5 activity when appropriate, and we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on its Moonshot project.
Many hon. Members have asked me about an insurance scheme. We are aware that there are many calls for something similar to the one that we have produced for film and TV production. Of course, Members must understand that there is a high bar for intervention in the insurance market. The film and TV restart scheme that we introduced worked because it was the absolute last barrier. We were 100% clear that access to insurance was the final remaining obstacle to them being able to reopen. We are looking at that for theatres, but to intervene, I need evidence that insurance is the only obstacle to opening the doors again. I am really grateful for the evidence that has been provided and am keen for Members and their constituents to keep it coming. I know that DCMS and Treasury colleagues are working closely together and are monitoring the situation in the sector.
We want to see full audiences return as soon as possible, but we have always been clear that moving to stage 5 will ultimately be determined by the public health context. We are working at pace with the sector on innovative proposals for how full audiences can return when it is safe to do so. I really hope that hon. Members across the House are reassured that my ministerial colleagues and I are absolutely dedicated to doing everything that we can to support this incredibly important sector, which not only makes a difference to people’s lives but, in some cases, saves lives. We are acutely aware of the harm that covid-19 has done across the whole of the country, and we understand its significance to the people and organisations who make up our globally recognised sectors.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and other hon. Members that we are doing everything that we can to help, so that when we emerge from the pandemic, our cultural organisations will once again be ready to welcome international tourists, visitors from across the UK and those who live and work here.
Nickie Aiken
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and thank the Minister for her words. It is obvious that she is passionate about the arts and culture sector, and I take her assurance that she will look into the insurance scheme—we will provide more evidence to her—and that DCMS is keen to get to stage 5 as soon as it is safe.
Although I am a central London MP, the reason I wanted to secure this debate is because this issue affects every single one of us in the House—that was clear from everybody who spoke. It really hit me when my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) mentioned that his son said that he cannot go to pantomime this year. The speeches today brought back so many memories: going to my first pantomime at the New Theatre in Cardiff with my nan; taking my kids to their first pantomimes at the Lyric Hammersmith and the New Wimbledon Theatre; taking them to Liverpool to see the fantastic offer there last summer; taking them to the Tate; and taking my daughter to her first production of Shakespeare at the National Theatre.
It has been a real delight for me to hear hon. Members’ speeches, but it has also been very sad. We have talked about the local economy, but this is also about health and wellbeing and the memories that arts and culture leave us, our families and our constituents. It is so vital that we continue to campaign to ensure that we can open our arts and culture venues as soon as it is safe to do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Universities
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members as they take their seats that, with the new rules, they should make sure to wipe their microphones and everything else. That is part of the arrangements that we have all agreed to. I have just done mine. Welcome to the debate. Four Members have indicated that they would like to make speeches—please keep speeches very short as the Minister needs to have time to reply. I call Christian Wakeford to move the motion.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the adoption by universities of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, I am grateful to be leading my first Westminster Hall debate on such an important and timely subject, which has been widely publicised in recent days. It is extremely important not only to the Jewish community in my constituency, but to Jewish communities, students and their families across the country.
I wish to start by saying that this debate is not a means of attacking the Government.
In fact, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Government for their efforts on this issue, which go back over three years. The former hon. Member for Orpington, the soon to be Lord Johnson, first wrote to all universities in February 2018 to encourage them to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. In May 2019, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), as Universities Minister, again wrote to all universities, urging them in stronger terms to adopt the definition. More recently, in January this year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) wrote to all universities demanding that they adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism or face funding cuts.
Following those ministerial interventions and successive freedom of information requests undertaken by the Union of Jewish Students, we are now in a position where 29 out of 133 higher education institutions have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, with half of the Russell Group of universities among that number. Although that number is low, at 21% of higher education institutions, it is a marked increase on where we were three years ago. I thank my right hon. Friends for their part in making that progress. While I am heartened to see that a further 17 higher education institutions are to discuss the IHRA definition and its adoption in the coming months, it is extremely concerning that 80 institutions have confirmed that they have not adopted the IHRA definition, nor do they plan to do so. For those doing the maths, seven institutions failed to respond to freedom of information requests, which is of further concern.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe that universities have a moral duty to do everything they can to combat antisemitism and that failing to take up the IHRA definition is a dereliction of that moral duty?
Christian Wakeford
I completely agree. All universities have not just a moral obligation but a duty to ensure that our Jewish students are safe on campus.
The main reason that those institutions gave was that they believed their current policies were sufficient. I do not agree. The IHRA definition sets out clear examples of what is or is not antisemitic to defuse any conflation with anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment. Their second reason was that there is no need for a specific definition of antisemitism. Again, I disagree, with my thoughts in line with those on the first reason: it is for Jewish students and the wider Jewish community to define what antisemitism is. With IHRA now having universal acceptance, they have my support in pushing for that definition to be adopted as soon as possible.
The third and perhaps most disturbing reason given for not adopting the IHRA definition is that institutions consider it a threat to academic freedom of speech. That is of particular concern as, where the IHRA definition of antisemitism has not been adopted, that has given academic staff more influence in defining what is and is not antisemitic. Prior to its adoption at the University of Bristol, we saw in July 2019 it refuse first to open any disciplinary action against controversial lecturer David Miller and then to use the IHRA definition once the case was opened. That said, the university has since adopted the definition, for which I am grateful.
The University of Warwick has refused to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and has no plans to change its view. In August, it found that a lecturer who said
“The idea that the Labour party is antisemitic is very much an Israeli lobby kind of idea”
had not been antisemitic, despite that being contrary to the IHRA definition.
This debate—and, indeed, previous requests by Members to universities—is intended not to be a stick with which to beat the higher education sector or its institutions but as a first step in ensuring that our many world-leading institutions across the sector take accusations of antisemitism seriously and do their utmost to protect all Jewish students and staff members. The IHRA definition and its clear examples are indeed a cornerstone in combating antisemitism in a manner in which Jewish students and the wider Jewish community can be confident. Those universities that have not adopted the definition need only to look to their peers to see what benefits there are from doing so. As we approach a point at which we have a greater proportion of football clubs adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism than higher education institutions, now is the time to act.
To make universities safe for Jewish students, why stop at adopting IHRA? We must go much further, ensuring that no-platforming, whether overtly or through the back door by imposing unreasonable security and higher charges, is brought to an end. When a university has effectively boycotted the Israeli ambassador, stopping him attending and speaking at an event, that is not right.
I have heard further concerning evidence of this nature where pro-Israeli speakers and, indeed, the ambassador have been turned away due to security concerns. Several Jewish students have been in contact about the issues they face just by being a member of a Jewish society, whether that be casual racism along the lines of, “I don’t mean to be Jewish but you owe me money” or having to provide their own security for events because the university refuses to support them. Although I have nothing but praise for the work that the Community Security Trust performs in the community, students should not be put in a position where they have to keep event locations secret or provide security for themselves because their university refuses to support them.
Saqib Bhatti
I put on record my thanks to the CST for all the work it does. I certainly hope that, with the work that the Government are doing and what my hon. Friend is saying, we can build a future where our children can go and pray freely and we can speak about these issues without fear.
Christian Wakeford
My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. I am extremely fortunate that the Community Security Trust is based in the neighbouring constituency to mine, and that I have a very good relationship with its directors.
To return to the fact that universities are not supporting their students, I will use this forum right now to speak to my old university, the University of Lancaster: if they expect an alumnus who is pro-Israel to stay away, they should think again. I welcome the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) in her role as Minister for Universities, in ensuring that Jewish students are not discriminated against as timetables are extended to cover Fridays and even Saturdays, so that no student is forced to attend a lecture or seminar if they are observing shabbat.
Public opinion and the views of the Jewish community show that there is a demand for change and swift action to be taken. I call on our world-class higher education institutions to take note before future students vote with their feet.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this important debate. It is not a theoretical debate about a definition and which words are just about right; it is a real issue. Antisemitism is a very real problem on our campuses.
I will talk about my experience when I was at the University of Manchester between 2005 and 2008. It was just after the Iraq war. A group of students from the Socialist Workers party had seized control of the students union. The atmosphere on campus was absolutely horrendous. A friend who was Jewish and had the temerity to be elected to the students union was subject to death threats. The incident that sticks out most in my mind was back in 2007, when the union voted to twin with the An Najah University on the west bank, a university that is repeatedly linked to Hamas, a terrorist organisation that is openly committed to the genocide of the Jewish people.
Following the union’s successful vote to twin with that organisation, I was standing with a small group of Jewish students while hundreds and hundreds of students stood on the union steps chanting, “2, 4, 6, 8, let’s destroy the Zionist state; 3, 5, 7, 9, death to Jews in Palestine.” That happened in the centre of Manchester, one of our major cities, on our streets, in our lifetime. That was an absolute disgrace.
The situation was so bad that groups of Conservative students, Labour students and LibDem students worked together with a local Jewish society to try to take down the cabal that was running the students union. The irony is that many of those who fought together against antisemitism on the campus have since left the Labour party, and many of the members of Socialist Workers party have found themselves to be big supporters of the previous Leader of the Opposition.
I am pleased to see that the University of Manchester has now adopted the IHRA definition, but I am disappointed that the University of Derby, which I partly represent with the Buxton campus, has so far not done so. I call on it, and other universities, to adopt the definition. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty and lets our students down.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for securing this important debate.
I am disgusted that we stand here today, in 2020, to condemn the ways in which universities have not only refused to engage with or listen to students, but, as in the instance of the University of Warwick, have been gaslighting Jewish students and the wider Jewish community. The institutional hijacking of freedom of speech that is currently being used as a façade for universities and professors to scurry behind is appalling.
In May 2019, a previous Minister for Universities sent a letter to all universities in the United Kingdom to encourage them to adopt the IHRA definition. Hot on the heels of the letter was the president of the Jewish/Israeli society at the University of Warwick, who sent his own letter, as a representative of Jewish students at Warwick, further imploring the vice-chancellor Stuart Croft to heed the advice of the Government and adopt the definition. The Jewish/Israeli society president was met with nothing but silence for over six months. When a copy of this letter was hand-delivered to Stuart Croft’s office, the response that came one week later was that the definition offered “no added value.”
Two inconclusive meetings were held, and a promised third in March was delayed initially, but never rescheduled. A further letter was sent in mid-July by Jewish community leaders, which has also gone unanswered.
In November 2019, a lecturer became the epicentre of the university’s apathy when academic Dr Goldie Osuri declared that antisemitism in the Labour party was
“an Israeli lobby kind of idea”,
evoking the age-old trope of malign Jewish power. When a formal complaint was made, Osuri emailed all students on the module to say that they should look at the work of Jewish Voice for Labour which, in her words, believed Labour’s antisemitism problem was “orchestrated”. The investigation was spearheaded by the head of sociology, Professor Virinder Kalra, who had previously expressed public opposition to the IHRA definition. He concluded that Osuri’s comments remained
“within the principles and values of tolerance and free speech”.
An appeal was rejected, and students were left feeling unsafe, attacked and gaslit. The process of complaint has now been exhausted. It is unimaginable and unacceptable, and such people should be removed from our university sector.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for securing today’s debate. It is important that we keep pressing universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and I am proud that our Government have been helping the Union of Jewish Students and others such as the Jewish Leadership Council, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Community Security Trust, and local champions such as Ruth Jacobs in the west midlands who work really hard to get councils and universities to adopt the definition.
However, I am deeply saddened when the argument is made that in order to protect freedom of speech, the IHRA definition cannot be accepted. What world are we living in where we are more concerned about protecting our right to be racist than the right of minorities to live without fear or intimidation on our university campuses? Too often that argument is made by those concerned about the consequences of their own language. I ask those people to learn, engage, and understand why it is so important to adopt this definition, so that institutions can have the tools genuinely and fairly to distinguish between what constitutes antisemitism and what does not. Adopting the definition harms no decent person, but allows communities to trust that these institutions are doing what is right.
I want to use this opportunity to briefly highlight what more universities can do to tackle this age-old hate crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South has acknowledged. So many universities are going above and beyond, and I am proud that the Government have provided another three years’ funding for the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Union of Jewish Students to continue their joint venture, educating students about the Holocaust and the consequences of antisemitism. So far, 30 senior leaders and 95 sabbatical officers from 47 English universities have attended the project. As a result, at least 24 universities marked Holocaust Memorial Day in 2019, reaching over 6,000 people. As well as holding commemorative events, participants in the project invited survivors to speak and share their testimony on campus, brought forward motions to combat antisemitism at their student union, and hosted events with speakers highlighting the dangers of antisemitism and hatred.
Thanks to support from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Union of Jewish Students will be expanding the “Lessons from Auschwitz” universities project for student unions and campus leaders. That will bring together almost 450 student leaders from across English universities through education on the Holocaust, anti-racism work, British values and faith values. I pay tribute to all that HET and UJS do to tackle antisemitism wherever it may appear.
Adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism is just the start. It is the beginning of universities’ efforts to prevent this age-old hate crime from having a safe space on our university campuses. Universities should be places where all should thrive, and no one should fear not belonging because of who they are or where they are from.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. I think we are just about to have a vote, so rather than interrupt the Minister as she is responding, it is probably best if we suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. I will certainly not resume the sitting until the Minister and the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) get back, and then hopefully we can get down in the queue and move forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this important debate, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) for their contributions. I also acknowledge the very personal contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who recalled his own experiences of religious hatred during his student days.
It is very good to be back in Westminster Hall, where views can be aired openly. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this topic as I stand in for my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, who has been self-isolating today awaiting a covid-19 test, which I am glad to report has come back negative.
The Government are clear that there is no place for religious hatred in our society. Racism of any kind should not be tolerated anywhere, including in our higher education institutions. Higher education providers should be at the forefront of tackling the challenge of antisemitism and, indeed, all racism and religious hatred, making sure that the higher education experience is a genuinely fulfilling one and a welcoming experience for everyone. Higher education providers have obligations, in particular under the Equality Act 2010, and their policies and procedures must be appropriate to ensure that they are complying with the law.
In 2016, the Government adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. We were the first country to adopt that definition and it is an important tool in tackling antisemitism. Universities have a big role to play. We expect them to be welcoming and inclusive to students of all backgrounds, and the Government continue strongly to encourage all higher education providers to adopt the IHRA definition, which would send a strong signal that higher education providers take those issues seriously. However, they are autonomous institutions and that is also set out in law. As such, the decision on whether to adopt the definition rests with individual providers.
The Government have taken action, however. In 2019, the then Universities Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to 130 institution heads to outline the importance of the definition and to strongly encourage the providers to consider adopting it. On Holocaust Memorial Day this year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced new funding of £500,000 over three years for a programme supporting universities in tackling antisemitism on campus. The Government will continue to call on providers to adopt that important definition. It is a decision for vice-chancellors, but I urge them all to listen to their staff and students, as well as to the wider community and, indeed, our proceedings.
Without doubt, the university experience of many Jewish students is overwhelmingly positive. However, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK remains a cause for concern, including in our universities. The Community Security Trust statistics for 2019 show record numbers of antisemitic incidents. Furthermore, in the first six months of this year, the number of incidents of antisemitism involving universities rose by an alarming 34%, compared with the same period in 2019. That is absolutely unacceptable and shows how much further the sector has to go to tackle the issue. Recent statistics also show that the way in which antisemitism is manifesting itself is changing—for example, there are increased reports of online incidents. I am concerned at the way in which religious harassment has evolved at this time of global crisis.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government have made it clear that higher education providers have a responsibility to their students to ensure that they continue to be able to access support and the complaints procedures. As universities begin to teach the autumn term, it is more important than ever that students feel able to report incidents of antisemitism and other hatred. We expect higher education providers to have a zero-tolerance approach to all racial harassment and religious hatred and to act to stamp it out, whether it is on campus or online.
I call on all leaders to step up their efforts to address this issue within their institutions. Adopting the IHRA definition is one way of showing that antisemitism is not welcome, although adoption alone does not mean that our work is done. Hon. Members are no doubt aware of activity to tackle antisemitism that has already happened across the higher education sector. For example, in 2015, the Government asked Universities UK to set up a taskforce to address harassment and hate crime. That taskforce resulted in the “Changing the culture” framework, which was published in 2016. Much of that has shaped work across the sector.
In 2019, Universities UK published a report on the impact of “Changing the culture”, and it showed that progress had been made, especially in certain areas of focus, particularly student-to-student sexual harassment, but work remained underdeveloped in other areas, including hate crime. In particular, the report emphasised the requirement for further senior leadership buy-in and investment to enable culture change. UUK then committed to convening an advisory group on racial harassment in higher education, which would include vice-chancellors. That group is soon to publish guidance for the sector.
The Government have worked with partners, including UUK and the Office for Students. Through ministerial guidance, the Government have tasked the Office for Students with supporting efforts to tackle harassment and hate crime in higher education. As a result, the OFS has provided £4.7 million for a range of projects over four years.
In conclusion, we will continue to work across Government to ensure that racism and religious hatred of any kind are not tolerated anywhere, particularly our world-leading universities. We call on leaders across the sector to do more to ensure that a zero-tolerance approach is taken. As a Government, we have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism and have encouraged universities to do so. We will ask them to do this again and we will be clear that there is much more progress to be made. Our universities should be inclusive and tolerant environments. They have such potential to change lives and society for the better. I am sure that our universities are serious in their commitment to tackle racism and hatred, but much more work remains to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Alternative Fuelled Vehicles: Energy Provision
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy provision and alternative-fuelled vehicles.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts; it is very good to see you in the Chair. I thank all those who were involved in granting me this debate today.
Let me start with an uncomfortable, some would say inconvenient, truth:
“Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen. We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will.”
Those were the words of Al Gore some 14 years ago. The real truth, however, is that while we have some, possibly many, of the solutions, we are perhaps showing insufficient will.
In that same year, Lord Stern produced his climate change report. Fortunately, those calls were heard by the last Labour Government and they acted fast. In a global first, Labour legislated, with the Climate Change Act 2008 establishing the Committee on Climate Change, which has been responsible for recommending carbon budgets and a series of rolling targets for greenhouse gas emissions, to take the UK on a path to reduce emissions by 80%, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050.
Gore said that we must have the determination to bring about change. The inconvenient truth is that if we do not have it, and if the Government do not lead the way with the necessary determination and conviction, we will all be the victims of permanent climate change. He said that it is about making choices, both as individuals and as Governments. Labour’s Climate Change Act was a turning point. The carbon targets or budgets have been met primarily through addressing power generation, but transport remains an issue.
For the past decade or more, the contribution of carbon dioxide emissions from surface transport has remained broadly flat, at around 27%, having fallen just 3% between 2008 and 2018, according to a Committee on Climate Change report. That is the context in which we must view the importance of challenging the sector. It cannot be left to the vehicle manufacturers or the energy providers to take financial risks in the absence of certainty from Government. Nor should consumers, who rightly want to do the right thing, be penalised or disadvantaged by being first movers, only to find that the Government fail to match their ambition.
Certainly, the industry strongly supports the decarbonisation of road transport, recognising the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both today and on the pathway to achieving net zero. Across the sector, it is investing significantly to deliver smart and sustainable mobility, and it is rightly calling for the right eco- system and for enablers to support consumers with their transition to ultra-low or zero-emission vehicles. As such, a comprehensive, multi-sector strategy is needed, including key elements of energy decarbonisation, investment in infrastructure and transitional consumer incentives to enable it to happen.
Let me consider in turn the strategies required for the market, industry, energy and skills, for each of which the role of Government is fundamental. It would be easy to leave it to the market and say, “Well, it’s not working. The upfront investments are too great to choose the wrong product or technology.” Manufacturers certainly cannot transform the market alone. Market frameworks and certainties are required to give consumers and businesses confidence to take the leap into these technologies and to power our transition towards alternative fuels. Understandably, until these vehicles are as affordable to buy and as easy to own and to operate as conventional cars or other vehicles, the consumer or business will not travel with the technologies. In the first half of the 2010s, fewer than 25,000 new plug-in cars and vans were sold in total. Last month, battery electric and plug-in hybrid cars made up one in 10 registrations of new models, which is a substantial amount.
It would be easy to compare and contrast with countries such as Norway, but it has a very different industrial base, and very different consumers and energy provision. It is far better to look at our peers, such as France and Germany, and see what is going on there. We need to avoid over-deliberating about technologies and make a decision—not a UK-only decision, but one that reflects where other primary markets and tech developers are moving. We need to decide the appropriate energy power unit for passenger vehicles, both solo and multiple occupancy, as well as for commercial vehicles, both autonomous and manned. The same applies to buses and mini-vans; heavy goods vehicles and specialist industrial, commercial and military vehicles, including refuse vehicles, such as those produced by Dennis Eagle in my constituency; and earth movers and others such as JCBs and those produced by businesses such as Thwaites, just outside my constituency in Warwickshire.
I turn to the industrial strategy that is required. Naturally, we all want to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of any new technologies. Of course, the UK should have the ambition to take a lead in the ultra-low emission vehicle market and be a leader in manufacturing. We need to attract new investment, including upskilling the workforce, which I will come back to. We need battery factory investment, with the supply chain development to go with it, and strategic research and development investment at a globally competitive level, such as that at the Advanced Propulsion Centre at Warwick University. We also need the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre, which is currently being built just outside Coventry and is due to open later this year. The Government supported the collaboration by Coventry City Council, the local enterprise partnership and Warwick Manufacturing Group, which were awarded £80 million.
Developing the technology is one thing; commercialising it is another. We presently have zero gigafactories, while other countries already have them or are establishing them. Sadly, we missed out on Tesla, which decided to invest in Germany, in a factory just outside Berlin, to produce batteries, battery packs, powertrains for use in Tesla vehicles, and to manufacture the new Tesla Model Y. It will produce 500,000 units a year, employing 7,000 people. The company was attracted to the UK, so Elon Musk says. However, it wanted to be at the centre of Europe, so, sadly, the Brexit decision meant that it was a safer bet for Tesla to invest elsewhere.
As Tesla shows, an industrial strategy needs to be underpinned by a super-low-carbon energy strategy. The energy needs of manufacturing must be supplied by renewables and low-carbon sources, particularly given that the manufacturing processes demanded in EV production cost up to one-third higher than those for an internal combustion engine vehicle.
Energy strategy is a crunch area for the UK and, ultimately, a deal breaker. UK electricity prices are 68% above the EU average, according to data from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in 2018, having risen by 55% since 2010. It is a seriously burdensome premium that the manufacturing sector has to pay. A 2018 University College London report found that our European neighbours had reaped the benefits of better interconnections, more cross-border trading and long-term supply contracts. Although the Prime Minister announced in the last 24 hours more offshore wind-generation capacity, we need to embrace more onshore wind, to seriously drive down energy costs.
I turn to network and planning and the importance of delivering energy locally to manufacturing and to the consumer. The present infrastructure is far from adequate. Significant and urgent investment is required to create an accessible, ubiquitous and interoperable network of public electric charging—likewise for natural gas and hydrogen refuelling points—so that consumers find it as easy as filling up from a petrol pump.
National Grid says that net zero will require significantly higher levels of electricity generation. In one scenario, it forecasts that by 2050 we will require almost three times more capacity than we have today. Even in the slowest decarbonising scenario, it foresees a 75% reduction in total energy demand for road transport, which is really positive. Although hydrogen will play a role, electrification is key to the decarbonising of transport, with at least 60% of all road transport being electrified in National Grid’s forecasted scenarios.
Critical to this is a massive increase in the number of charge points, which will require a strategic national plan, delivered locally. I appreciate that the Government announced Project Rapid 12 months ago, with a £500 million investment. According to Frost & Sullivan’s analysis for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, however, a total of 7 million charge points will be needed by 2030, of which just under 2 million would be public. By 2035, the requirement will increase to a total of just under 12 million.
For motorway travel, 7,000 150 kW charge points will be needed in motorway service areas. According to the electric vehicle charging app Zap-Map, the UK currently has only 19,000 on-street charge points. That means we will need to install more than 500 chargers across the UK every day to meet our 2035 target. Although those numbers seem huge, they are what is needed if we are to address consumer perceptions and recharging fears. According to a recent Savanta ComRes survey on behalf of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, 44% of car owners are discouraged from buying an EV because of a perceived lack of local chargers. If we are to meet this challenge, Governments at every level need to work with the private sector and the local energy distribution networks, and in partnership with charge point providers such as Tesla, BP Chargemaster and others, to deliver the EV charging infrastructure.
According to the Renewable Energy Association, the number of companies developing charging networks in the UK has increased significantly in the past 24 months. Few of the UK networks—major or minor—are members of interoperability platforms, which stands in contrast to other countries, where that is rapidly becoming the norm. The Netherlands is probably one of the best examples. One of the solutions is interoperability or roaming platforms, which would allow the consumers of individual charge point operators to charge on other networks that are also associated with that hub. The hub would monitor EVSE—electronic vehicle supply equipment—usage and could settle payments between operators. The roaming platform does that for a small fee.
A second solution is peer-to-peer arrangements, which involve the negotiation of direct commercial relationships and agreements between chief procurement officers, to allow for a consumer to use multiple networks while using a single app or account without the involvement of a roaming platform.
We also need to ensure that we deliver smart charging. National Grid has estimated that 80% of electric vehicle drivers will use smart charging by 2050, which will help balance almost half of the UK’s energy demands brought on by the move to zero-emissions driving. Imperial College has done a huge amount of work with Nissan looking at this issue, and there is a massive opportunity for the parking of electric vehicles to be a huge energy storage for the grid.
Let me turn to the strategy for heavy goods vehicles and large vehicles, because it is very easy to talk simply about passenger vehicles. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has talked about massively investing in hydrogen, but we are falling behind other nations on hydrogen mobility. In Germany and elsewhere, a number of buses are being run on hydrogen. I appreciate that plans are afoot in certain parts of the UK for this to be introduced, but we need to get it behind it urgently. I know there is news of a hydrogen hub in the Tees valley, which is really welcome, but the South Korean Government have set a target of 200,000 hydrogen vehicles and 450 hydrogen refuelling stations by 2025. Why can the UK not set similar ambitions?
Let me finally turn to education and skills, because while we need strategies, we also need to ensure that we have the skillset to deliver them. That will involve not just higher education, which is always highly regarded, but the development and supply of skills through our further education colleges, which is critical, as is developing science, technology, engineering and maths subjects through our schools. That applies not just to the research and development of new technologies; it also means providing training for those who will maintain and service the huge number of vehicles that will come on to the UK’s streets, whether they be passenger cars, commercial vehicles or heavy goods vehicles.
This is a really important sector for the UK economy. It is worth £82 billion in turnover and £20 billion in additional value to the UK economy. It is the UK’s largest exporter of goods, accounting for 13% of all UK goods exported. It employs 168,000 people in manufacturing, supporting 820,000 people across the wider automotive sector. It is critical that we invest heavily in this incredibly precious industry, and show support and direction.
The Government have made great progress in encouraging EV ownership, through VAT exemptions and the plug-in car grant, but more needs to be done in the rapid development of charging infrastructure, as well as in encouraging consumers to consider switching over to electric vehicles. We should consider tax breaks; free or reduced parking costs; generous, long-term plug-in grants; and readily available, reliable, fast EV charging on streets and in shopping centres and at places of work. We need better battery tech and more ambition from the Government to secure the giga-manufacturing plants in the UK. I and other west Midlands MPs wrote to the Government to see if we could secure investment in a gigafactory in Coventry, to support companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and, of course, Aston Martin.
The grid and direct district network operators need a clear road map from the Government for the transition in electricity use. We need a joined-up, multi-sector strategy and road map that targets long-term, positive consumer messages on all technology choices. It is Labour’s policy to end the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans by 2030. We talked about the electric car revolution at the last general election, with our plans to invest £3.6 billion in EV charging networks and £2.5 million in interest-free loans for the purchase of electric vehicles, saving buyers up to £5,000. The Government need to get behind the agenda urgently.
We need new cleaner diesel as part of the mix, because without that, we will not ensure a managed transition. Diesel, together with plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered vehicles are, as Al Gore said, the solutions that are there. We need a managed transition, which is critical in ensuring that manufacturers and consumers are not left high and dry by legislation, and Government policies that impact on the value of their investments or purchases. A willingness and, above all, an ability to invest is premised on the immediate profitability and future returns, but the sector needs a coherent industrial strategy, conjoined with the market strategy, underpinned by major public investment in infrastructure, in parallel with the private sector. Together, we can achieve that ambition of delivering zero-carbon vehicles by 2030 or 2035.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We have seven Members on the call list, so that is three minutes each. I will have to enforce that, as the wind-up speeches will start at 5.20 pm. I call Tom Randall.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I will focus my remarks mainly on electric vehicles, a concept whose time has well and truly come.
I consider myself to be a relatively young man whose childhood was not very long ago, but when I was a child, the epitome of an electric vehicle was the Sinclair C5 —a low-volume, hopelessly impractical vehicle that could only ever appeal to the eccentric. Only a short few decades later, the exemplar of an electric vehicle, as the hon. Gentleman has outlined, is the Tesla, a car which has made manufacturers
“sit up and take notice.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of Top Gear magazine.
I am grateful to Malcolm and Mark of Vehicle Procurements in Mapperley in my constituency for building my knowledge of electric vehicles. They run a vehicle leasing business and have been champions of electric car use. They even offer one of their electric charging points to any local business free of charge, and that is a fantastic example of corporate social responsibility.
I do appreciate that there are barriers to the market. Price is an obvious one, but, as with any consumer good, that is falling and will fall over time as more are produced. There are also fears about batteries. We have mobile phones and we worry that their batteries will run out. A car battery running out is an even bigger fear, because that causes more problems. I understand that that is a worry, but most journeys, such as commuting to work or shopping, are local, and there are now more and more electric cars with longer ranges. I saw some in Mapperley with ranges of up to 200 miles that could do significant long journeys.
Electric vehicles are therefore becoming increasingly like so-called ordinary motorcars. That confidence will be reinforced by Government funding alongside private sector investment that has provided 24,000 public charging points—one of the largest networks in Europe. I appreciate, however, as the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, that more needs to be done to expand that provision. I further understand that charging points will be made compulsory in homes, and I welcome that.
We are 14 years on from the release of the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”—a film that has not aged well. Electric cars are now part of our everyday conversation. Noah and Ethan, pupils at Arnold Mill Primary School in my constituency, wrote to me about the need to protect the environment, and both cited the need for electric car production. I completely agree. The electric car is not dead, and long may it flourish.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. Recent news on the hydrogen front has been heartening, with the recent pilot of the first hydrogen train. We can all congratulate the scientists and engineers behind that important stepping stone on our hydrogen pathway, yet within the wider hydrogen economy it is clear that the UK needs to make further progress in certain key regards. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned, when we compare ourselves with countries such as South Korea, which has set a target of 200,000 hydrogen vehicles and 450 refuelling stations by 2025, we see that the UK lacks a clear hydrogen industrial strategy. I therefore add my voice to those calling for a clear and ambitious hydrogen strategy that works for all, and with all four nations of the UK.
I will concentrate my remarks on hydrogen-fuelled personal vehicles and the need for a balanced approach towards both the supply and demand sides of the hydrogen economic equation if we are to make significant and swift progress along the pathway. In case the clock gets the better of me, I contend that a local approach offers the best way forward. People may be surprised to learn that hydrogen—a fuel of the future—has a long association with Wales, a country that is perhaps best renowned the world over for its coal deposits. Indeed, the first ever hydrogen fuel cell was developed way back in 1842 in Swansea by a lawyer and physicist called Sir William Robert Grove. Perhaps I may cheekily suggest that, when he sums up, the Minister could be tempted to consider the idea of establishing a specific industrial strategy challenge fund on hydrogen fuel, perhaps named after Sir William Grove.
Returning to the present, it is easy to see why it is suggested that hydrogen as an energy source had in mind Wales—an energy-rich nation with an abundance of water—at its very inception. Wales is also blessed with a world-leading hydrogen sector, from the hydrogen centre in Baglan Park to Riversimple, a hydrogen vehicle manufacturer. However, a supply-side focus risks missing the opportunity offered by Wales’s strategic depth in hydrogen.
I urge the Government to consider how they can support the development of small and commercially viable markets based around individual hydrogen refuelling stations. That could involve exploring different models, such as leasing personal and commercial hydrogen vehicles around individual stations, and encouraging hydrogen vehicle use for shorter, more local journeys, thereby stimulating manufacturing demand for those vehicles in the local area. Such an approach could work for Wales, addressing our often hyper-local use of transport, while allowing for more a geographically distributed manufacturing and infrastructure base for the hydrogen economy.
We have a golden opportunity to rebalance the way we fuel our economy and protect the environment. Let us not miss it.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Once again, I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for giving me the opportunity to support him. He has been a proud champion of this subject for many years, and I am proud to join him in this debate.
For me, the issue is a no-brainer. It is about the environment, cost and pollution. Embracing this important issue is the right thing to do. It is also a huge opportunity for the UK. It is what I call non-discretionary; we have to act, and we have to act quickly. It pleases me that both the major parties are aligned on this. Last year’s Labour manifesto aspired to end
“new sales of combustion engine vehicles”
by 2030. I agree with that. The Conservative manifesto wanted to invest £1 billion in
“a fast-charging network to ensure that everyone is within 30 miles”
of a charger. Again, I commend both.
I want to talk briefly about electric cars and charging, and then I will make some recommendations. First, the electric car market is growing quickly, with more than 142,000 pure electric cars on the road as of today, and 339,000 plug-in models, or so-called hybrids. Electric models accounted for 6.4% of all new registrations this year and hybrid 10%. In August 2020, notwithstanding covid-19, there was a 78% increase in pure electric registrations compared with the same month last year. This is happening whether we like it or not. It will be consumer-driven to the point where the Government might follow suit rather than lead it.
Charging is a major issue. As of 2019, there were just over 8,000 petrol stations in the UK that could fill up more than one car at one time. Some 50% of the charging points are fast, but it still takes three hours to charge each vehicle. Changes are therefore needed rapidly to expand the number of charging points across the UK.
I will finish with some recommendations. The roads are good in the UK, so, ultimately, this is about improved charging points. The rapid charging fund of £500 million should be expanded. I agree that there should be an expanded role for local government. Let us invest in it the power to make changes locally. Motorsport, of which I am a huge fan, needs to race in this area. At Pikes Peak, two records were broken in successive years with electric vehicles. Formula E is also an exemplar. The lessons from motorsport can certainly drive this issue.
I want the UK to be a world leader. Why not? We did it with McLaren and ventilators, and other car manufacturers. It is something we have to do. We have an opportunity post Brexit to lead the world on this, and I commend that idea.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. The last time I spoke on this issue, I cautiously welcomed the Government’s consultation on the acceleration of the phasing out of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035, with the important caveat that it still lagged behind the Scottish Government’s target. There has been no confirmation yet of that, but it was progress, as was the doubling of investment in EV charging infrastructure, which was absolutely necessary as England lags considerably behind Scotland in charging points per head of population.
In the year to March this year, ultra-low emission vehicle sales in Scotland grew by 46%—40% faster than in England. That is thanks not only to the better charging network that I have described, but to the more generous support provided by the Scottish Government in the form of interest-free loans to purchase electric plug-in hybrid cars to the value of £35,000, which is over and above the UK Government’s plug-in grant. More than £85 million has been provided by the fund to help to drive the behavioural change that we want to see. We are not yet Norway, where roughly half the cars that are bought are ULEVs. We have a lot more to do, but we are heading in the right direction and taking bold action within the parameters of the fiscal envelope that devolution allows. Perhaps if the UK Government were to show more urgency in this area, we could ramp up our own ambition and help to deliver carbon neutrality even earlier.
Although the cost of electrics are coming down, they can still be prohibitively high for many, particularly for family-sized cars. In the used market, which perhaps is not yet fully mature owing to availability, cost remains high, with no support offered to those who purchase new vehicles—until last Monday. Last week, used ULEVs in Scotland became eligible for an interest-free loan of up to £20,000. That is fantastic news, particularly for those who are priced out of the new market. I am sure that as the availability of used ULEVs improves, the take-up will accelerate. I urge the Minister to convince colleagues to incentivise the purchase of used ULEVs, perhaps by extending the reduced plug-in grant to the used market.
I do not have time to discuss the advances in rail and aviation, although I was pleased to see the ambitious plans outlined by Airbus in the past fortnight, and I am forever hopeful that Rolls-Royce will continue to expand its excellent work in this area, and utilise its expertise and space at its Inchinnan plant in my constituency. However, nearly 400 million bus journeys a year are made in Scotland—four times the number of ScotRail journeys—so getting some of our older, more polluting vehicles off the road, to be replaced by electric or hydrogen buses, is one of the easiest fixes available to us, and that must be accelerated.
The £3 billion bus fund is welcome. We have not seen hide nor hair of it yet, but since then thousands of tonnes of carbon have been emitted, and hundreds of bus manufacturing jobs have gone. To summarise, the Government’s intentions and rhetoric on climate change issues have improved, but our generation and the Government will be judged by their actions, not their slogans.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for introducing the debate.
Members may or may not know that until December last year I worked on exactly the subject of the debate, for Shell oil, looking at the future of fuel and of transport. One thing that is clear from all the work that has been done is that there is no one future—no one size fits all. We have heard great advocates for electric and for hydrogen, although we have yet to hear anyone talking about biofuels. I am trying to say that there is no one solution. There may be someone here with an electric car, and someone with a hydrogen car, but we must look at the issue in the round. It is important that we, and the Government, consider all options. There is no single track that leads forward in the right direction. We need to look at everything.
My concern about the debate generally is that there is a lot of talk about electric. I agree that the future for most passenger vehicles will be electric; that is undeniable. However, I also care about UK plc and our economy, and I fear that if we—the Government and the nation—put all our eggs in the electric basket, we will miss the boat. Germany, China and even south America are doing so much great work with battery technology. Can this country get the financial dividends from investing heavily in electric? I say, “Not necessarily.” We need to invest in it for the good of the climate and the country, but for the good of the economy I argue that we need to try to steal a march on areas of transport that have not yet fully taken off. Hydrogen is incredibly important for heavier vehicles—HGVs, trains, planes and boats, which cannot electrify. We have to stop kidding ourselves. For large chunks of the sector, electricity is not the answer. Heavy haulage will not be electrified. We cannot talk about that; we have to be realistic.
Aviation is also relevant. When coronavirus is over, people will go back to flying. Batteries are not going to be the answer for planes—not for 50, 60 or 70 years. We need to look at alternatives—hydrogen—but also at sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels. We need to look at the whole thing in the round. Once again, not that much work has been done internationally on sustainable aviation fuels, so the Government need to look at those options. If we get the formula right, whether for aviation fuels or hydrogen, we can develop those things in this country—in my constituency, I hope—and export that technology and those fuel supplies to the wider world. Not only can we then get to a low-carbon future, which we all want, but we can make money for the country, and financial dividends.
We have only a short window in which to do that—I would say five to 10 years—before other countries steal a march on us; but if we invest heavily in those new technologies, while also using electric vehicles, we can bolster our economy. I want to use this opportunity to implore the Government to look at the whole range of options. Do not just go down the electrification route, which is important for passengers and consumers, but look at the technologies that we can develop as British technology—good Sheffield and south Yorkshire technology —and export across the world once again. This can be the industrial revolution of the next 150 years.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on an excellent and comprehensive speech. As he said, fuelling vehicles through alternative means will be vital if we are to meet net zero, and there are exciting developments in the field.
I confess that I was a sceptic about the role that alternative fuels would play in significantly reducing carbon emissions from aviation. It seemed that often they were put forward to deflect discussion of the demand for flights. However, since taking up my current role as shadow Minister for green transport I have spoken to a lot of firms in the sector, such as Velocys, which will be producing sustainable aviation fuel sourced from waste in the UK, and the Electric Aviation Group, which hopes to have hybrid electric planes operating in UK skies by the end of the decade. It is not the only answer to rising aviation emissions, but it is part of the mix. I have discussed alternative fuels with Maritime UK, and we are closely watching ongoing and planned trials of battery-fuelled and ammonia-fuelled shipping in Scandinavia.
Electric and waste biofuel buses are already on our roads, including the biogas buses in Bristol. However, they need additional support, particularly now that the bus industry is struggling with collapsing revenues because of the pandemic. The same is true for rail firms, which want to move away from dirty diesel rolling stock. However, they have been failed by the Government on electrification and need support to develop or purchase trains fuelled by renewable alternatives. We also need sectoral support for aviation, conditional on climate action. Many others have spoken about hydrogen, and I do not have time to go into that now.
On electric vehicles, recently, along with my colleagues from the shadow Business team, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is replying to the debate today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), I wrote to the Transport Secretary calling on the Government to bring forward the planned phase-out of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans to 2030—at the moment, the manifesto commitment is 2040—and plans to make that transition smooth and feasible. That is important not just to meet our carbon objectives, but to support our car manufacturing sector. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) that we have missed the opportunity to develop electric vehicle production in the UK. We also need to think about electric bikes and electric cargo bikes. We used to be so good at producing bicycles in this country, and I think we need to do more of that.
We have only 5% of the charge points that we need if we are to stick to the 2040 target and have half of all new car sales represented by zero-emission vehicles by 2030. If we bring that date forward to between 2030 and 2032, we will have to accelerate installation of those charging points. I hope the Minister can reassure us on that point.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Bench Members, who I am sure will be equally co-operative. I am getting ahead of myself. Anthony Browne, you have sat there patiently.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Thank you, Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing a debate on this important issue. We are all committed to combating climate change and getting down to net zero. As chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group, I spend a lot of time pushing for that. When I was environment editor of The Observer and The Times more than a decade ago, electric cars were just a pipe dream. I drove some early models, but they are now a reality. I have long seen the internal combustion engine as a dirty, smelly and polluting Victorian technology. The sooner we see the back of it, the better.
I only have two and a half minutes, and there are eight things I think the Government should do. I will have to keep this brief. First, we should commit to 2035 rather than 2040. It is the minimum under the Committee on Climate Change recommendations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommendations for meeting net zero by 2050. Indeed, we should consider whether we can bring it even further forward. There is huge industry support for that, from a wide range of different people, and it will probably be cheaper for motorists in the long run.
Secondly, we should continue the subsidies for the schemes. They are not self-sufficient yet, and we definitely need to carry on providing the money to help people to buy them, install charging points and so on. I know the Government are doing that, but we should not turn off the taps just yet.
Thirdly, the Government should provide real clarity, certainty and absolute conviction to industry that this is the direction we are going in. For the big investment decisions from energy companies on charging points and so on, there has to be a real sense of national mission that we can all buy into.
Fourthly, we must make sure that charging is provided for all properties. Consultation is taking place about requiring charging points in new build, and that should be mandatory. Huge numbers of houses are being built in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, and they should all have charging points, otherwise they will be outdated within a decade or so. How do people living in flats access charging points? Some 30% of homes do not have driveways. Are we saying that people in those homes should carry on driving petrol cars? Clearly not.
Fifthly, we need to get from 18,000 charging points to more than 200,000. That must be done in a way that is as consumer-friendly as possible; we must make sure that they are interoperable and put them in supermarket car parks, or in all car parks. Sixthly, we must unleash the private sector. That is happening already, but I have followed very closely the roll-out of cable, mobile and 4G. That was done by unleashing the dynamism and investment of the private sector, and we should carry on doing the same here.
Seventhly, do not make us an island that is incompatible with the rest of the world. We have different electrical sockets from everywhere else, which is an accident of history, but let us make sure that when drivers leave the UK and drive over to France, they can still use their electric cars.
Eighthly, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said, smart charging is the way to go. I know that we are doing that but it should be key. It improves energy efficiency, reduces costs and is good for our energy resilience.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their co-operation, including Anthony Browne. Over to the Front Benchers.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I hope that I will not disappoint given that you were so keen to get to me earlier, Mr Betts.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate, as well as those who have contributed to it. It is quite clear that topic is important and needs a lot more time than the hour we have today.
We keep hearing about a green recovery in the UK being “world leading”, but for that to be a reality, we need coherent, interlinked strategies, and the policies to achieve them. That means the publication of the overdue energy White Paper, the national infrastructure plan, a heat decarbonisation plan, and a possible update to the transport decarbonisation plan. I hope that the Minister will provide an update on those and how they will be implemented, now that the Budget and spending review have been cancelled.
Although I will concentrate my speech on land transport, there are, as Members have said, opportunities for the production of sustainable aviation fuels—SAF—so will the UK Government provide the support that is needed to top up the private investment that is actually available so that we get a number of production plants up and running in the UK? Will the Government look at the renewable transport fuel obligation to further incentivise the use of SAF?
With road and rail, the main choices are electricity and hydrogen. Hydrogen is an obvious solution for HGVs, and it is part of the mix for trains and buses. That requires coherent hydrogen production policies. The Prime Minister’s announcement today about increasing the deployment of offshore wind is welcome, but that needs to be aligned with the production of green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen also needs to be part of the mix in the short term, which requires the implementation of carbon capture and storage. Will the Minister tell us when Peterhead will finally be given the proper backing to get up and running?
In the north-east of Scotland, Aberdeen has led the way with the introduction of 15 of the world’s first hydrogen-powered double-decker buses. The Scottish Government invested more than £3 million in that project, but another £8.3 million actually came from the EU. Where will the replacement funding come from for that type of scheme? For Aberdeen, another 10 hydrogen-fuelled buses will be procured, and they will be constructed by Wrightbus, protecting jobs in the UK. The Transport Secretary promised hydrogen bus-only town trials, but we are still waiting for the outcome. Where has he been, and when will the UK Government catch up with what is happening in Scotland? Will there be alignment with the manufacturers of hydrogen buses in the UK?
The Scottish Government have awarded £7.4 million to bus operators through the Scottish ultra low emission bus scheme. That will result in the manufacture of 35 electric buses by Alexander Dennis Ltd. Again, the UK is lagging behind on a proposed electric bus town. When will that go live, and will it result in orders for Alexander Dennis Ltd, too?
I welcome the fact that the UK Government are trialling the first hydrogen train in the world. That might make up for their dereliction of duty on electrification and the previous Transport Secretary’s obsession with hybrid diesel trains. The Scottish Government have published a real decarbonisation strategy with an end date of 2035, but Network Rail has only an interim programme in the UK targeting 2050. When will we get a final determination that is ambitious enough?
One simple ask on a hydrogen strategy is a starting point of £11.4 million for a clean fuel metrology centre in East Kilbride. Although we do not think about it, we actually need a measurement and calibration centre. That East Kilbride proposal would be a world first. Will the Minister update us on when BEIS will give the go-ahead for that centre?
We have heard about the UK being world leading on domestic electric vehicles but, in fact, it is not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, the UK needs to match the Scottish Government’s ambition. We really need to move on this. We need large investment. As hon. Members have said, we need a greater roll-out of the charging infrastructure network. I will tell the Minister how that can be paid for: cancel the plan for two nuclear power stations that is going to cost £40 billion. That will allow the upgrade in infrastructure, greater investment in renewables and a bright and green future, with a proper green industrial revolution.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I now call Dr Alan Whitehead to speak for the Opposition—five minutes again, please.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on not only securing the debate, but proceeding in such a thoughtful way that has allowed us to hold a genuine, wide-ranging debate, rather than just scoring a few points. That was an excellent approach, because when we debate this issue, we have to proceed without scoring points.
We are moving together on what we need to do about vehicles for drivers and passengers in the future: phase out the internal combustion engine by 2030 or 2035—the date does not actually stand in the way of the key points that need to be made about how we get to that point. At the moment, we have 170,000 or 180,000 EVs and 30 million petrol and diesel vehicles; by the early 2030s, that will be reversed. An enormous change will therefore have to take place in our vehicle fleets, and we not only have to make that change, but need to ensure that the infrastructure that goes with it is there before that change takes place, not after, because if we leave it that long, we will not actually get change in the first place.
Hon. Members have been pretty united in talking about the need for turbocharging, or hypercharging, the roll-out of infrastructure for electric vehicles. The grid reckons that it can cope with the changes, but of course the national grid is a national grid. It is not a grid that extends down, through the distributed networks, into localities, and there are serious difficulties in various parts of the country with not only the roll-out of charging points, but the structure of distributed grid systems and how they will deal with those issues.
The need for an overall strategy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned in his opening remarks, is therefore tremendously important. It needs to be not only a strategy with the right numbers nationally, but one that actually percolates down to ensure that everywhere in the country is properly served by charging points for electric vehicles. We are currently very far from that.
Various statistics can be cited regarding what percentage of the overall charging points we need are already in place. Some commentators say that we have only about 5% of what we will need by the early 2030s. And that percentage is not properly distributed across the country, as I know to my cost. I tried to drive from Southampton to Penzance this summer, in an area of fast-charging deserts, and ended up parking my car overnight in a Tesco’s car park—hoping that it would not be clamped—so that it could be properly charged.
On fast charging, we need to get our skates on urgently, and I do not think the market is going to come to the rescue by getting fast chargers in. There needs to be a plan—Government backed, and based on Government funding—that is rolled out nationally, with an absolute assurance that we will get those charging points out in the right place, with the right levels of charge, for the motorists whom we know are going to come forward.
Hon. Members quite rightly mentioned the fact that we also need to look at other renewable, low-carbon fuels. I particularly agree that electric is not likely to be the fuel of the heavy transport and logistics of the future; that will probably be hydrogen and biomethane. We need to take steps to get hydrogen charging points in as early as possible for that sector of our transport fleet.
My ask of the Minister this afternoon—not in any partisan way—is a forward plan to get fast chargers in place as quickly as possible, well in advance of the changeover, so that we can make that change in the secure knowledge that we can get where we want to go, and how we want to go there, in the best and most environmentally sustainable way possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for initiating this important debate, as well as other colleagues present: my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), and the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Of course, I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) for his eight-point plan. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for the collegiate way in which he tackles this important national endeavour.
The transport sector is a vital part of our future prosperity. As we recover from the coronavirus pandemic, we have an outstanding opportunity to speed up the development of clean technology, which I guess is the theme of today’s debate. For decades, we have talked about the phasing out of fossil fuels from motoring, and now that is actually happening as we make the transition to alternative-fuel vehicles. This country has led the way in developing clean growth. Between 1990 and 2018, our economy grew by 75% while carbon emissions fell by 43%, faster than any other G7 nation, so anyone who says that it cannot be done is wrong. We followed that by making an ambitious commitment in 2019 to end our contribution to global warming by 2050, making that the law of the land, and countries around the world then began to follow suit. Of course, none of us here underestimates the scale of that challenge. Although battery electric vehicles represent nearly 5% of the new car market in the year to date, transport is still the sector in the UK that emits the largest amount of greenhouse gases, accounting for 28% of emissions in 2018.
It is clear to me that we need to go much further and faster to decarbonise transport. Throughout 2020, we have been working on a new, overarching transport decarbonisation plan, covering all modes of transport, which we expect to publish by the end of this year. That plan will set out the path that we need to take to deliver our net-zero objectives, together with our partners across the transport sector. The need for rapid renewal of the road vehicle fleet with zero-emission vehicles is well understood and will deliver substantial emissions reductions over the long term. We are already investing £2.5 billion to support the transition to zero-emission vehicles, with grants for plug-in vehicles and funding to support charge point infrastructure, which many colleagues from across the country have mentioned today.
If we are to meet our targets, there is no time to lose. That is why we have consulted on bringing forward the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a fast transition appears feasible, as well as including hybrids for the first time. As part of that consultation, we asked for views on what package of support will be required to enable the transition and to minimise the impact on both consumers and, of course, manufacturers—businesses that have invested so much in the United Kingdom. The consultation closed on 31 July, and we will announce its outcome in due course.
Our approach to delivering our transport decarbonisation ambitions is technology-neutral—my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley quite rightly reminded us of the need to remain technology-neutral. As the market develops, it is becoming clear that it may be favouring different technologies for different applications. Today, electric vehicles are a small but fast-growing percentage of cars and vans on the road. Such vehicles are being adopted as a key technology for decarbonising road transport, particularly light vehicles, and over 300,000 ultra low emission vehicles are now registered in the UK. A fit-for-purpose infrastructure network is required for the mass uptake of electric vehicles—that is the message I will take away from today’s debate. Many more charge points will be needed, and we want improvements to the consumer experience when using the network.
In fact, our vision is to have one of the best electric vehicle infrastructure networks in the world. That means a network for current and prospective electric vehicle drivers that is affordable, reliable, accessible and secure. The Government and industry have supported the installation of more than 18,000 publicly available charging devices, as colleagues mentioned, including more than 3,200 rapid charging devices, giving us one of the largest networks in Europe. Our home, workplace and on-street charging schemes, and the £400 million charging infrastructure investment fund, will see thousands more electric vehicle charge points installed across the UK.
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not have the time; I have so much to try to get through and to share with the hon. Gentleman. I apologise.
In May, we announced our vision for a rapid charging network. Today, a driver is never more than 25 miles away from a rapid charging point anywhere along England’s motorways and major A roads. By 2023, we aim to have at least six high-powered open-access charge points at motorway service areas—open access is an important aspect of this in England—with some larger sites having as many as 10 to 12 charge points by 2035, which was the challenge that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington gave to us. We expect the number to increase to around 6,000 high-powered chargers across the network. This vision will be supported by the rapid charging fund, announced in the March Budget by our excellent Chancellor, as part of a £500 million investment over the next five years.
It is vital that consumers can charge efficiently and safely. We will consult on using powers under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to mandate minimum standards, such as requiring contactless payment for rapid charge points, to improve the consumer experience. While the electrification of transport will increase demand for electricity, we are confident that energy networks will support this transformation. Hon. Members heard from the Prime Minister today about our ambitions for offshore wind. The Government are working with the energy industry to plan for future electric vehicle uptake, to ensure that the energy system can meet future demand efficiently and sustainably. We have set a clear ambition for almost all cars and vans to be zero emission by 2050, in combination with the recent consultation on bringing forward the end-of-sale date. Setting long-term targets ensures that there is enough time to ready the electricity system for the mass transition towards cleaner, more efficient vehicles.
Colleagues mentioned the opportunities of hydrogen. We see a real opportunity, so we will follow up the energy White Paper with an ambitious hydrogen strategy, because hydrogen is a game changer. Hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister talking about the Tees Valley announcement today. We have a much bigger ambition for both blue and green hydrogen going forward. The role of green hydrogen in transport will be set out in full in the transport decarbonisation plan, which is due for publication at the end of the year.
On low-carbon fuels, which are important to colleagues, we are clear that our transition to zero-emission vehicles does not mean that we can ignore measures to reduce emissions from conventional road vehicles in use today. Increasing the supply of low-carbon fuel will continue to help us to reduce the environmental impact of every journey. It is equally clear that we should not ignore the potential for low-carbon fuels to decarbonise those transport modes that are harder to reach through electrification. Low-carbon fuels have played an important role in reducing emissions already. Through the renewable transport fuel obligation—the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked about this—we have seen average greenhouse gas savings through biofuels increase from 46% in 2008-09 to 83% in the latest available statistics.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked about incentives for electric vehicle drivers. We are considering long-term future incentives for zero-emission vehicles alongside our consultation on bringing forward the end-of-sale date. In the meantime, the Chancellor announced in the Budget a further £530 million of extra funding to keep the plug-in vehicle grant for another three years.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what we are doing to ensure that people can access and pay for public charging points. That is a big focus for this Government. The system that we deliver—the system of systems, if I can describe it that way, as someone who was an engineer in a previous life—is important and will ultimately deliver on something that we both want to see happen rapidly.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister and all Members who have participated in the debate. We have had a healthy discussion and there is lot of consensus.
Some interesting points have been raised. As the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, this is not discretionary—we have to do this. We are all very excited about the prospect and there is a huge challenge. The hon. Gentleman cited Formula 1, and the great research and development that has been happening in the UK has been driven by Formula 1. We lead much of that sector. McLaren and others are developing so much in the electric vehicle sector, which is being used in bicycles as well as cars, buses and trains.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) was right when he made his interesting point about the hydrogen pathway and the development of the first such energy cell. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) about expertise on the breadth of sectors and how we need to look at them all, particularly HGVs, as they are big drivers of the emissions that we need to bring down.
I agree with the point about the barriers to market that was raised by the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall). With consumers, we have to overcome concerns about price, fear about access to charging points, range anxiety and so on. There is a lot that needs to be done through Government communications to bring that about.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) made an important point about renewables. I welcome what is going on in Scotland and have a long-held admiration for the renewables sector there. The work that is being done on used vehicles is very interesting as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about biogas buses in Bristol—Bristol is doing so much great work.
Written Statements
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Renewable Energy
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Today, the Prime Minister announced new investment of £160 million to support offshore wind, and a new level of ambition for the next round of the renewable contracts for difference energy auction.
This funding will support major new port-side manufacturing hubs, so that the UK can host the factories making the next generation of offshore wind equipment.
The Government also confirmed a boost to their previous target to deliver up to 30GW of offshore wind to delivering 40GW by 2030.
The Government also announced a new ambition for 1GW of the new 40GW by 2030 target to come from floating offshore wind—a brand new technology allowing windfarms to be built further out to sea in deeper waters, boosting capacity even further. This will put the UK at the forefront of the next generation of clean energy.
Together with planned stringent requirements on supporting UK manufacturers in Government-backed renewables projects, these measures will help the industry to reach its target of 60% of offshore wind farm content coming from the UK, helping to also boost lower carbon supply chains.
To help deliver these ambitious targets and accelerate the country’s progress towards net zero emissions by 2050, the Government have confirmed that the next round of the renewable energy auction will open in late 2021 and aim to deliver up to twice the capacity of last year’s successful round—potentially providing enough clean energy for up to 10 million homes.
Today’s announcement marks the latest stage of the Government’s support for renewable energy and acceleration of the transition to net zero. The Prime Minister has set out new plans to build back better and build back greener by making the UK the world leader in clean wind energy—creating jobs, reducing carbon emissions and boosting exports.
[HCWS491]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Report on Anglican Church
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has published its latest report, which can be found at: www.iicsa.org.uk.
This report relates to its investigation into institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the Anglican Church. I pay tribute to the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.
The Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.
I would like to thank Professor Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, expose what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.
[HCWS489]
HM Prison Five Wells: G4S
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Today I can announce that, following a rigorous and robust evaluation process, G4S has been successful in its bid to provide prison operator services at the new build resettlement prison at Wellingborough.
I can also today announce that following public consultation in 2019 and a meeting of local community representatives in February 2020, the new prison will be named “HMP Five Wells”. This was the most popular submission from members of the public and reflects the five historic wells that surround the town, and also appear on Wellingborough’s coat of arms. I am grateful for the public’s submissions to name their new prison and I am proud that HMP Five Wells will provide a significant boost to the local economy by creating hundreds of long-term jobs, support our commitment to a role for the private sector in operating custodial services, and improve rehabilitation and security in the prison estate.
The contract for the operation of HMP Five Wells follows the first mini competition launched in July 2019 under the prison operator services framework. Four of the six framework operators (G4S Care and Custody Services UK Ltd, Serco Ltd, Sodexo Ltd and a new entrant, Management and Training Corporation Works Ltd) bid as part of the competition.
Bidders were required to submit proposals that addressed specific requirements in relation to our aspirations for the new resettlement prison and set how they would deliver all aspects of the custodial service from arrival to resettlement ensuring this is safe, decent and secure. Bidders also set out how the prison would be mobilised and resourced effectively, how they would provide effective property and facilities management, and demonstrated financial robustness.
As the successful bidder, G4S demonstrated its capability to deliver a high quality, value-for-money service which will ensure that the prison is safe, decent, secure, rehabilitative and fit for modern times. All bidders should be proud of their submissions.
HMPPS did not bid in the competition but provided a public sector benchmark against which bids were rigorously assessed. If bids had not met our expectations in terms of quality and cost, HMPPS would manage the new prison itself.
It is important to recognise that the operator competition for the operation of HMP Five Wells was about driving quality and value across the system, which we have shown can be done through a balanced approach to custodial services provision, which includes a mix of public, voluntary and private sector involvement.
The result of the operator competition for HMP Five Wells, with strong bids from all bidders, bodes well for the next competition we will run for the new prison at Glen Parva in 2021 and potentially further competitions for new prisons and existing private prisons as their contracts expire over the course of the next five years.
It is another crucial milestone in this Government’s commitment to delivering around 3,500 modern places at HMP Five Wells, the new prison at Glen Parva, and via a new houseblock at HMP Stocken. This is on top of the 10,000 additional prison places being created by investing up to £2.5 billion to reform the prison estate, improve standards of decency across the estate, and reduce reoffending.
[HCWS490]
Grand Committee
Trade Bill
Tuesday 6th 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-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (6 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. The hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
A participants list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee room, to email the Clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup any amendments for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice during the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content” an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
We will now begin. In Grand Committee in person you do not need to unmute the microphones: the microphones are working, so when I call you, just start to speak.
Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements
Lord Hendy (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 17 and open the batting on a group of amendments on dispute resolution. Put shortly: Amendment 17 opposes investor-state dispute settlement arrangements —ISDS; Amendments 43, 44 and 52 seek to constrain it; Amendment 91 deals with tax matters; and Amendment 94 deals with disputes between state parties.
Amendment 17 is intended to prevent regulations permitting ISDS in the agreements, envisaged by Clause 2, which the Government are negotiating to replace existing EU agreements. Existing EU agreements are listed in the Library briefing. Some of them include ISDS; others do not.
The new agreements will differ from the existing EU agreements, not least by making the UK a party. There will be other modifications too, as explained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Explanatory Notes. The Bill envisages modifications. It does not require replication of the content of EU agreements—contrary to the Minister’s comment last Tuesday. Amendment 17 seeks, in the new UK agreements, modification of the content of existing EU agreements by the exclusion of ISDS where those agreements provided for it and its non-inclusion where EU agreements did not.
ISDS is often found in international trade agreements. Where it exists, it is wholly objectionable. ISDS has the power to override the supremacy of Parliament, to defeat the rule of domestic law, and it discriminates on grounds of nationality. Far from taking back control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out in our last sitting, ISDS is the surrender of control.
The inclusion of ISDS in the then proposed EU-US trade deal, TTIP, was the principal reason for 3 million signatures—half a million of them in the UK—on the petition against it. The legitimacy of ISDS in EU agreements is now in doubt. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU in Slovak Republic v Achmea on the Netherlands/Slovakia trade agreement, held that ISDS has an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and is therefore incompatible with EU law. This is an EU judgment we should follow.
ISDS is a mechanism whereby a corporation of one state party to the FTA can bring a claim for compensation against the other state. That sounds fine, until one appreciates that such claims are not brought in the courts of either state, nor under the laws of either state. ISDS is a system of arbitration usually conducted in secret. The usual basis for claims is that the accused state has failed to ensure “fair and equitable treatment” or has expropriated some asset of the investing corporation. Such claims are not open to any but foreign corporations. The claim is not that the host state has breached the law of the land but usually the converse: that domestic law has caused the foreign corporation loss of hoped-for profits.
Take the Philip Morris case, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we are having some technical difficulties online. A number of our colleagues who are participating remotely cannot hear you as well as we can in the Room. If we cannot resolve it in the next minute or two, I will adjourn the Grand Committee for five minutes, until 2.42 pm. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, but it is more important that people online hear his comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is resumed. We now resume debate on Amendment 17. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for having to call on him to start again from the beginning. We have now resolved the technical difficulties so, from the top, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
No apologies are needed. It is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 17 and open the batting on a group of amendments on dispute resolution. Put shortly: Amendment 17 opposes investor-state dispute settlement arrangements—ISDS; Amendments 43, 44 and 52 seek to constrain them; Amendment 91 deals with tax matters; and Amendment 94 deals with disputes between state parties.
Amendment 17 is intended to prevent regulations permitting ISDS in the agreements, envisaged by Clause 2, which the Government are negotiating to replace existing EU agreements. Existing EU agreements are listed in the Library briefing. Some of them include ISDS; others do not. The new agreements will differ from the existing EU agreements, not least by making the UK a party. There will be other modifications too, as explained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Explanatory Notes.
The Bill envisages modifications. It does not require replication of the content of EU agreements—contrary to the Minister’s comment last Tuesday. Amendment 17 seeks, in the new UK agreements, modification of the content of existing EU agreements by the exclusion of ISDS where those agreements provided for it and its non-inclusion where EU agreements did not.
ISDS is often found in international trade agreements. Where it exists, it is wholly objectionable. ISDS has the power to override the supremacy of Parliament and to defeat the rule of domestic law, and it discriminates on grounds of nationality. Far from taking back control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, ISDS is the surrender of control.
The inclusion of ISDS in the then-proposed EU-US trade deal, TTIP, was the principal reason for 3 million signatures—half a million of them in the UK—on the petition against it. The legitimacy of ISDS in EU agreements is now in doubt. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea on the Netherlands/Slovakia trade agreement held that ISDS has an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and is therefore incompatible with EU law. This is an EU judgment that we should follow.
ISDS is a mechanism whereby a corporation of one state party to the international trade agreement can bring a claim for compensation against the other state. That sounds fine until one appreciates that such claims are not brought in the courts of either state, nor under the laws of either state. ISDS is a system of arbitration usually conducted in secret. The usual basis for claims is that the accused state has failed to ensure “fair and equitable treatment” or has expropriated some asset of the investing corporation. Such claims are not open to any but foreign corporations. The claim is not that the host state has breached the law of the land but usually the converse: that domestic law has caused the foreign corporation loss of hoped-for profits.
Let us take the Philip Morris case, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Australian Parliament passed legislation requiring plain-paper packaging for cigarettes. Philip Morris challenged the legislation on constitutional grounds. It failed at every level, including in the High Court of Australia. It then transferred ownership of its Australian companies to a subsidiary it had set up in Hong Kong so as to enable an ISDS claim under the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement. The claim failed, but only because the transfer of ownership of the companies to Hong Kong post-dated the activity giving rise to the claim.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Covid-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on unacceptable working conditions, especially those endured by many key workers, and on some of the downsides of globalisation—job insecurity, zero-hours contracts, unfairly poor pay, discrimination and lack of recognition—and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hendy’s very able and expert moving of Amendment 17.
The Covid-19 pandemic has emphasised the significance of employment laws and of gaps in international trade agreements, notably the inadequate protection of labour standards and the woeful lack of requirements that contractors for public sector work should abide by ILO conventions ratified by the UK. Ministers have been keen to distinguish between trade deals rolled over from pre-existing EU trade agreements and new deals yet to be struck independently of the UK. The focus of the Trade Bill is on the former, but if these are to be the foundations for future UK trading relationships in the post-Brexit period, they hardly look secure: far from it. Instead, the Bill is full of holes.
This amendment seeks to fill in some of those holes. It guards against regulations implementing any trade deal that permits investor-state dispute settlement arrangements that expose democratically decided laws to potential threat from foreign companies claiming billions in compensation for supposed losses. My noble friend Lord Hendy spelled out examples and I will add two others. These are not hypothetical threats. Canada has been sued for a moratorium on fracking in Quebec, and Mexico for attacks on sugary drinks to fight diabetes. The amendment will also prevent trade deals that contravene international standards of labour law, such as ILO conventions to which the UK is committed and articles of the European Social Charter, ratified by the UK.
Succeeding in global markets today demands more than matching your competitors’ prices. It means setting fresh standards of product quality and providing unparalleled levels of customer service. That can be done only by adopting world-class ways of working and by treating your workforce with respect for the standards set by ILO conventions. For the life of me —I mentioned this when I last spoke in this Committee—I do not understand why the Government are not accepting these amendments, unless they have an entirely different deregulated, low-labour-standards, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda for Britain. So I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point when he replies.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak on Amendment 17, to which I have added my name.
While the history of trade negotiations may not be completely littered with the fragments of failed attempts, it is certainly the case that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, failed, after several years of negotiations, to come to any conclusion. In Britain, much of the opposition was on the basis of the perceived—and I believe very real—threat to our NHS: the threat that the NHS would not survive as a public service and that the writ of privatisation would run ever more unchecked. I was pleased to hear a most eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, offering a catalogue of already privatised and outsourced elements from our NHS, and, significantly, pointing out the dangers that this posed.
Equally, the opposition to TTIP, not just in Britain but across Europe, focused, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said, on the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism—ISDS. My noble friend gave chapter and verse on the reasons for opposing ISDS. I concur with his remarks and associate myself with those of my noble friend Lord Hain.
Let me add a perspective from the United Nations, specifically from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. As the Committee might expect, ISDS features in UNCTAD reports. In May of this year, we find the following in one of its reports:
“Foreign investors have used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by States in the public interest (for example … to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health)”—
all issues close, I am sure, to the hearts of many in this House. The report goes on:
“Broad ISDS mechanisms typically used in old-generation”
international investment agreements
“provide for the contracting parties’ advance consent to international arbitration and are characterized by broad scope, few conditions for investors’ access to ISDS and a lack of procedural improvements. As ISDS is at the heart of the IIA reform process, in recent IIAs countries have carefully regulated ISDS and at times omitted it”
completely.
UNCTAD goes on to make a number of recommendations, but I shall confine myself to this one:
“Replacing ISDS by settling disputes in domestic courts and/or through State-State dispute settlement”.
In July, UNCTAD returned to the question and said:
“Policy responses taken by governments to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout could create friction with existing IIA obligations. This highlights the need to safeguard sufficient regulatory space … to protect public health and to minimize the risk of”
ISDS proceedings.
There are huge problems with the ISDS mechanism, from Philip Morris to the Portuguese metro and so many more. It would therefore be wise for the Government to heed the words of the United Nations—but, more so, to heed those of my noble friend Lord Hendy. ISDS should have no place in our future trade arrangements. I will listen extremely carefully and with great interest to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 43 and 44, which again deal with dispute resolution. In a way, these amendments need to be seen together, because Amendment 44 is perhaps a patch on the current system, while Amendment 43 takes us forward towards a resolution so that we can structure a suitable mechanism for dispute resolution under trade agreements.
Amendment 44 requires that legal proceedings against the UK under an ISDS would be heard in the UK courts. Essentially, it picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that one of the recommendations of dealing with the most egregious aspects of ISDS is to throw the issues back into the domestic courts. It provides a patch that would help us get through this immediate set of problems, because suddenly transparency, fairness and respect for domestic law come into the picture.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments already made very powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, about the flaws in ISDS. I think we can all accept that it is generally regarded as unfit for purpose in a modern, complex economy, with trade agreements that now cover so many issues. We probably all share the concern that rolling over existing ISDS in continuity agreements is generally very undesirable because it sets such a clear precedent for using ISDS again in future trade agreements. I think we all have a particular eye on the US FTA negotiations and are very concerned about ISDS provisions appearing in that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I offer a gentle reminder that all mics in the Grand Committee are live at all times. If everyone’s mobile devices could be on silent and their notifications muted, it would be greatly appreciated.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the light of the way we have spent much of the past hour, I begin by recording my thanks to the members of your Lordships’ House’s staff who have been extraordinary in their patience and calm with the technical difficulties that we have all suffered. They have held everyone’s hand and been wonderful under fire.
It is my absolute privilege to follow the speeches we have just heard, particularly those of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Hain and Lady Blower. I have lent my name to Amendment 17, drafted by my noble friend Lord Hendy. But before I speak to it, I will make a preliminary point of law that is relevant not just to Amendment 17 but to many of the amendments that your Lordships have discussed during these many hours of debate in Grand Committee, which I have had the delight of listening to very closely.
In the community and in the country at large, it is understood that it is dangerous to pontificate about the law and give legal advice without a certain level of qualification. That is so well understood that the profession is regulated and there are tight legal limits. That cannot be the case in the business of legislation, of course, because there is politics and policy on the one hand and the law on the other, with the journey—the process of legislation—in between. So, although I think that dinner-table lawyers are almost as dangerous as armchair medics or epidemiologists, I do understand that making claims about the law during legislative debates is sometimes an occupational hazard.
Your Lordships’ House is criticised in many quarters, but one thing that can often be said of it is that it contains a great many experts who contribute expertise from different areas of life and practice to the business of scrutinising legislation. My noble friend Lady Blower mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I do not think that she is alone in having benefited from his contributions, from a medical and public perspective, to your Lordships’ Grand Committee.
Of course, my noble friend Lord Hendy, who drafted Amendment 17, has been a practising barrister for 48 years—he will forgive me for pointing this out—working in particular as a labour lawyer but also on legislation and legal disputes, and he has spent 33 of those years in silk as one of Her Majesty’s Queen’s Counsel. So noble Lords can imagine that he would not have drafted an amendment to the Bill if it were outside the scope of the Bill; or, if he had, or if other noble Lords had drafted amendments that were beyond the scope of the Bill, the amendments would not be entertained in this way. They would not appear on the Order Paper and your Lordships would not have been asked to waste so many hours debating them.
That brings me to my preliminary point of law. In the many hours of Grand Committee that I have listened to in recent days, I have heard claims made, at times by the Minister and at times by some of his noble friends, notably the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, suggesting that various amendments trying to restrict the vires of the regulation-making powers in this Bill are somehow beyond the Bill’s scope, or are irrelevant, or would clutter up the statute book—that was one comment I heard—or are otherwise inappropriate because they seek erroneously and improperly to clip the Executive’s wings when they are out trying to make trade agreements. That is one argument to the House that has emerged in your Lordships’ Grand Committee. Another argument that has been made is that the amendments completely miss the point of this draft legislation, because this legislation is purely about so-called continuity or rollover trade agreements; therefore, there is no need to place any additional hindrances or fetters on the regulation-making powers in the Bill to implement these rollover or continuity—other similar phrases have been used—trade agreements.
Well, the politics and the policy can come later, but let us be straight about the law here. That is just not correct. As a matter of law, that is not what is provided in the Bill, which allows for trade agreements, albeit with parties that have already been in an agreement with the European Union. They are trade agreements and there are regulations to be made under those trade agreements to implement them. That is the law. That is not spin. That is not politics. That is the law and the effect of this legislation.
Therefore, it is important to pre-empt the comments that will no doubt come from the Minister in due course and point out that it is completely appropriate for your Lordships and this Grand Committee to use amendments that have clearly been ruled as within the scope of the debate to restrain the vires, or the power, to make these regulations: that is, to say that it is perfectly appropriate that the regulation-making powers to implement these trade agreements—whether you call them continuity agreements or rollover agreements or even Charlie—can be constrained. Many amendments attempt to do that.
Your Lordships are perfectly free to say that some of the constraints should not be there as a matter of politics or policy: indeed, to say that we should not protect the NHS, workers’ rights, environmental standards, et cetera. That is fair for political and legislative debate, but in my view it is not okay—it is not straight talking with Members of your Lordships’ House—to suggest that these amendments are somehow beyond scope or inappropriate for debate in this way. I am afraid that, whatever else we are, some of us are lawyers first and last, just like some of your Lordships are distinguished medics, career politicians and so on. That is quite important.
This brings me to Amendment 17, and ISDS in particular. Obviously, this is dealt with with some care and precision in my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment, to which I have added my name, but I noted that, during the many hours of debate, other Members of the Committee have spoken to the evils of this system of secret justice, if such a thing is even possible. It seems to me that, whatever our differences in this Grand Committee and in your Lordships’ House, all Members ought to be concerned about ISDS and should seek to rule it out from being implemented by way of regulation-making powers in this Bill. In other words, if there is to be ISDS in future, it should require a new, separate Act of Parliament that can be consulted on and aired publicly, and debated line by line in both Houses of Parliament. All Members of your Lordships’ House, whether they are socialists, Greens, Liberals or Conservatives, ought to be scandalised by ISDS.
What is more, all people in our nations should be alarmed by the practice of ISDS, whether they voted to leave the European Union or to remain. Why? In a nutshell, because this practice prioritises unelected, unaccountable corporations over democratically elected Governments and the people they serve. That is the first reason. The second reason is that, as other noble Lords pointed out, it prioritises foreign corporations over domestic businesses. That cannot be right either.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am rather pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, since it gives me an immediate right of reply. If she looks carefully at the debates last week, which she was listening to, she will find that at no point did I assert that any of the amendments were out of scope—not least because I have put down further amendments myself that are intended to have an impact on the processes for making regulations for trade future trade agreements, and indeed which impact on schemes outwith the text of the Bill. I will come on precisely to that in Amendment 91 in this group.
I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the making of law is not solely the province of lawyers. There is a very valued tradition in this House that we bring expertise from a range of different disciplines. As it happens, my discipline—my original training—is that of a civil servant. Some 39 years ago I wrote the instructions to counsel for a major piece of legislation, and just under 10 years ago, as Leader of the House of Commons, I was responsible for Parliamentary Counsel and the scrutiny of legislation brought before the two Houses, and for the structure of the legislative programme. For 40 years I have engaged in the process of legislation. The fact that I am not qualified lawyer in no sense excludes me from making the points that I made.
As it happens, I did not say that anything was out of scope. The point I gently made last week was that quite a number of the amendments we were looking at were intended to influence—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to stop the noble Lord, but I understand that there are still some problems with hearing. Is that true of other Members of the Committee? No? Perhaps we can resume and see how we get on.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I was making the point that in amendments last week, I was trying to help the Committee. The objective of quite a number of the amendments was to influence the content of future trade agreements, but the effect of the amendments would have applied only to the continuity agreements. We will need to understand that in particular on Report, and to seek in some cases to amend the Bill, and to do so with the effect that people are looking for.
To come back to this group, I spoke on Thursday, I think, about Philip Morris. I will not repeat any of that but will simply say that it gives rise to considerable sympathy on my part about the actions of some companies. However, the absence of investor-state dispute settlement—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but there has been a request that he starts his speech again, because quite a lot of it was lost. May I trouble him to start again?
Lord Lansley (Con)
Since I have no text, it will not be the same speech, so if you will forgive me, I will not do that. It will appear in Hansard, and I encourage Members to read it there. In any case, I am now talking about the amendments in this group, as opposed to responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which noble Lords can read in Hansard.
On these amendments, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was saying. When Philip Morris was frustrated on an investor-state dispute settlement, it effectively used Honduras and the Dominican Republic to use WTO procedures. So the absence of ISDS is not enough in itself—we have to ensure that we are proof against that. In fact, where Australia was concerned, as it happens, the public health exemptions in the WTO were sufficient in the last decision of the appellate body that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, regrets the absence of: the last decision it made in June was to uphold Australia’s position. We have to be very mindful of that.
Before I get to my own amendment, I will speak to the others. There is a very legitimate question. Are the Government planning simply to roll over existing EU agreements as they are, including where there are ISDS provisions and including with CETA in due course, where there is an investment court system? I am very interested to know what the Government’s intentions are. Certainly, my expectation is that it will be very difficult to have a continuity agreement while departing substantially from continuity.
As regards Japan, I do not have the text of the UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, but while the EU-Japan agreement encourages mutual investment, Article 8.9.4 of it makes clear that, while market access, national treatment without discrimination and most-favoured-nation status are offered, it says that for “greater certainty”, most-favoured-nation treatment
“does not include investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures provided for in other international agreements.”
I will be very interested to know in due course whether the UK-Japan agreement says the same thing. I know that my friends in Japan take the view that we will not be able to accede to the CPTPP without accepting an investor-state dispute settlement. So this is a very interesting moment in understanding whether we are joining with the European Union in moving away from investor-state dispute settlement, or whether we subscribe to the Japanese view that it remains a legitimate vehicle in international trade agreements.
Amendment 43 proposes a multilateral investment tribunal. I wish that we could use such a process. The Doha round did not accept a multilateral investment provision—the proposal failed. We have bilateral agreements, but while they might be desirable they are not sufficiently widespread to allow us to get to a multilateral tribunal. Putting in legislation a requirement for such a tribunal when people have not yet signed up to one seems heroic.
Amendment 91 is not about investor-state dispute settlement; it is about disputes between states. The best example to have in mind is the dispute between the European Union and the United States. As a result of US action, the dispute reached the point where it was lawful under WTO rules for the EU to apply specific import duties against US exports into the European Union.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 relates to this, but why I am talking about a different piece of legislation? The original Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill were introduced at the same time, at the end of 2017. They were intended to be considered side by side and they cross-refer considerably. In this instance, it is entirely right for us to look at the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act and ask whether the parliamentary scrutiny arrangements relating to it are correct. Section 15 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to impose through regulations additional import duties as a result of an international dispute—for example, regulations to impose import duties on US exports. That power is exercisable through the negative resolution procedure, but in my view it should be an affirmative resolution procedure—this should be added to the list of affirmative resolution procedures in Section 32 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act.
The argument in the Government’s Explanatory Notes for using the negative procedure in the great majority of cases where customs duties are imposed is that there are so many such regulations that they have to be made in that way, otherwise they become impractical. That is patently not the case here. In this instance, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to agree that there will be relatively few international disputes that give rise to the imposition of such duties and that, when that happens, it will by its nature be of considerable significance and therefore should be in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, we are indeed fortunate to have had someone with the huge experience, not least internationally, of my noble friend Lord Hendy introducing the amendment, as reflected in the authoritative way in which he did so. I always applaud my noble friend Lord Hain, who said that he could not understand why the Government did not accept amendments. I am sorry to bring controversy to this discussion, but we must face the truth. I suggest to my noble friend that the explanation is quite clear. A bunch of ideologues in Number 10, such as we have never been exposed to in my time in politics, are determined to drive their strategy through. Their strategy is for a free-for-all and a totally unregulated society. They are fundamentally opposed to regulation and, with that, accountability. Unless we face that reality, we are just tackling everything down river without going to the source of the problem.
My noble friend was right to underline the importance of the protection of labour and employment standards. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lady Blower speaking. She was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the UN and UNCTAD in particular. UNCTAD has played an important role in bringing the nations together to find a workable and just system across the world. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also has considerable experience. She emphasised the fact that we are talking about the law and our need to be vigilant in protecting the environment and the NHS.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I will speak in particular to Amendments 52 and 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, to which I have appended my signature. I would like to use this opportunity to probe my noble friend on the precise state of the dispute resolution mechanism generally, as well as in relation to ISDS, but I have a lot of sympathy with other amendments in this group.
I will leave the details of the amendments to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, but, using them as a vehicle, I refer to the Library Note, which states on page 8 that
“the Government states it may need to implement the results of an arbitration/alternative dispute resolution decision under a continuity agreement.”
On page 9 of the Explanatory Notes, the Government state:
“This could include, for example, implementing decisions made by a joint committee of the parties set up under a trade agreement or implementing the results of an arbitration/alternative dispute resolution decision.”
I will refer to some examples, although not as many as we had from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in his excellent opening speech on this group of amendments. There does not seem to be any parity given, in the EU application for the review of subsidies before the World Trade Organization, to Boeing. The dispute that the EU—and through it, the UK—has brought with regard to America giving subsidies in large measure to Boeing does not seem to have got very far very quickly, whereas the decision taken by the US Administration against the EU for the claim that was brought for subsidies and action for Airbus brought a very swift response from the US that has in particular harmed Scotch whisky.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Lansley said: one of the reasons we are here is as legislators, whatever background we are from. I declare for the record that I am a non-practising Scottish advocate.
Scotch whisky is our largest export of food and drink—probably one of our largest exports of any product—and it suffered a 27% decline in exports in the fourth quarter of 2019. This has brought enormous tension within the UK. The Scottish Trade Minister has said on numerous occasions—most recently as reported in the Times this weekend, or perhaps today; I am not sure—that the Scottish Government would like to see a much more rigorous approach by the UK Government and the EU as a whole to see these subsidies lifted. It raises a more general question. I understand that the Trump Administration have made a general threat to walk away from the World Trade Organization mechanism.
So I will use this little debate to ask my noble friend: what is the status within the continuity agreements, particularly those that have already been signed, of the dispute resolution mechanism? Has it been squared off with the devolved Assemblies? Are they all in agreement as to what the mechanism will be? Does my noble friend share my general concern that it takes a woefully long time for a dispute resolution to be reached under the World Trade Organization—something that is now compounded by the threat on the table by one of the biggest players to walk away? In addition, can my noble friend tell us what the status is with the devolved Governments, and what the dispute resolution mechanism is that has currently been agreed under those rollover agreements?
I place on record my concern at the impact on one particular product, which happens to be our major food and drink export, beyond doubt—Scotch whisky—and ask when my noble friend the Minister might expect a resolution.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the correspondence that we have had since our last discussion. I found his letter, which I got yesterday, very helpful. I also thank him for his continued efforts to assuage my concerns with regard to ISDS. He is getting there but he has not won yet. In his letter, he mentioned the Vattenfall case, because I brought that up with him and he kindly agreed to fill in some more detail for me. But surely the Vattenfall case merely confirmed that an ISDS was not necessary. It was actually the German Constitutional Court that sorted out the problem there. The courts, in an open and transparent way, must surely be the right way for trade disputes to be settled, rather than in the murky waters of an ISDS.
My noble friend also said that the UK had never faced an ISDS claim that had reached arbitration. That is absolutely right, and I think that the public reaction would have been a lot noisier and more visible to us all if a claim had reached arbitration. Surely the reason for the current situation is that our ISDS agreements tend to be with developing countries in which we are investing. Looking ahead, the situation will be very different if and when we sign a trade deal with the US, which has very big investments in this country.
It is interesting to note—and I would be interested in what the Minister thinks on this—that Canada, having had rather bad experiences with ISDS when it was part of NAFTA, withdrew from the ISDS in the new USMCA trade deal in order to get away from that difficulty. Unless we follow a somewhat similar pattern, I fear that the UK will get severely punished in the future.
I will pick up a theme started by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, when he introduced this amendment and to which other noble Lords referred: the chilling effect of ISDS. In particular, my concern is the chilling effect on environmental regulations and environmental law in the future. ISDS has been used to challenge important regulations, such as those on fracking in Canada and, as I mentioned on Thursday, plain packaging for cigarettes in Australia. This has cost Governments in the countries involved a considerable amount of money. Governments have been reluctant to regulate in these areas because of the mere threat of an ISDS. If we are to fulfil the aim of the Prime Minister, which he stated to the party conference this morning, to have a green revolution to bring us back to economic prosperity, the one thing that we cannot afford is to have ISDS threats on environmental regulation hanging over us in the future.
What has not been raised so far in our debates is the report, Costs and Benefits of an EU-USA Investment Protection Treaty, which the former BIS department commissioned from the London School of Economics. Can my noble friend comment on it? It warned of going beyond
“the traditional core of favourable standards of treatment backed up by access to ISDS”,
containing
“provisions concerning the host state’s right to implement treaty-consistent measures to protect the environment”.
The report found that the UK would necessarily incur costs in defending itself against investor lawsuits, even if the UK wins, and that is something that has not happened to date. It goes on to say that it is
“virtually certain that such costs under an EU-US investment chapter will be higher than under the status quo”.
To quote from the report again,
“we suggest that an EU-US investment treaty would impose costs on the UK to the extent that it prevents the UK government from regulating in the public interest.”
That is exactly the point I have just been making: it is the chilling effect of ISDS. The report concludes that a treaty without ISDS would be a less costly option for the UK. As a minimum outcome, therefore, we should surely ditch ISDS as a matter of urgency, and I find it quite interesting that at least two of the countries with which we have rolled over continuity agreements, Morocco and South Africa, are ditching ISDS in other trade deals that they are doing.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl, because of his dogged approach on this issue, not only on this Bill but on the predecessor Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I commend him on his work and I will be referring to some of the points he raised, because I was reflecting on them as he spoke.
I shall primarily address Amendments 43 and 44, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer, and also reflect on what I thought was a very comprehensive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and some of the points he raised within it. I have supported Amendment 91 in his name. This was raised at Second Reading by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on the way he introduced this group and on allowing us to have this important debate: it is extremely important for the Bill and for UK trade going forward.
The Minister said, in summing up on Second Reading:
“ISDS is a subject which often causes excitement … I confirm that ISDS tribunals can never overrule the sovereignty of Parliament … There has never been a successful ISDS claim against the United Kingdom, but our investors operating overseas have often benefited from these agreements”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. 749.]
I do not know about “excitement”, but there is genuine concern, which primarily comes down to two areas. One is that it is not clear yet what the Government’s position is on the agreements that are yet to be made, which will be continuity agreements, primarily with Vietnam, Canada, Singapore and Mexico, where, as we have heard in this debate, the European Union agreements have moved beyond ISDS. Can the Minister confirm that, in our negotiations with them, we will have follow-on from the European Union position? The second area of concern is what the Government’s position will be in the longer term. Are we moving away from the position we held when we were in the EU and towards a multilateral system?
I think it is helpful to remember the scale of this issue. It is not a minor issue. Across the European Union member states, more than 1,300 investment treaties have been signed with third countries, in addition to some 200 between EU member states. Non-EU states within Europe are party to more than 500, and we will now be in this category. This is just part of the 3,000 that exist worldwide. Most of these include ISDS provisions and often, as we have heard from UNCTAD—I shall refer to UNCTAD in a moment—it is very clear from the annual reports on the use of ISDS that companies have a view that public policy choices made by Governments will have an impact on their profits, and therefore they will use that ISDS.
The Minister seemed to suggest that the Government are in favour of ISDS because it disproportionately benefits British investors around the world. Statistically, that is true about the use of ISDS, so UNCTAD’s data is interesting. The United Kingdom is the third-highest home state of claimants of ISDS around the world. From 1987 to 2018, in the number of known cases, the UK was third, with 78. As the respondent state, we have had only one. So there have been 78 where we have been the home state and one where we have been the respondent state—so, on one reading, the Minister could be correct that this has been of benefit to British-based operations. But a bit more analysis is required as to what “British-based” means when it comes to some of the commercial operations, and where some of those cases have primarily concerned developing countries.
On the second aspect, it was helpful that the noble Earl raised some of the consequences of Covid-19, because it is not just America lining up. We have had reports that law firms have been studying decisions made by British authorities, including the London Mayor’s decision to close Crossrail construction during the pandemic, during the lockdown. While this was not underpinned by a statutory requirement, it is potentially vulnerable to those seeking compensation under the investment treaty. Will the Minister respond to the noble Earl’s question on how vulnerable the UK is at the moment?
The issue moving forward, as my noble friend Lady Kramer indicated, is that the EU has ratified four agreements with an ISDS mechanism: the Energy Charter Treaty, to which 53 European and central Asian countries are party; CETA, with Canada; and agreements with Vietnam and Singapore. Only the ECT is fully in force; the ISDS provisions in the three others will be implemented after all member states have ratified them. More importantly, those agreements include investment court systems and, last year, the Commission presented procedural proposals for the more transparent ICS for CETA. Can the Minister say what approach we will be adopting in our discussions with Canada? Are we seeking, in our agreement with Canada, an investment court system? These new transparent approaches will allow for mediation, which ISDS has largely overlooked, and an appeal mechanism that will then be binding on the parties. All of this has a public interest test, because they are party to the agreements with regards to the making of public policy, so what is our position on Canada, Vietnam, Singapore and Mexico?
It would, for many, be a fully retrograde step if we were not to seek continuity in those new agreements: it would negate the progress that has been made by the EU moving away from the ISDS system. Why is it progress? Well, as many in this Committee have indicated, it is not just the fact that Parliament remains sovereign—of course it does—but what use is sovereignty if the constraints on using that sovereignty are so significant? It is the chilling effect, as the noble Earl said, that is potentially blocking. We have seen attempts against France, Australia and Canada, all attempts under ISDS and intellectual property disputes, seeking either policy change from the Government, or compensation. Some of those could mean that regulations would have to be changed. This is the point: public policy should be made in the public interest, not in the shareholder interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made the point about moving towards the long term. We have included that in our Amendment 43. He may refer to it as “heroic”, but that has never stopped the Lib Dems seeking those aims in the past. However, I think we have some strong supporters in the European Union with this approach, and we had strong support in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom took part in the Council giving the mandate to the Commission for the negotiations towards a multilateral court system for trade. On 1 March 2008, the Council approved negotiating directives for a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes. That was a unanimous decision. The Minister will have to remind me, because I have slightly lost track of which Councils the Government refused to attend after we voted out of the European Union, but I am going on the basis—and he can correct me if I am wrong—that we were part of the unanimity in the European Union to move towards a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes. After that mandate was secured with United Kingdom support, discussions started on existing agreements, which we have rolled over, for moving towards an ICS approach rather than an ISDS one. We have rolled over 20 agreements so far. Where there have been elements of ISDS provision, the European Union is looking at them again to move towards a court system. Can the Minister say whether we will do the same?
The benefit of moving towards this is that we will be able to be part of an aligned movement of countries looking towards a more open and transparent approach, and that approach has been taken squarely from the European Union with regard to our colleagues in TTIP. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right to ask this question. This will be a choice for the Government. Because of the transparency in the European Union, we know what the position is. We know what the mandate was. We know what the Government’s position was up until the end of December. We need to know their position now with the agreements yet to come.
Finally, I support Amendment 91 and will be brief on this. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right. Any consequence of taking retaliatory action or imposing sanctions under the WTO—which we will be able to do under our membership of it—will, by definition, and inevitably, be serious and impact our country-to-country relations. As I understand it, we would be able to bring these forward only if we had the previous authorisation of the dispute settlement body at the WTO, having made a public case to it. It seems incongruous to me that we would have made a public case to the dispute settlement body of the WTO for approval but will not be doing the same to our own Parliament to make a decision on the ongoing consequences of the implementation of those regulations. I hope the Minister can clarify that the Government would be open to supporting that aspect.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all the speakers in this debate. I also echo the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to the staff for allowing us to get to where we are. We might have had a rocky ride and have missed a few words here and there, particularly the exchange between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but we are here and we are making progress and we owe them a vote of thanks for keeping us going.
The debate has been rich and the issue has been given a good going over. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others have said, my noble friend Lord Hendy spoke powerfully on the key amendment with a huge amount of knowledge. He confirmed that we took the right decision to hold his speech over from last Thursday. It would not have done well to have had the first part last week and the second part today. I am glad we were able to hear it—some of us got it twice, but it was still jolly good—and I congratulate him on that.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, it has certainly been an erudite and extraordinarily interesting debate, and I congratulate all noble Lords who have taken part in it. I certainly understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is right and proper that noble Lords should be allowed a free rein in debating these matters, and I entirely recognise the legal competence that we have in this House, which has been displayed to such great effect in the Grand Committee today.
Your Lordships might expect me to start off, as I always do, by saying that this Trade Bill does not deal with the implementation of FTAs with new partners, such as the USA or Australia. Instead, as noble Lords are no doubt tired of hearing me say, the Trade Bill provides powers to implement those trade agreements to which the EU and third countries were already signatories before we left the EU. I will come back later to the points that noble Lords have raised about the status of ISDS in those agreements.
Having said that, of course I understand completely the concerns that have been raised about ISDS, but I believe that these may be overstated. Perhaps I may be allowed a couple of minutes to try to elaborate this argument. We have heard that the UK has never faced an ISDS claim before an arbitral tribunal; nor has the threat of an ISDS claim affected our legislation. We are clear that the UK and treaty partners retain the right to regulate in the public interest, and this is already recognised under international law.
Before going into the detail of the amendments, which, understandably perhaps, focus on foreign investors in the UK, it is important that we remember that there are two sides to ISDS. It would not be right to let go unremarked the great benefit that UK investors overseas obtain from ISDS. Arguably, the benefit that our investors overseas obtain from ISDS is, for reasons that I will come to later, significantly greater than the benefits that overseas investors obtain in the UK.
We should not forget that ISDS disputes generally arise when private assets are expropriated by the state without paying compensation or where foreign investors are discriminated against compared to domestic investors. These two factors are the essence of the ISDS mechanism. I would suggest that these are perfectly laudable matters to want to protect for investors—either our investors overseas or foreign investors here. I ask that we remember these two points as we debate these amendments.
On Amendment 17, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Hain, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Chakrabarti, the proposed new clause would result in the UK being unable to implement a continuity agreement that contains ISDS unless the matter in respect of which an ISDS claim was brought had its exact parallel in UK domestic law for UK investors.
Of course, foreign investors in the UK already have access to legal redress against the UK Government through domestic remedies. These will often be quicker and more cost-effective than resorting to ISDS, and the UK’s courts and legal system are held in high regard internationally, so it is not surprising that people often choose to go to our courts in the UK. However, it is important for foreign investors to have a means of redress which is seen to be completely independent of the UK state, and, as I said previously, ISDS remains valuable for UK businesses when investing overseas. It is very much seen as a mechanism of last resort but may in some cases be the only form of legal redress available to investors.
Like other noble Lords, I admired the erudition of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, to which I listened closely. He set out a long list of cases and argued cogently that ISDS may have a chilling effect on a state’s ability to regulate in the public interest. My noble friend Lord Caithness also made that point. However, while some cases that were cited are examples of ISDS impinging on the rights of the state, investor protection agreements do not eradicate the Government’s ability to regulate in the public interest, and it is this right to regulate that is recognised in international law.
The UK has more than 90 bilateral investment treaties in place with other countries, and there has never been a successful ISDS claim brought against the UK, nor, importantly, has the threat of potential claims ever affected the Government’s legislative programme. Let me be clear to put people’s minds at rest: ISDS tribunals cannot overrule the sovereignty of Parliament; they cannot overturn or force any changes in law.
Further, it is likely that the UK’s treaty partners would insist on reciprocal provisions—if I may come back to the amendment—for the implementation of trade agreements. This would result in UK investors overseas being unable to bring an ISDS claim unless there are also equivalent forms of domestic legal redress in those states, which in many cases, or some cases, there will not be.
One of the key benefits of investment treaties is to agree the precise details for an effective and common form of legal redress. Requiring this to reflect different domestic laws could disadvantage UK investors overseas by introducing uncertainty in a well-understood mechanism and denying them the same means of legal redress available to other international investors. I will come later, if I may, to the point that these mechanisms evolve and improve over time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, raised the potential impact of ISDS on the NHS, and I would like to deal with that quite straightforwardly. ISDS does not and cannot force the privatisation of public services. Under current UK agreements, claims can be made only in respect of established investments—that is when a company is already operating in the United Kingdom—and claims cannot be made in relation to an alleged failure to open up public services to a potential investor. ISDS claims can only lead to compensation where the tribunal finds that treaty commitments or obligations have been breached, and they do not lead to a change in the law.
To be absolutely clear, ISDS will not oblige the Government to open the NHS to further competition, and overseas companies will not be able to take legal action to force us to do so. The NHS will continue to be free at the point of use for everyone who needs it. Protecting public services, including the NHS, remains of the utmost importance to the United Kingdom.
Similarly, Amendment 43, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would require that the UK sign a trade agreement only if it commits all parties to pursue the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal system and an appellate mechanism for the settlement of investor-state disputes. This would apply to both continuity agreements and future trade agreements, even though the latter are outside the scope of this Bill.
Not all trade agreements include investment protection and investment dispute settlement. It is therefore not appropriate to require all trade agreements to include a commitment to pursue a multilateral investment tribunal system. To include such a requirement on the UK and our treaty partners for ratification in such a manner would hinder the progress of UK trade policy. It would also require reopening agreements to make these significant changes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to speak after the Minister.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to the debate on this group of amendments. I am grateful for that; it shows the seriousness of this issue. I and other noble Lords will reflect on his remarks.
I have two questions. The first relates to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which I support. As I understood it, if we were to bring retaliatory measures or sanctions, they would have to have been authorised by the dispute settlement body at the WTO, so by the time they came to Parliament, either under the negative procedure or the affirmative procedure, they would be public anyway. Therefore, Parliament’s ability to use the affirmative procedure would be based on what was already in the public domain.
Secondly, I am still not sure why the Government have not indicated that they will continue with their support for moving towards an investment court system in our continuity agreements with Singapore, Vietnam and Mexico, which are yet be signed, given that the European Union has stated categorically that moving towards such a system is the approach for those countries and is now, to quote the Commission in October 2019, “on the table” in all ongoing investment negotiations. I simply do not understand why the Government, who supported moving to a multilateral system, now say that they are fully engaged and cannot say what their position is yet. Why can the Government not simply say that they support this in principle and are working with others to bring it about?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord raises two good points. On the first point, I will, if I may, write to him setting out in more detail the disadvantages and advantages that I see of the negative as opposed to the affirmative process. On the court, I make it clear that we welcome changes in the ISDS mechanism and potentially the formation of an MIC if, once the details are worked out, it seems that nations will sign up to it and it will be workable and in the best interests of the UK. We do not have our head in the sand in these matters. Like the noble Lord, I recognise that, if improvements can be made to the ISDS process, it is incumbent on us to do that. The point that I was trying to get across was that these are still early days in the discussions at the UN on this and it did not seem right to put our weight firmly behind it until we see how the discussions move forward. But I assure the noble Lord that we are open-minded about this and we will see where it gets to.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and to my noble friends Lord Hain, Lady Blower and Lady Chakrabarti for supporting Amendment 17. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who made such elegant and persuasive contributions to this debate, which has been wide-ranging and has covered a lot of issues.
I will not presume on the time of the Committee by commenting on particular contributions, save for two. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned the fact that the central issue in the Philip Morris case was litigated in the World Trade Organization dispute mechanism, where the case was lost. His knowledge of the WTO is certainly greater than mine, but my understanding is that the rules, and hence the basis of the claim in the WTO, were different from the basis of the claim under the ISDS, not least because the claim in the WTO—as I understand it; I could be wrong—was brought by nation states rather than investing corporations.
The Minister made many points in his summary that I would like to take up, but I must resist. I will make just three points. First, he said that there were great benefits to UK investors overseas. Of course I accept that that is the case, but there appear to me to be four points to bear in mind.
First, this country should not support a mechanism that provides an avenue of challenge to other democratic states, just as it should not support a mechanism that enables a challenge to our democratic state. A remedy under ISDS is not available to citizens of either state except for investing corporations, but many citizens are affected by the matters covered by these trade agreements—food standards, environmental standards and labour standards.
Secondly, the Minister overlooked the globalised economy that we now have. UK corporations can establish almost anywhere in the world, just as foreign corporations can. So UK corporations can take advantage of ISDS arrangements by establishing a subsidiary to bring a case against the United Kingdom. There are dangers there, too.
Thirdly, when overseas investors make their investments, they of course evaluate the risk that things could go wrong or that the state might change the law. That is a matter for them. I do not see why we should put at risk our democratic standards by inviting a mechanism to protect overseas commercial investors.
Fourthly, this country has an admired legal system, as do many other countries. It is wrong in principle to provide a mechanism of legal challenge that is outside the domestic laws of any country.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume the Committee. I call on the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, to complete his remarks.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two final points in respect of the Minister’s speech. My second point is that he said that ISDS cannot force the privatisation of public services. That is absolutely right, of course, but we cannot overlook the fact that ISDS permits a challenge to taking previously privatised services back into public ownership—something that Governments of all persuasions have done from time to time in the past, especially in times of emergency.
Finally, the Minister said that the Government were considering the merits of a multinational investment tribunal in place of the secret arbitration under ISDS. Of course, one accepts immediately that the EU’s proposal for an MIT gives transparency instead of secrecy, which is very desirable. But it does not resolve the central evil that ISDS challenges, on very broad terms, parliamentary decisions by the chilling effect of a threat of compensation which is measured in billions—a disincentive for any Government.
The issue of ISDS is obviously controversial and the Minister is plainly aware of the concerns of members of the Committee. I hope that those concerns, and those reflected in other amendments, will cause the Government further reflection. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 20
Lord Grantchester
“( ) Regulations may only be made under subsection (1) if—(a) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with standards for food safety and quality as set and administered by—(i) the Department of Health;(ii) the Food Standards Agency;(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that mechanisms and bodies charged with enforcement of standards for food safety and quality have the capacity to absorb any extra requirement which may arise from the implementation of the agreement; (c) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with policy to achieve reduction in the risk of disease or contamination as set and administered by—(i) the Department of Health;(ii) the Food Standards Agency;(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(d) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with achieving improvements in public health through any food policy priorities set and administered by—(i) the Department of Health;(ii) the Food Standards Agency;(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(e) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate comply with policy to achieve targets for farm antibiotic reduction set by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate;(f) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate comply with retained EU law relating to food standards and the impact of food production upon the environment; and(g) any food or food products to which the provisions of the international trade agreement apply meet standards of labelling, indication of provenance, and packaging specified by the Food Standards Agency or Food Standards Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under Clause 2 can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement enshrines UK standards in legislation and adheres to UK standards of food production and food safety.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Amendment 20 is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding her name to it. It concerns the importance of food safety and quality, and how these issues are administered through government departments and agencies for these matters. This includes the importance of nutrition.
We are all rightly proud of the high agricultural and food standards in this country. Many people believe that trade must not undercut those standards, not only to maintain fair competition for agriculture, the food service and food manufacturing sectors—and the diverse food chain—but to maintain and improve the health benefits to consumers from transparent certified and production regulations. These latter points have been underlined by the Mail on Sunday in a letter from Jamie Oliver, the people’s chef, and PE teacher Joe Wicks. The letter, with wide public endorsement, does not want the Government to
“trade away our children’s futures”.
Alongside the letter, a Delta poll found that 68% of people believed that the most important priority for Britain is to maintain high standards for food, even if that meant some trade deals did not materialise.
Amendment 20 has an overreach into the Agriculture Bill, which passed all its stages in the House last week, now that it includes important provisions on this issue. “Food standards” includes not only food safety but production standards, environmental protections and welfare. In this amendment, these regulated standards are administered by the named government department —the Department of Health—and the other executive agency, the Food Standards Agency, including Food Standards Scotland.
We all know the threat post by a potential trade agreement with America and Australia, for example. Although the Bill technically deals with precursor agreements, nevertheless it is important to clarify that these also pass these most stringent tests as they develop. In the case of Japan, these rollover deals can go further. It is material to this debate that the US has 10 times the level of food poisonings that exist in Europe.
The Global Economic Governance Programme of Oxford University has reported that as the Government transferred the entire acquis of EU law into UK law through the withdrawal Act, substantial decision-making powers were conferred on UK Ministers to amend the legislation. That includes amendments through secondary legislation, which carries far less scrutiny in its procedures than primary legislation. There are anxieties around the claimed certainty of the withdrawal Act, heightened by the Government’s bringing forward the internal market Bill, now with further amendments proposed and inserted into the Bill at a very late stage in its Commons consideration. That is why so little credibility is attached to the many protestations from the Government that their word that they will maintain the UK’s high standards in its negotiations can be relied upon. May I stress to the Minister that he reconsider his often-repeated assurances, since they are not being developed into meaningful, transparent procedures and are in themselves inadequate?
This amendment, under proposed new paragraph (e), also has cognisance of future dangers through antimicrobial resistance—AMR—on which UK agriculture has already demonstrated admirable awareness by reducing antibiotic usage considerably over recent years. I also underline proposed new paragraph (g), which draws attention to the issue of labelling, country of origin specifications and the importance of branding through geographical indicator schemes, which have proven so successful in driving high-quality exports. It would be helpful to have the Minister’s comments on the record that these provisions will continue to be recognised through continuity agreement enhancements.
Although it was not initiated by me, I have added my name to Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords, and I will speak only momentarily to it. The Government themselves brought forward this amendment on Report of the previous Trade Bill, which was so graciously steered through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead. It was good to see her attending this Committee, and I look forward to hearing from her later. Our Benches were part of the cross-party consensus on which that government amendment was based. I am sure that, through these amendments, other proposers will underline the key necessity of maintaining statutory protections. Only 18 months on, can the Minister give cogent reasons why the Government should now wish to discard this important safeguard?
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords for their supporting Amendments 24 and 25; I will speak to my Amendment 56 in this group. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Rooker for adding their names to this amendment. While it may appear onerous, I consider it important that government must produce a register that can ensure equivalence and a transparent baseline for a level playing field. That would be another way for the Government to deliver on their election promise to maintain the UK’s high agricultural, environmental, plant health and animal welfare standards.
My Amendment 67 in this group goes further by recognising the importance of animal sentience. The Government have agreed to introduce a measure recognising this to ensure that all future legislation on the welfare of animals is assessed against that standard. While the amendment does not seek to be the whole answer to this issue and does not define animal sentience, nevertheless it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what now is the Government’s view on this and when they might bring forward a specific Bill.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her Amendment 74 in this group and commend her for the thorough way she approaches the issues at all times—that ratification of trade agreements must be compatible and have equivalence with UK standards. The key approach of all these amendments is that modern trade agreements allowing imports of food into this country have to reflect the quality of food to which all domestic food must comply. Why allow substandard food that would be condemned here to be imported into the UK? This needs to be enshrined in legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 23 in particular. All the amendments in this group have very similar goals—they just choose rather different avenues for achieving them.
Amendment 23 would require that trade agreements maintain UK statutory levels of protection for human, animal or plant life or health, animal welfare, the environment, employment and labour. I join noble Lords in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who, along with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and I, is a signatory to this amendment. He said that upholding standards should not be a matter of trust. We live in a country where important principles are reinforced in law and in statute. That is exactly what this amendment tries to do; I suspect that the other amendments in this group are trying to do the same.
I particularly support this amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, it uses the exact language of a government amendment agreed on a cross-party basis and introduced into the Trade Bill in 2019. On that basis, one would think that the Government would have no problem with it, yet they have removed that language from the Bill. That act of removal is very powerful. Choosing to omit a clause—in effect, withdrawing it—sends a message. I am sure that those countries with whom we are negotiating trade deals, whether they are continuity deals or future deals, have taken note. I am very sure that the United States has taken note of the decision to remove this language and the clause. As we know, actions speak louder than words. I also take the view that, if Amendment 23 does not apply to continuity agreements, why would anyone negotiating a future agreement suddenly insist that the precedent should be broken?
In this context, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, in the debate on an earlier amendment. He said that regulatory standards are not set in trade Bills. For many years, I worked in the United States as a banker in two major companies. I can tell the noble Viscount that his description will be real news to American companies, which have a long history of using dispute resolution mechanisms in trade Bills to achieving particular policies regardless of whether they override domestic legislation. As we look forward to negotiating a US-UK FTA, we must be well aware that everything we do will make that conversation either more difficult or easier.
In the United States, a complex mix of federal and state regulators set and uphold a wide range of standards. The fragmentation is one of the reasons why the US is so successful at keeping out imports; few exporters want to take on the highly complex US federal and state court systems. In the United States, where there is a very different culture, in nearly every company, there is a real taste for aggressive litigation. Many companies have deep pockets in which large amounts of money are set aside for litigation, making such companies effective at intimidating negotiating partners. In effect, they export US standards regardless of domestic legislation elsewhere.
We are in a period when trade is a tense issue. Historically, we would probably have said that most major developed countries would avoid trade battles with each other. We are not in that period any more. The US is at present taking a very aggressive view towards trade protectionism, and any kind of loophole or weakness within any trade deal will be fully exploited. When we say that we must have safeguards to protect our standards, I hope that the Government will recognise that that protection must extend to this Trade Bill.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to several of these amendments, but I shall stick to dealing with Amendment 20—indeed, part of Amendment 20. If it was being redrafted, Defra should be added to the list of bodies in paragraph (a): the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. It is not generally appreciated, but in 2010, when there was an attempt to abolish the UK-wide Food Standards Agency, the consensus in government was to remove aspects of its work to the Department of Health—nutrition and one or two other issues—and labelling and country of origin went to Defra. In fact, it was as a direct result of that action that Food Standards Scotland was set up, because the Scottish Government were perfectly satisfied with the way that the UK-wide FSA was operating. That is a minor point, but I want to concentrate on paragraph (b), which deals with the mechanism and the bodies charged with the enforcement of standards of food safety and quality, to make sure that they have the capacity to deal with the extra work.
It is worth pointing out, by the way, that although it is not politically sexy, the definition of food generally encompasses food and feed—feed being food for food production animals. That has not been taken very seriously in the past by the enforcement authorities. They are, generally speaking, local government. In the main, the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland use local authorities for that role. Some issues they run themselves—the FSA runs the Meat Hygiene Service directly—but local authorities and environmental health officers are the unsung heroes of food safety and standards for the public.
The Government give us bad news in that respect. In the UK, local authority food hygiene interventions include hygiene inspection audits, sampling visits, verification and surveillance, advice and education and intelligence-gathering. It is absolutely crucial, but all of it will be under pressure with extra work from trade deals. Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, the total number of interventions in the UK reduced by 11%. They went down from 431,852 to 383,494. In England, the fall was from 331,000 to 305,000. In Northern Ireland, the fall was from 21,000 down to 14,000—a huge decrease. In Wales, interventions dropped from 31,000 to 25,000, and in Scotland, they went down from 47,000 to 38,000. I appreciate that with more modern risk techniques and technology, there can be reductions in certain checks, but these reductions are so substantial over that period that the position will be serious if extra pressure is put on because of the work from these trade deals.
I shall give just one local authority example to illustrate how serious the situation is in terms of people checking on our food safety. In Uxbridge in London—I just took it at random—there are 263 food business operations. Twenty-one of them, 8%, have not even been inspected. Thirty of them, 11%, have a food hygiene rating score of zero, one or two. Those are the three scores, of course, that are less than satisfactory, so nearly 20% of the food business operations in one local authority area are definitely a cause for concern. So, the issue in sub-paragraph (b), which aims to make sure that
“the Secretary of State is satisfied that … bodies charged with enforcement”
have the resources to do it, is quite serious, and is the one I want to concentrate on, because I do not want to repeat what others have said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I remind noble Lords to switch off devices while we are in Grand Committee. It is quite disturbing and disruptive.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for introducing this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on beating me to the starting post. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Fairhead on this amendment, which had cross-party support as an amendment to the Trade Bill 2019 in the previous Parliament, and for her patience in meeting all of us who were involved in its drafting. She was very kind in taking different parts of the various groups of amendments, and it is bewildering to see that it is no longer part of this Bill.
I pay tribute also to those campaigns. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the Daily Mail. I add the Farmers Guardian and, closer to home, the Yorkshire Post. Yorkshire has a massive food cluster, in terms of farmers and food producers and processors, so this is a subject that is very close to their heart. The background to Amendment 23, as far as I can see—and also Amendments 24 and 25, which I shall come on to in a moment—is that it should reflect the work and the debates and the amendments on the Agriculture Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, set out. It also reflects the manifesto commitment, with which the Minister will be even more familiar, that we want to have high environmental standards and animal welfare going forward in our rollover agreements and in future agreements as well.
I go further and say that we have to have fair competition and a level playing field. I would like to have an assurance today from the Minister that he expects that imported food products will meet the same standards and that it is not the intention of the Government to allow in food products which will actually undercut our own producers, and then to proceed to place a tariff on them, with a label on the finished product to say that that is what it is. “This is chlorinated chicken, it does not meet our animal welfare standards, but it is safe to eat if that is what you want to eat.”
This takes us back to the very sorry situation we found ourselves in under—dare I say it—a previous Conservative Government, which I supported, where we unilaterally imposed a ban on sow stalls and tethers but allowed producers to produce pork with sow stalls and tethers in Denmark, Poland and other countries and then allowed those imports to be introduced onto our supermarket shelves. The consumer did not understand the farm tractor label and went on to buy on price, and the result was that more than 50% of our pig producers went out of production almost overnight. Surely, that cannot be the intention of the Government in this case. I make a plea to my noble friend to reinstate the original clause by adopting the amendment, either today or on Report. That is what most of us would like to see.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for lending their support to Amendment 24. I would like to add food safety to this for the reasons that we discussed at the time with my noble friend Lady Fairhead, and which I repeat now. The case has been strengthened by the reference made by my noble friend Lord Gardiner when summing up the Second and Third Readings of the Agriculture Bill. He referred to the multiple protections that the Government have put in place, not least the role of the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred. Keeping food safety in Amendment 23 would protect that.
On Amendment 25, I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my almost noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting this amendment. I would like to put my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s mind at rest because when we have these debates he frequently says that he would like an assurance from the Minister that whatever we negotiate will be WTO-compliant. If he looks at the World Trade Organization pages, he will see:
“Environmental requirements can impede trade and even be used as an excuse for protectionism. The answer is not to weaken environmental standards, but to set appropriate standards and enable exporters to meet them.”
That is what we are trying to do here. We want to ensure that we make provision through any future regulations under the Bill—or any future trade agreement —that those regulations will not have the effect of lowering animal health, hygiene or welfare standards, the protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability or human and workers’ rights below EU or UK standards. The World Trade Organization goes on to say that we should be looking to have higher standards that could be met by all those wishing to participate in a particular free trade area agreement.
I will conclude by drawing my noble friend’s attention to the Dimbleby report that he was kind enough to read over the weekend. The executive summary on page 7 of National Food Strategy Part One states:
“Grasping the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decide what kind of trading nation we want to be. The essence of sovereignty is freedom—including the freedom to uphold our own values and principles within the global marketplace. In negotiating our new trade deals, the Government must protect the high environmental and animal welfare standards of which our country is justly proud. It should also have the confidence to subject any prospective deals to independent scrutiny: a standard process in mature trading nations such as the United States, Australia, and Canada. If we put the right mechanisms in place, we can ensure high food standards, protect the environment and be a champion of free trade.”
I would like an assurance from the Minister today that that is what he intends and to put at rest the minds of farmers such as Mrs Joan Riddell who has written to me from Banbury in Oxford. She wants an assurance that the high standards of our farmers in this country will be met. Will my noble friend say whether that is what we intend? What is the status of the Dimbleby report? Sadly, the Government will not have responded to it before we have passed the Agriculture Bill or the Trade Bill here or in the other place. Presumably, if the Government have asked Henry Dimbleby to report on this matter, they intend to follow his advice.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
I am speaking to Amendments 20, 23, 24 and 25. It is a great pleasure, as ever, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, with whom I am in complete agreement. Ministers keep emphasising that this is a continuity Bill, no doubt to reduce its significance in laying a framework for future legislation in relation to trade deals but, as we have already heard, in one area this Bill is not a continuity Bill in the sense that it does not retain the crucial compromises relating to standards and regulations which were agreed on Report of the previous Trade Bill with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who gave a comprehensive presentation in relation to this issue. I particularly support Amendments 23, 24 and 25.
To put it succinctly, food imports must, and should, comply with the highest food standards, which should be enforced in statute. Having said that, I think the general public want to know whether the animals and the produce that they eat are imported or indigenous, and that the husbandry involved and the agricultural production of the land are carried out in a safe way and are of a certain quality. It is important, therefore, that such regulations are placed in statute. This applies to rollover trade agreements and any future trade agreements.
I am a little perplexed as to why the government amendment that is captured in Amendment 23, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was not carried over into this particular piece of legislation. Again, I ask the Minister to outline to the Members of your Lordships’ Committee why the Government decided not to include this amendment. Is it their intention to accept a cross-party amendment on Report, to which the Government would also be a signatory, thereby underlining their commitment to ensuring that food standards, food safety, animal health standards and other standards to do with imported agricultural produce are placed in statute, and thereby safeguarding lives and the good, safe quality of food?
We heard many conversations on this issue during the Committee and Report stages of the Agriculture Bill, and there is obviously a direct read-across here. But the bottom line in both Bills is the need to maintain statutory protection, because, without that, we could import food that could be often of inferior quality, which can impact on public health outcomes. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I would like an update from the Minister on the Government’s position on Henry Dimbleby’s report, evidence from which we took for our report in the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee back in February. What his report said was very cogent and very apposite at that time. Now, particularly with the Covid pandemic, it illustrates the point that there needs to be the highest levels of protection, but they must be placed in statute. That is why we called for the trade and agricultural standards commission to be given statutory permanency in the Agriculture Bill, because we wanted to see that protection. We want health and food standards to be protected. We do not want chlorinated chicken or hormone-infused beef being imported, which is of a lower standard than the food that is already indigenous to the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the Government’s attitude and response to the Henry Dimbleby report and explain why Amendment 23 was not captured as it was in the original Trade Bill last year.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
One day, I am going to send round a notice about how to say my name—but it does mean that I start every speech with a smile.
Noble Lords have covered almost every issue that I was going to speak on today, so I will be like a sparrow under a bird table and hop around to find things that I feel particularly strongly about. Noble Lords have spoken about environmental protection, animal welfare and sentience, and public health. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his kind comments about Amendment 74 in my name, which is basically about ensuring food standards, food safety, environment protections and so on—that is what you would expect from a Green, of course.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned the good progress that we made on the Trade Bill before with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead. She worked with us and I thought that we found a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was also involved. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, is not in the same place—his party now has a majority of 80-plus in the Commons and he therefore does not need to talk to us in the same way—but the fact is that almost all the speeches have been united on our need for such protection in the Bill. That is partly because we simply do not believe the Government. It is not about individual Ministers, for whom we have a great deal of respect, even a liking; we just do not trust the Government. They have proved again and again that they have no respect for either the law or Parliament. We therefore need protections in the Bill because if they are not there, we do not believe that they will happen.
It is a case of understanding that trade is not trade on its own; trade has an impact on virtually every area of our public life. A climate emergency is happening now. Parts of America are burning to death and parts of the Arctic are melting into the sea, never to be ice again in our lifetimes. We must understand that trade has an impact on that. There is no argument with that. Personally, I feel that there is no option but to embed these ideas for how to be a more sustainable country in the Bill—in fact, in every Bill that we debate.
Next year, we will host COP 26. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, asked an Oral Question today about sponsors and so on. The Minister came back and said, “Well, you know, we’re going to judge our sponsors and their short-term action plans and that sort of thing.” I am afraid that that is just not good enough. We do not trust the Government to judge anything as sustainable or climate-friendly. You have to go outside the Government to find people who understand what sustainability means and what the climate emergency is. We have an opportunity as a country to show some leadership. Quite honestly, we do not have leaders in the Government at the moment; we have children who bluster and act like clowns. It is all very embarrassing, I am afraid.
I mentioned the Government’s majority in the House of Commons. The fact is that that majority lets the Government off the hook, unfortunately, and absolves them of any meaningful scrutiny. However, we scrutinise here and we can tell you that this Bill is not good enough.
I am still hopping around under the bird table. My Amendment 74 would prevent the ratification of any trade agreement that does not comply with UK standards, or at least
“standards that are comparable in effectiveness to those of the United Kingdom”.
It is a simple, effective amendment. I hope that the Government will read it and see that I am trying to be helpful, not difficult.
I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who pointed out that we do not yet know what criteria the Government are using for their trade deals, that they have not given us any sort of meaningful policy intent or criteria and that we do not know how they will approach and evaluate trade negotiations and trade deals. I assume that that is because they do not know themselves, but it would be really helpful if we had some guidelines from the Government on how they will take these issues forward.
With that, I will finish. I am deeply, deeply furious about the way in which this Government are handling the whole country. I cannot blame the Ministers here but, as British citizens, we should all be thoroughly embarrassed.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I will not be following the same line of argument as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I remind noble Lords that the majority of the amendments in this group apply only to regulations made under Clause 2, which applies to continuity agreements only. All noble Lords who have the bogeyman of a trade deal with the United States in their minds when they make their speeches are barking up the wrong tree. These amendments would have nothing whatever to do with any trade treaty outside the continuity agreements.
This feels like Groundhog Day. Having just come through the Agriculture Bill, I see the same people making the same arguments. I have this nightmare that in every Bill going forward, for ever, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and a number of other noble Lords will be popping up with amendments in virtually the same form, whatever the basic content of the Bill, if they have half a chance of squeezing them into the long title.
These amendments go beyond food standards and all those things that so many impassioned words have been said about already into how food is produced. Noble Lords will be aware that, under WTO rules—they are our future in trading terms, if not our past—it is not allowed to mention food production methods without a scientific basis. That is one reason why the EU, and therefore the UK, has been in contravention of WTO rules. We need to come to terms with the fact that we are now living in the post-EU world where the WTO will be extremely important to us. I hope that my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who knows much more about the WTO than I do, will amplify that when he speaks later.
The noble Lords who have spoken know perfectly well what the UK Government’s stated policy is in relation to the standards that they are keen to see adopted in the way that the Government pursue business. UK law is aligned with EU law by virtue of retained law, so whatever trade agreements are entered into, it is not possible to import, for example, hormone-treated beef into the UK—even though there is actually no scientific basis for that, certainly on food safety grounds. Treaties do not and cannot change UK law. As I have said before, we do not customarily write every government policy into legislation. That would create a very cumbersome way of building up legislation.
Noble Lords have remarked in various ways how they think these policies need to be written into the Bill because they do not trust the Government or think that the Government are not sufficiently persuasive. They have often accompanied those remarks with a number of insults about either the Prime Minister or the Government in general. I have to say, it is not the approach of any Government involved in legislating to write into legislation things that appear to upset noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, or even on the Cross Benches. Noble Lords will be aware that, even if we wrote it into the Bill, it could easily be changed if the Government sought to change it in later legislation and Parliament agreed to that. As has already been mentioned, the straightforward electoral arithmetic now means that, with a majority of 80 in the other place, the Government’s policy can change. If we try to put anything into this Bill, it does not necessarily determine government policy for ever and a day, which is what noble Lords are trying to do.
The amendments in this group are not necessary and are, I believe, a waste of legislative time. I would fully expect the other place to reject them if they were pursued and passed on Report. I will speak in specific terms about one amendment only: Amendment 23. A number of noble Lords have referred to it as representing some kind of glorious compromise around the time of the previous Trade Bill. I will speak to it because my noble friend Lord Grimstone, the Minister, was not here at that time. He will have not been aware of the circumstances in which that amendment was put into the Bill.
We have to remember that, at that time, Parliament was barely functioning. It was more focused on resisting any form of Brexit in any way possible. Getting the Trade Bill through the House of Lords was an extremely difficult thing for my noble friend Lady Fairhead to try to achieve. Not to put it too mildly, the amendment that came forward was just an act of attempted appeasement to those noble Lords who were bent on obstructing anything related to Brexit. I say this to noble Lords: the world has changed. That amendment belonged in that era, and that era is behind us.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I plan to say a few words on Amendment 20, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I am also sympathetic to Amendments 23, 25 and 26.
Food production and environmental standards, as well as the safety that they enshrine, are crucial to a healthy agricultural sector that seeks to mitigate the dangers arising from poor practices and the low-quality products they produce. Ensuring continuity has been a big priority for a number of Members. Issues surrounding the responsible administration of antibiotics to livestock, for example, are not national issues but global public health ones. Despite the Bill covering existing trading arrangements, we should not forget that the raison d’être for leaving the European Union was the assertion of our sovereignty. It is therefore right that the existing arrangements, conducted while we were in the EU, ought to be scrutinised by the relevant departments to ensure that the UK does not inadvertently undermine measures to achieve reductions in the risk of disease or contamination—or, indeed, targets for antibiotic reduction.
This by no means seeks to discredit trading arrangements made while we were in the EU, which I am confident already abide by the regulations set forth in Amendment 20. However, the scrutiny put forward in this amendment will guarantee this and ensure that the UK reinstates its commitments to the environment, food standards and a safe and healthy agriculture sector globally through its existing trading partners. I look forward to hearing what reassurances the Minister can give us on this group of amendments, particularly on whether there is some way in which the broad drift of what many of them try to get at can be brought back in the hope that we do not have to table specific amendments on Report.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these amendments because I believe that each and every one of them is important—not least because of their implications as much as their substance, which matters a lot. After all, the legislation around which they are drafted was made entirely properly via the so-called community method, endorsed by Parliament during our membership of the European Union. As a result, they are as legitimate a piece of law as any domestic statute.
When we left the European Union, it was entirely sensible to slide the then acquis directly on to the domestic statute book and to add a provision enabling amendment by statutory instrument. After all, there is a need for all kinds of consequential adjustment. But it does not follow from this that they have to be amended by statutory instrument, merely that they can be. Equally, perhaps, they can as effectively be amended by Act of Parliament.
Clearly, too, when we left the European Union, the power that Parliament bestowed on the Union in respect of international agreements fell away. This means that such international agreements now again revolve around the use of the royal prerogative. However, as has been pointed out on many occasions, the character of the interdependent world in which we now live means that binding international commitments have a much bigger impact on this country than much domestic legislation, which of course is why the CRaG Act was put on the statute book. The reality is, as many people have pointed out, that the procedures under the CRaG Act are a shadow of substantive full parliamentary procedures in terms of scrutiny, checks and balances, transparency and so on, not least because the crucial international decisions are essentially completed before and not after UK parliamentary deliberation, and by then it is a bit late.
The reality of the world that we live in is that Parliament is given Hobson’s choice. In my mind, for serious, wide-ranging legislative change, that is very undesirable and comes about because of a congruence of our leaving the EU and the role of the royal prerogative. Its effect on legislators and the public is substantial in terms of diminution of their involvement, and scrutiny of what is going on. That is one thing for minor technicalities, but not for major policy changes.
The Government have argued this afternoon that they have made promises in respect of a whole range of these things. Of course they have, but, equally, it was interesting that the Chancellor said earlier today that he would try—I repeat, “try”—to deliver as many manifesto promises as he could. Already there is a bit of a let-out there. And let us be clear: it is not unheard of for Governments to change. After all, I think we have had four in the last five years and, dare I say it, sometimes promises are broken. While it is convenient for Ministers to have Parliament rubber-stamp their wishes, it is not Parliament’s role to do so. Rather, we should deliberate on and then accept, refuse or amend the Government’s proposals—and that is slightly different.
The bulk of the amendments in this group reinforce Parliament’s role in developing agricultural and/or food law. It is difficult to think of anything more important domestically than the quality, wholesomeness and origins of the food that we eat here, be it from the perspective of human physical and mental health, its impact on the NHS and public expenditure or its impact on land management and the environment across the country. In a properly organised world, I suggest that significant changes in respect of these matters merit full parliamentary scrutiny, and at least the amendment is a move in the right direction.
The environment and climate change are in the same category. After all, all carbon emissions, wherever they may originate, do not respect national boundaries, and the effect of excessive emissions, regardless of where they originate, is in general terms a bit like putting the whole globe into a microwave.
On top of all this, where proposed domestic change to ex-EU legislation involves breaches of international legislation—something which it is clear from the events of the last few weeks that the country does not like—I do not believe that the Government should be able to proceed towards that unless either the proper international withdrawal legal procedures have been followed or they have first had express parliamentary authority to proceed.
These amendments do not go as far as I would like, but they are a real step in the right direction.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to speak very briefly in support of the amendments that address issues of food safety and the importing of agricultural goods. I had intended to add my name to the lead amendment, Amendment 20, and I concur very much with the points made very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
As was mentioned in the first bank of amendments that we debated last week, dealing with environmental issues, in this Bill we are overlapping significantly with the debates that we had on the Agriculture Bill. That is again the position as we address the safeguards needed against importing food of inferior quality to that produced in the UK or the European Union.
I am not going to repeat the arguments that I put forward on Report of the Agriculture Bill, but it might be as well to remind the Committee that amendments on those issues were carried in the context of that Bill and they are equally relevant in the context of this one. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind as they seek to pass a Trade Bill—namely, to make it acceptable to all parts of this House. I commend Amendment 20.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, much of what I wanted to say has already been said in this useful debate. I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, again. I have been doing that quite a lot in recent weeks. I have to say to him that it might not continue for very long after today, but it has been fun so far.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment made the important recommendation that food imports must be required to adhere to the same health, environmental and animal welfare standards as food produced in the UK. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I sat on that committee, and I was convinced by the evidence we received that it was necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. We have tried it with the Agriculture Bill, but it is also worth trying to get it in this Bill.
Let us be absolutely clear that restricting imports that are below standard will not solve the health problems of this country. We produce a lot of good, healthy food in this country, but the food industry turns it into processed rubbish that poisons us. As the Prime Minister said this morning, it was his obesity that caused a lot of the problems that he had when he got Covid. So it will not be a panacea, but it will help.
We need to be very careful that we do not malign the USA too much. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, mentioned chlorinated chicken. I have been to the USA every year for the last 21 years —except for this year, because I was banned from going because of Covid—but in each of those years I have eaten chlorinated chicken, and delicious it was, too. We chlorinate a lot of the food that we eat; a lot of vegetables are chlorinated. The point is that it is not the chlorination that is the problem but the standards in which the hens are kept before chlorination. Those animal welfare standards are the most important thing in this discussion.
So I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, once again, and I wish him well with this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call Lord Judd. We appear to be unable to reach the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
I am sorry about that. I had problems unmuting, and I was slightly taken by surprise because I thought I would be speaking after the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
My Lords, these are essential matters. Animal welfare, food safety and the environment affect us all, and they have huge implications for public expenditure because, if you get it wrong, the pressures on the health services and other care facilities become all the greater.
My noble friend Lady Henig dealt with the disturbing statistics from the United States. It is not very nice to think about dear American cousins in this light. However, it is true that deaths and hospitalisations in the States are—I called them troubling, but in a way they are quite threatening. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, these things know no national frontiers.
We know that in the pressure for trade—trade is an end in itself—there could be terrific pressures to undermine all that we have built up, because we have built up a great deal in these spheres and can be quite proud of our record, although we cannot be satisfied with it yet, and to see that undermined with a scramble for trade would be shocking. We must monitor and have scrutiny in this area. Our families, friends and children are at stake. I so much agree with my good friend and fellow Cumbrian the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that it is sad about our having left the European Union. We need to work on these things effectively internationally and here was a chance to do that and contribute what we have—and we have a lot to contribute—to raising standards across Europe as a whole and from Europe moving into the world as a whole. This is a sad moment in our history—I state it again.
I commend all those who have tabled these amendments and all those who have worked and fought and struggled so hard over so many years to build up our standards. There is a great deal of understanding in the agricultural and farming community in this country about the importance of these things. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was right: these amendments are a significant step in the right direction. They are not enough because we cannot give up the international struggle on the basis of our own standards.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Beith. As we seem to be unable to reach the noble Lord, Lord Beith, we will move to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has already intimated that she expects that I will be presenting a different viewpoint from that which most noble Lords have presented on these matters, and she is completely correct, although I was indeed most happy to have support for what I am going to say from my noble friend Lady Noakes and, to some extent, from my noble friend Lord Caithness.
As I am one-quarter American—my mother was half-American and my grandmother was a farmer in Illinois and Iowa—I strongly resent the widely held belief encouraged by the Daily Mail that American food is bad and inherently worse than ours. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, criticised food safety standards in the United States quite strongly and quoted Henry Dimbleby, but she quoted him selectively. He also said in his report:
“But negotiating trade deals is hard. Any blanket legislation requiring other countries to meet our own food guidelines would make it nigh-on impossible. We already import many food products from the EU that don’t meet UK standards. A blanket ban would make it impossible to continue trading even with this most closely aligned of partners.”
Chickens reared in Poland also come to mind, where stocking densities are massively higher than what we tolerate in this country. Are we quite as good as we think we are? From what I have been reading about pollution in the River Wye and other waterways in Herefordshire and the west country, I am not so sure.
To my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I would say that she is correct that the WTO permits countries to apply higher than international standards to food production, but only when it is not for protectionist reasons, and only when justified by science. The WTO has found the EU bans on GM crops and on hormone-treated beef not to be consistent with that: in other words, it does not believe that the science justifies the ban. Indeed, examination of the science behind the ban on hormone-treated beef suggests that the incidence of the hormone substance in the beef is absolutely minuscule and of no great significance: far less, for example, than found in half a dozen free-range eggs, commonly available in any supermarket.
I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is unnecessary, and since the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and other bodies have the statutory powers to maintain food safety, I am surprised that he sees it as necessary. I oppose his proposal to require trade agreements to comply with retained EU law relating to food standards, for the reasons I just mentioned. As noted in a previous debate, it will be a matter solely for the UK to decide on our food safety standards in future. The noble Lord is also misguided in thinking that all EU rules contribute to the maintenance of high safety standards: some do not. For example, the incidence of campylobacter infection in the UK is five times what it is in the United States because EU regulations prohibit the washing of poultry products in peracetic acid. I think it likely that in this respect, the US, as well as some other countries, might well have an issue with the UK’s food standards.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that what is described by most noble Lords as “chlorine rinsing”—that is actually out of date, because peracetic acid is generally used instead of chlorine—has nothing to do with food safety. Indeed, American chicken tastes very good, so I agree with my noble friend. When I go to America, I do not worry about eating chlorinated chicken: it is not bad, it has nothing to do with food safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, stated that his Amendment 23 is similar to a government amendment made to the Trade Bill introduced to your Lordships’ House in 2019. That may be so, but I nevertheless hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist it, for the reasons I have mentioned. UK levels of statutory protection will in future be a matter to be determined by UK statutory agencies and this Parliament. The same applies to Amendments 24 and 25 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I think my noble friend’s attention to animal welfare standards compromises her attention to food safety. Furthermore, her Amendment 25 shows that she thinks standards are two-dimensional, higher or lower, rather than multidimensional. I ask the Minister to confirm that the UK will not enshrine in law any measure that treats EU and UK standards as identical. This does not mean that I am suggesting that the UK should depart from its current high standards in connection with the environment, food safety and workers’ rights.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I agree with one point he made in his speech: it is for Parliament to seek guarantees on our standards. In essence, that is what we are seeking to do: to have a statutory underpinning to ensure that our trading relationships and trade agreements do not undermine them through various different mechanisms which can be beyond amending primary legislation.
It is certainly not uncommon for there to be duties in law on Ministers that frame how they carry out their duties. Most legislation that comes before Parliament has such duties. We are seeking the equivalent for the new approach we have for Ministers and the Department of International Trade when carrying out their trade negotiating duties. There should not be any great surprise about that. This legislation has restrictions in Clause 8 on the new powers for HMRC. There are duties in Schedule 1 about how Ministers carry out their duties on consultation. There is no great surprise that this legislation has restrictions and duties. We are simply arguing that, when it comes to the elements within our amendment, we are expanding the scope of those restrictions and those duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, might consider that to be appeasement, which I will refer to a little further on, but I disagree with her.
I wish to move government Amendment 23. I want to use those words because I doubt I will ever be able to move a government amendment, but a government amendment was moved on the previous Bill and, without wishing to be facetious, I shall go a little further and quote:
“My Lords, I am bringing forward amendments designed to maintain UK levels of statutory protection when implementing continuity trade agreements … The fact that I am able to do so is testament to the cross-party working that makes this House so valuable, and I have no doubt that this process has enhanced the legislation.”
That was the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead. Later, she said it was
“an improvement to the Bill”.—[Official Report, 20/3/19; cols. 1439-40.]
That is testament to cross-party working. It is not déjà vu or Groundhog Day, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that it is not a race or sprint in which we got there first because she is a dogged campaigner on these areas. I think this is more of a relay race between legislation and different individuals. I hope the Minister feels from knowing and seeing the Agriculture Bill and this Bill that it is the settled will of a cross-party consensus that the Trade Bill should be strengthened by the reinsertion of what the Government themselves had considered a strengthening of it.
I want to refer back to the Agriculture Bill, as other noble Lords have indicated. When the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, summed up, he referred to me and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. In rejecting what we had argued for at that time—although the House did not agree with the Government and passed the amendment—he said that
“none of the 20 continuity trade agreements signed to date would undermine domestic standards.”
He then set us a challenge, saying:
“I look forward to those noble Lords who are determined that this is not the case at least having the courtesy to say, ‘Actually, our fears have been allayed’. I set that as a challenge.”—[Official Report, 22/9/20; col. 1755.]
In around five years’ time, if I am still here, I will say to whoever the Minister is that allays have been feared. The powers under this legislation are for five years and the Government have indicated that some of these continuity agreements are likely to change. Countries that we have signed continuity agreements with will have changed their agreements with the European Union over that period because many of them are discussing changes. The UK will have to choose how it changes its agreements. We are saying that any changes being brought forward must comply with our statutory standards.
The Government have indicated that that is not really necessary because they have pretty much got all the agreements done anyway, so it is purely an academic exercise. We have signed 20 agreements and there are 18 to go. Half is not all of them done and dusted. Given the fact that the Government had this amendment in the legislation when 18 were signed, not 20, what has changed? The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, did not give a proper response. I look forward to the Minister giving one. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said it was because the previous Government appeased those who wanted to keep our statutory functions. I would be grateful if the Minister can indicate why the Government have changed their position.
I turn to the issue of whether we should be completely reassured that, as the Minister has said before, no trade agreement can ever change statutory provision. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger—who is now back in his place—indicated in the previous group that that would be the case. On the face of it, that is correct. Any trade agreement would require statutory changes, if necessary, to change the primary legislation. However, we have already seen decisions made, for example, on quotas on imported sugar. Decisions have been made over the summer that will have a big and damaging impact on our domestic agricultural market because we will be giving a competitive advantage to those who are operating without the environmental or labour standards that we find acceptable. They also undermine commitments that we have given to the least developed countries.
It also comes back to the issue of chicken. I have been struck by the Government’s language about chicken and the use of chlorine washing. It was helpful that the NFU gave us the details of some of the concerns about this. It comes back to the specific food hygiene regulation. We are carrying this regulation over but the Government have said that it will change on completion of the implementation period. I shall quote from it:
“Food business operators must not use any substance other than potable water—or, when”
a regulation
“permits its use, clean water—to remove surface contamination”.
That is what the Minister has quoted to us in the past, and that is correct, but I found it really interesting, because the Minister did not finish the quote. It goes on to say
“unless use of the substance has been prescribed by the appropriate authority”.
So materials can be used—in a trade agreement that we can accept from America, for washing any of their products—if we simply prescribe that by an approved authority, and that can be done by negative resolution.
My suspicions always grow when Ministers, when they want to give us reassurance, give us half the situation. The record of the Government this year up to now is, I am afraid to say, that they say they have no intention of doing something just before they do it. The Government say “Trust us, because we have no intention in our future trading relationships of undermining any environmental standards” in the same week as they appoint a trade commissioner, Tony Abbott. I remind the Committee that the week he was appointed, when we were raising concerns on standards in previous proceedings on this Bill and on the Agriculture Bill, he told a conference in London, when he was giving his top tip on how to achieve success in trade negotiations, that they needed,
“not to be held up by things that are not all that important, and not be distracted by things that are not really issues of trade but might be, for argument’s sake, issues of the environment”.
I think the House believes that those aspects are issues of trade. Therefore, the current legislation lacks the enhancements that had been made by the previous Government in their amendment.
In conclusion, the Government’s previous position was:
“A key aspect of that continuity is to ensure that UK statutory protections are maintained. These protections are highly valued by our businesses and consumers and are an important component of the UK’s offer to the world”.
That is correct, and our offer to the world should be the highest standards. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, continued:
“It makes it clear that the power can be used only in a way that is consistent with the maintenance of UK levels of statutory protection in the listed areas”—[Official Report, 20/3/19; col. 1439.]
but the agreements, some now very old, will need to be updated, and, in updating them or replacing them, we will have to ensure that any of those changes will be upholding our current standards.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, suggested that some of this may restrict our negotiators or put extra burdens on them. I do not agree, for an historical reason. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said on Second Reading that the party of free trade should not be imposing restrictions. That was half the story. We got rid of the Corn Laws and introduced free trade at the same time as we got rid of adulterated bread, beer and milk and put in place public food standards against them and against counterfeiting.
The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 was a major precursor of the Food Safety Act 1990, itself the precursor of the standards that we are now inheriting. Upholding them is the strongest tradition of Britain, where we have led since Victorian times and other countries have followed. Reinserting this amendment, with the addition of food standards, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others and the support of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, would be a very strong signal to our trading partners in the world that we will be upholding our standards—British standards.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, no one listening to this debate today could be in any doubt about the importance that noble Lords attach to the maintenance of the highest standards in the areas that we have been discussing. To make the Government’s position clear, we entirely concur.
I turn to the amendments, starting with Amendment 20 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is intended to ensure that regulations can be made under the Clause 2 power only if they adhere to UK standards of food production and safety and that partner country products are in line with our domestic health policies and policy targets.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for reminding us that Clause 2, to which many of the amendments that we considering today relate, relates to continuity agreements, not to new free trade agreements. As your Lordships are aware from the many debates that we have had on this issue in both this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the UK already has extremely high import standards of food safety enshrined in domestic law. I say again that we have no intention of lowering these; I completely reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on this point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend Lord Grimstone has just confirmed my worst fears about this interchange of terminology between food safety and food standards. We owe the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, a great debt of gratitude because he clearly stated what Heather Hancock, as chair of the Food Standards Agency, has said on numerous occasions: that our current food safety standards can be changed overnight by the passing of a regulation—that is, a statutory instrument. I think he said that that could happen via the negative procedure, not even the full affirmative procedure.
There we have it. That is the problem. We are not even speaking the same language, which concerns me greatly. On food standards, whatever chemical you want to rinse with—such as chlorine—or hormone you want to inject your beef with, it is not something that the consumers of this country want to consume. I just wish that my noble friend Lord Grimstone would accept that this goes to the heart of our concern, reflected in this group of amendments and the other amendments that we will come on to when we discuss the International Trade Commission and what the future criteria will be.
It is not that the chicken or beef might be unsafe to eat; it is that the product does not meet the high standards of production that our farmers must meet. It will therefore undercut our farmers, who could potentially be put out of business. That is precisely what happened under a previous Conservative Government in the mid-1990s; as a result, 50% of pig producers—who were largely in north and east Yorkshire, I might add—went out of business. That is a position to which I do not want to return. Will my noble friend accept that this terminology is extremely important and that what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said in regard to the regulation being amended literally by the sweep of a pen is what goes to the heart of this argument?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, of course I apologise if I caused any confusion in my remarks —but I stand by them. It would require a statutory process for these food standards to be altered.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed on this group of amendments and reflected on the provisions that they would bring forward. I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for his experiences at the Food Standards Agency and for bringing up serious concerns over paragraph 9(b).
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, drew attention to previous experiences when the UK imposed higher standards on its producers than the EU did, and the lack of redress that resulted in the closing of many UK businesses.
My noble friend Lady Henig underlined why the British public hold standards to be of key importance and that this must be clearly understood when food purchases are made by them. This point and other comments from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others were reflected around the Committee in the debate, and the Government were asked to show leadership. The Bill sends a clear message, both in and beyond continuity agreements. Principles do not rely on circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke very powerfully.
I thank the Minister for the consideration that he has shown. I am glad that he concurs, but he then seeks to wriggle out of what this requires. The evidence is the omission of Amendment 23 in the Bill. Partly why his assurances are so unconvincing is that there does not seem to be any coherent strategy between trade agreements and why trade deals are being pursued by the Government. Elements of that strategy could certainly address standards—that is, how they will be addressed through continuity agreements and beyond. We need to know how the UK Government will approach competing standards regimes.
Another element of a strategy could be climate change, which we addressed earlier in our debates. There does not appear to be any rationale for scrutinising trade deals in the recently established Trade and Agriculture Commission. The Government do not appear to look beyond Brexit and tomorrow’s headlines. There is no real answer other than Brexit.
When amendments to the Agriculture Bill on food standards were proposed in the Commons, the Government argued that their place was in, and their relevance was to, the Trade Bill. However, the Government have not put any such amendments in the Trade Bill. We are happy to enshrine the Government’s commitment in their place. Do they wish to vote against their commitment here?
The charge of protectionism is often levelled against these amendments, but who is being protected and against what? Free and fair competition is to be encouraged. That does not include constraining domestic production in law while allowing access to lower-quality produce that it would be illegal to produce here, for many good reasons.
The WTO allows recognition of standards in international agreements, especially in relation to mutual recognition and the outlawing of dumping practices. These are all serious considerations to be kept in mind in the drafting of amendments and in how best to reflect them in legislation. We will need to keep amendments in mind for further consideration while the Government reassess their approach. We will consider carefully the situation and how best to respond to complement the Agriculture Bill. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 26. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 26
“(6A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.(6B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.(6C) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) gives consent.(6D) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, unless they have consulted with devolved administrations on the implementation of international trade agreements.(6E) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown unless the Minister has laid before Parliament a statement that, in the Minister’s view, the regulations do not undermine constitutional arrangements related to devolution.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 26 is in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her support. This amendment would not only require Ministers to consult devolved Administrations in relation to trade matters but would provide a mechanism under which the procedures that flow from trade agreements would be dealt with in consultation, and with their consent. I shall also speak to Amendment 31, which is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Amendment 31 again deals with the question of consultation and would add a small section at line 40 of page 2 of the current Bill.
Amendment 50, which is also in this group, is a slightly different measure but an important one none the less; again, it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Here, we try to bring forward for the consideration of the Committee the question of having a joint ministerial committee and the powers that it might need to discuss international trade issues in relation to the interests of the devolved Administrations. Before anyone in the Committee raises the question of whether we are aware of what we are doing, we are well aware that Amendments 26 and 31 deal with continuity agreements but that Amendment 50, being a proposed new clause, in fact points forward to the new free trade agreements in which we hope the Government will be engaged, and would provide a mechanism under which these could be considered in the context of the interests and involvement of the devolved Administrations.
As with all the others in this group, these amendments are about strengthening and protecting our current devolution settlement. In common with most amendments in Committee, they are probing in nature, although I hope it will be agreed around the Committee that they raise rather big issues, some of which overlap with the internal market Bill, shortly to be received in your Lordships’ House. My noble kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has raised many of the issues covered by these amendments regularly over the years, and I look forward to his contribution later in the debate—although I think that is now likely to be on Thursday. I hope very much that he will be able to attend then.
These amendments stem from the well-known Sewel convention, which has served the country well for many years. But the problem with the Sewel convention, now incorporated into many devolution Acts, is that it covers only primary legislation. It was founded on the principle, however, that UK Ministers would not normally seek to legislate in primary legislation for issues that were not reserved under the devolution Acts. But the question of whether it should or could be made to apply to secondary legislation is still open.
At Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked for clarification, but I am afraid that he did not receive much from the responses at that time. So I hope Ministers will take the opportunity now to be clear why, if the powers, for example, to modify retained EU law are to be used by Ministers in the UK Parliament to amend legislation in devolved areas, there is no mention of this in the Bill or a requirement to consult devolved Ministers, let alone a clear commitment not to legislate without obtaining their consent. These probing amendments give the Minister the chance to resolve these matters, which are of pressing importance given the imminent elections north of the border and in Wales. I look forward to his response.
Amendment 50 takes the argument a step further, post the implementation period, in the sense that we currently have very little understanding of what happens if consultation has been carried out but consent has not been obtained from any or all of the devolved Administrations on any matter, including, of course, trade. I am sure the Minister is aware that this is an important issue in the Internal Market Bill where mutual recognition and non-discrimination issues are the key to the smooth running of our internal sale and resale of goods and services.
We urgently need a means of settling disagreements, one that commands confidence and trust, so Amendment 50 is a probing amendment but it points the way, I think, towards reforming and restructuring the present, informal arrangements for the Joint Ministerial Committee in relation to international trade and gives it powers to approve mandates, receive progress reports and see the final agreements before they are ratified. The amendment is clearly complementary to Amendment 57, which is in my name, which deals with parliamentary scrutiny more generally and which is in a later group. I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I begin by apologising for not having been able to take part at Second Reading. Amendment 27, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, to which I have added my name, continues the theme that he and I highlighted at Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill: how we deal with conflict created by power being conferred on the Secretary of State or UK Ministers to make regulations in areas of devolved competence. I make absolutely no apologies for repeating our arguments in relation to the Bill today. It is in many ways similar in its objective to Amendment 26 and other amendments in this group to which noble Lords will be speaking. In essence, we are all seeking recognition by the UK Government of the powers of the devolved Administrations and, at the same time, a mechanism to ensure that their views are sought and taken account of.
In Clause 2, as the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report on the Welsh Government’s LCM on the Bill points out:
“The international trade agreements potentially covered by this provision will encompass a wide range of policy areas falling within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales”—
as it was at the time of writing—
“to include agriculture and fisheries.”
We all understand that the details of devolution settlements can be complex, but as the Senedd’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee acknowledges and clarifies, international relations and the regulation of international trade are reserved matters, but implementing obligations arising from international agreements that relate to devolved matters, to which Clause 2 applies, are primarily the responsibility of the devolved Governments and legislatures. So why are the Government overlooking this?
The Senedd’s LJC Committee is also concerned, as I am, that the powers in Clause 2 (6)(a) allow UK Ministers to make regulations that amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, a legislative provision that is worthy of attention and scrutiny by this Committee as well. These powers, we are assured by the UK Government, will not be used to legislate in devolved areas without the consents of the devolved Governments. This wording, it has been argued, has presumably been used to exclude the devolved Parliaments from consultation. I would be grateful if the Minister will clarify this.
Herein lies another problem for those of us who wish to support and defend our devolved legislatures. Are we to believe those words, “We are assured by the UK Government”? There was a time when a response from a Minister at the Dispatch Box would be accepted as the word of the Government, but experience has shown us that we need to be wary. How easily, it seems, the hard-earned powers gained by the Senedd and the other devolved Administrations can be clawed back by this Government. For more than 20 years, successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have added to the powers of the devolved Administrations, making them the effective legislatures we have today. They crave more powers and, in the case of the Senedd, more Members.
Sometimes Governments can behave in the same way as the very worst of parents in exercising their powers. Domineering and unthinking, they eventually and sometimes belatedly understand that removing rights bestowed on their children leads only to resentment. The best of parents listen to the opinions of their offspring and build a relationship of mutual respect and trust, ensuring that the family remains close. The UK has often been described as a family of four nations, but it is a union that we all agree is most unequal. For many of our citizens, it is a union that is no longer working as well as it could, hence the calls for Scottish independence and a growing openness to the prospect of independence for Wales. Chipping away at the powers of the devolved Administrations only adds to the volume of those calls.
I know how willing the Welsh Ministers are to work co-operatively with the UK Government and the other devolved nations. They have contributed effectively to the development of frameworks in many areas and are content to take that process further. In reacting to the publication of the internal market Bill the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, said that the Welsh Government were the first to highlight the need
“to develop a new form of joint governance .... in order to manage the intersection between devolved competence and the internal market”.
His comments are equally relevant to this Trade Bill.
As a signatory to Amendment 27, it has my support. Proposed new subsection (6A) would allow for consultation with the devolved Parliaments in order to obtain their consent to regulations and proposed new subsection (6B) would provide qualified majority voting, ensuring that if more than one Parliament withheld consent the regulations could not proceed. It would provide a mechanism for that co-operation, consultation and consent.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I echo the comments of previous speakers on this group. I want to put Amendment 26 in context. I have supported these amendments because of the difficult interface between the power to undertake trade negotiations, which is reserved, and the right of the devolved institutions to legislate on and regulate those areas of policy which have been their responsibility for more than two decades, such as plant and animal health, food standards and environmental standards. Amendment 26 would ensure that the devolved Administrations consent to legislation that UK Ministers wish to make which is within devolved competence when that legislation is a consequence of trade agreements they have entered into. This should be wholly uncontroversial. If you decide to tarmac over the driveway to your house and think it would be more effective and look better if your neighbours’ drive was similarly treated, you would ask for their agreement before instructing the contractor to do it.
Of course, it would not cause a problem were the UK Government serious about working with the devolved institutions to ensure that their interests are reflected and respected in negotiations. Unfortunately, there is some doubt about that and some fear that there is no desire to work with the other nations of the UK. If the Government are not putting in the work to build such a consensus agreement with the democratically elected institutions of these islands, then we must try to induce them to do so. If they are they will find willing partners, certainly in the Welsh Government; I am sure we will return to that theme later in the internal market Bill. For smooth functioning, a market must have common frameworks; that will not be achieved with a system of diktats from Whitehall.
Amendment 31 is simple but important. The sunset provision suggested by the Government allows for the powers to be renewed again and again. Others may have a view on the appropriateness of that, but the amendment simply requires the consent of the devolved Governments for those extensions to be granted. As I made clear, the Bill and its consequences potentially constrain the powers of devolved institutions to operate freely in areas of devolved competence. The case for this seems unanswerable.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this group of amendments be adjourned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes the work of the Committee this evening. The Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Sikka
Introduction: Lord Field of Birkenhead
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. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Transport Industry
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what additional support they plan to give to the transport industry to enable that industry to address the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the pandemic has had a significant impact on the transport industry. The Government recognise the key role that transport plays in supporting economic activity and maintaining social ties, which is why they have stepped in to support the industry where they can, to ensure that public transport is there for those who need it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Road traffic is back to pre-pandemic levels of congestion, while trains and buses are running almost empty. The Government are reorganising the rail industry but so far have provided only emergency funding for buses. Does the Minister accept that the commercial model for the bus industry was already failing before Covid-19? The Government now have the opportunity to create a green bus revolution. Will they reform subsidies to encourage environmental efficiency and give more powers to local authorities?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness may be interested to know that bus demand is currently running at about 55% of normal, which is encouraging, but she is quite right, and will know that we had always planned to do a bus strategy this year. Of course, we are starting from a very different place from where we had hoped to be, but it will include an awful lot of recovery work, as she so rightly outlined, and set out how we will get 4,000 zero-emission buses on our roads.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the coach industry feels particularly aggrieved, having been excluded from the industry-specific grants that have so benefited buses and trains? Is she also aware that long-standing family companies such as Travel De Courcey, based in Coventry, have already gone to the wall because of the economic situation? Can she offer any comfort to these vital parts of our transport industry, as far as the future is concerned?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am aware of the very difficult situation that the coach industry finds itself in. It is a very diverse sector with, as the noble Lord points out, a large number of family-run businesses. About 80% of revenue in the coach sector comes from tourism, and we are working very hard with DCMS to ensure that where tourism—particularly domestic tourism—can take place, it does. Much of the remaining 20% is home-to-school transport, and the Government have made available £40 million for the first half of this current term, for local authorities to procure extra vehicles.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in 10 days’ time, the emergency funding that the Government agreed with Transport for London to keep the buses and Tubes running runs out. Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be some agreement thereafter? If the Mayor of London has asked for £5 billion, how will any future burden be shared between the national taxpayer, travellers and London’s council tax payers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend mentions the figure of £5 billion: well, the Mayor of London would say that, wouldn’t he? As part of the first bailout, the Government commissioned a government-led review of TfL’s finances and I am afraid that it did not make happy reading, even prior to the pandemic. Multi-year fare freezes are indeed a great vote winner, but eventually one has to make very difficult choices, so the Government will be ensuring that the Mayor of London makes those choices in order to get TfL back on to a financially sustainable footing so that we can protect the interests of the UK taxpayer.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, to judge by both personal observation and hearsay, not much effort is being made by train operators to collect revenue due to them. Will the Government make sure that they understand that it is a duty to collect fares from passengers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. This is the first time I have been made aware that some train operating companies are not collecting the amount of revenue that they should. To my mind, having also travelled on trains recently, they seem to be functioning very well and nothing much has changed in respect of revenue collection.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who was my constituent for 14 years; in spite of being a Liberal Democrat, he was extremely well behaved. The Minister will know that transport policy encompasses such innovations as e-scooters. Will she look at the myriad regulations in different boroughs across London, which are holding back the rollout of public e-scooters? Will she also look at legalising e-scooters for private use and removing pointless regulations such as requiring a driving licence in order to use any scooter?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I again remind my noble friend and the whole House that riding an e-scooter off private land is currently illegal unless it is part of a trial. However, the Government have rolled out these trials across the country, the entire purpose of which is to gather evidence, so that we can look at the regulations to which my noble friend refers and make appropriate changes in order to benefit from such developments in micro-mobility.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, in the wake of the pandemic, the Government have promised new structures and relationships with rail and other providers based on value for money and traveller satisfaction, but will the Minister ensure that the needs of long-suffering, isolated rural communities are also taken into account?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have huge ambitions for the rail industry throughout the country, in both urban and more rural areas. As the noble Lord probably knows, we have entered into emergency measures agreements with the train operating companies to make sure that they can continue to provide those services. With regard to cut-off places— places that no longer have trains—the Restoring Your Railway Fund will support the reopening of railways where possible.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
May I return to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Snape? The Minister said that the 20% of the sector involved in school transport was getting support, but what about the other 80%? What additional support will be offered to that 80% of the coach industry, and with what objectives in mind? It includes small operators which, as small businesses, form the backbone of the sector and are really struggling. The Government have yet to tell us what they intend to do to support the great bulk of the coach industry.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have already put in an unprecedented package of financial support, which has recently been extended through the winter economic plan to make sure that support is provided not only to coach companies but to all sorts of companies across the country. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, we are working with DCMS to try to open up tourism wherever possible, but coach companies are being innovative and getting business where they can. I recently visited York Pullman, in York, and was heartened to see that it is looking to find more innovative ways back into work. I know it is difficult, and we continue to engage with the coach sector as the pandemic progresses.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in March the Government announced a fund to improve electric vehicle infrastructure, particularly charging. Does the Minister agree that if post-Covid recovery is to be largely car-based, it is essential to bring forward that fund early so that more people will buy electric vehicles? Can she update the House as to when this money will become available?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government do not want the recovery to be mostly car-based. We are keen to encourage passengers back on to buses and trains, and we are clear that people can use public transport and should do so safely. The noble Baroness mentioned electric vehicles. Of course, the Government have a huge commitment to expanding the number of charge points and supporting consumers when they buy their electric vehicles.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if we are to become the Saudi Arabia of wind power by 2030, why are we not going to become the world leader in electric cars, looking to the future rather than the past when the Government spend their money?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that we are already a world leader in the manufacture and design of electric cars and their rollout across the country. The other important element to bear in mind is the Government’s commitment to connected and autonomous vehicles, which, of course, go hand in hand with the development of electric cars.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on General Aviation. General aviation is of course the bedrock of aviation in this country—where young pilots are trained for the future—and has taken a particular hit, along with the rest of aviation, during this Covid-19 crisis. Will the Government consider looking at VAT in respect of general aviation? Will the Minister perhaps consult with the Treasury on this issue?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government recognise the important role that general aviation plays in providing the grass-roots element from which so many who go on to the commercial sector come. I reassure my noble friend that the Government are focusing carefully on aviation recovery work, which will include general aviation. It will look at regional connectivity, economic growth, decarbonisation and, perhaps most importantly in the field of general aviation, workforce and skills.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many maritime businesses have worked incredibly hard to keep supply chains open and goods flowing during the Covid crisis. However, this has resulted in businesses exhausting their cash reserves, leaving very little funding for them to begin the vital work of decarbonising the maritime industry. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will provide the necessary funding, requested by the maritime industry in recent meetings, to kickstart the urgent process of decarbonisation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord will know that the Government published their Maritime 2050 strategy a little while back. Of course, our commitment to decarbonisation remains extremely strong. There are a number of conversations going on at the moment about maritime decarbonisation, and some ideas have been put forward for the spending review.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move on to the second Oral Question.
United Kingdom Government-Northern Ireland Executive Joint Board
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the next meeting of the United Kingdom Government-Northern Ireland Executive Joint Board will be held; and what will be on the agenda.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the first meeting of the joint board, which has oversight for transformation in health, education and justice where these draw on funding provided under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, took place on 22 July. We are looking to schedule a further meeting very shortly—this autumn—for which an agenda has yet to be finalised. It will, however, include a review of progress to date.
Lord Lexden (Con)
How often do the Government envisage meetings of this important new board linking Westminster and Stormont taking place? What assessment have the Government made of the stability and prospects of their fellow board member, the Northern Ireland Executive, restored to work at the beginning of the year?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
It is not clear how many meetings will be held each year, but suffice it to say that with the last one held in July and one coming up shortly, they will be frequent enough. The joint board has no specific powers of statutory underpinning; it is a discursive forum to facilitate close working between the UK Government and the Executive. Finally, the assessment is that the NDNA has proved vital in light of the pandemic. It is fair to say that it has worked well due to the commitment and leadership of the Northern Ireland political leaders.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Will my noble friend ensure that at future meetings of this body attempts will be made to ensure that the people in the devolved regions—not only in Northern Ireland—understand the sources of funds for public services? It is not clear in the devolved regions where the money is coming from and, specifically, how much additional money comes to the regions from Parliament, as opposed to money raised locally.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point about the accountability of funds. He will know that part of the establishment of the joint board is setting up a fiscal council tasked with assessing and reporting on the sustainability of the finances and spending proposals. As he said, it is important to put the funding for Northern Ireland in the context of funding for the other devolved Administrations.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
What discussions have been taking place in this area on the question of the customs border in the Irish Sea? Can the Minister enlighten us? It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the Government. They say that this problem will be solved if, as we hope, there is a trade deal, but the reason for that is that at present there is regulatory alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the Government’s objective with Brexit is to diverge over a whole range of areas, as they envisage, will there not have to be a proper customs border in the Irish Sea, and does that not require extensive consultation with the Northern Ireland authorities?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I admire the noble Lord’s ingenuity in steering the Question in that direction. However, I remind him that the purpose of the joint board is to review the use of funding provided under the NDNA agreement. These matters are not, as such, for the joint board.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
Does the Minister agree with the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report on the New Decade, New Approach agreement where it highlights the need for a long-term financial plan for the implementation of the agreement but acknowledges [Inaudible] on public finances in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that long-term financial planning will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the board?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think I picked up most of what the noble Baroness said. I know that some information has come out from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. One recommendation was for an annual report, and that is linked in with the question that the noble Baroness asked about sustainability in the future. It is not an unreasonable request but we would need the agreement of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take that forward.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, will support for the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland be on the next agenda of the board? Secondly, will the victims payment scheme be on the agenda, and do the Government propose to indicate what money they will make available for that scheme?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I cannot say what will be on the agenda beyond, as I said earlier, a discussion about the progress that the joint board has made so far. However, I will certainly take the point that the noble Lord has raised back to officials. I think that we will be able to explore the victims payment scheme during the next Question, but this is very much a matter for the Executive to take forward. The funding is there and comes out of the block grant.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the services sector accounts for 75% of gross value added in Northern Ireland and 22% of external sales by Northern Ireland firms. Can my noble friend suggest that helping this sector, hard hit by Covid, should be on the board’s agenda? It ranges from retail and transport to health and professional services, and from tourism to the arts. For example, “Game of Thrones” has brought new visitors to Castle Ward as the location for Winterfell, home of the House of Stark, and many other beautiful places, but I worry that Northern Ireland faces a chilly winter.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point about the services sector, and I saw for myself the site of “Game of Thrones” when I was in Northern Ireland three or four weeks ago. The services sector is very important: it accounts for over 80% of employment and a total of 634,000 jobs. However, I remind my noble friend that the focus is much more on health, education and justice as part of the joint board’s remit.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will this board be the forum for discussion about the Prime Minister’s proposal for a feasibility study of a bridge or tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland? If not, where will that be discussed?
Lord Caine (Con)
Will the agenda for the next meeting of the joint board include the establishment of a UK government hub in Northern Ireland, which is envisaged in the New Decade, New Approach document, was a commitment in the last two Conservative Northern Ireland manifestos and would underline the importance that we attach to Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point about emphasising the union. This Government continue to want to show the importance of the union and how all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland, benefit from it. The city deals are one example of direct funding to the devolved Administrations.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the answers from the Minister, but can I take him back to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden? He asked when the next meeting would be—to which he received an answer—and what would be on the agenda. All I have heard so far from the Minister is what will not be on the agenda, despite some excellent suggestions from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, my noble friend Lord Liddle and others. Perhaps I may press him on this, because there is a sense of urgency here. We were greatly appreciative of the work of the former Secretary of State in securing the New Decade, New Approach deal, but if all the Minister can tell us about the agenda is that there will be a review of the progress that has been made, it does not leave us with much confidence that real progress is being made. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, about the manifesto is apt. I hope that the Minister can give us some meat on the bones here and tell us exactly what will be discussed and what will be on the agenda. That was the Question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, the noble Baroness is right, and I have taken on board her question. This is very much a matter for the Executive and I do not have in front of me the details of the agenda. However, at the first meeting, the terms of reference were agreed, and it remains up to the Executive to decide whether to make this, and indeed any other matter relating to the agenda, public.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the deep concern over the threat by the EU to block the free movement of goods, including food, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. In the event of the Union not coming to an agreement by December, will the Government give an assurance that they will exempt goods and food from the EU-commanded checks? This has major implications for Northern Ireland industry.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will take note of that point because, again, the noble Lord’s question takes us further from the point raised about the joint board.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question from the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank.
Northern Ireland: Payments to Victims of the Troubles
Lord Duncan of Springbank
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the delivery of payments to victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government brought forward legislation establishing a victims’ payment scheme in January. They did so both to fulfil their legal obligation and because they are committed to doing what they can to progress a scheme that acknowledges the harm caused to those people injured through no fault of their own during the Troubles. Implementation of the scheme is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. We will continue to prioritise supporting the Executive’s delivery of this scheme because victims have waited too long already.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that, during this pandemic, these individuals will be shielding. Money should be in their hands by now and it is not. When I was pushing forward this legislation in this House, two things were clear—one, there should be backdated payments and, secondly, there should be interim payments based on a simple, basic formula. Can my noble friend confirm that these elements have not been lost sight of during this particular stage and that progress will be made in real time? Otherwise, there will be nobody to pay the money to.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Speed is of the essence, as I and other noble Lords said back in June. Now that the designation of the department has taken place, what matters is moving as quickly as possible to deliver for the victims. The Justice Minister has set out a potential timeframe and highlighted key deliverables, such as appointing members to the board and developing the IT systems and application forms.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank was immensely energetic on this issue when he held this portfolio. It is an absolute scandal that people who deserve this money are dying by the week. Soon many more will be dead. Will my noble friend ensure that he tells the Secretary of State that he should immediately summon a meeting with the leaders of the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that these payments are made well before Christmas?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend and play straight into his question. The Secretary of State is and always has been firmly committed to seeing that this scheme is introduced as speedily as possible and payments made to victims who have waited too long. He meets regularly with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to discuss a range of important issues—and particularly this scheme as a priority.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the anticipated timescale for beginning payments to the victims is spring 2021. Can the Minister tell us if the Government are committed to shortening this time? If so, how are they aiming to work with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to expedite matters to achieve a quicker resolution so that victims are not waiting longer than necessary for recompense?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Northern Ireland Office is doing its best to support the Executive in speeding up this process. I gave some indication earlier as to what is required and what has started to be done. We all very much hope that the March date can be brought forward. The Secretary of State is leading the push for greater speed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister knows my particular interest in this issue, as a former Northern Ireland victims’ Minister. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who has really pushed this and shown a real commitment. Let us be clear what is happening. The reason why the Department of Justice is dealing with this issue is because the High Court said that the Northern Ireland Executive was acting unlawfully in delaying implementation of the scheme. The Minister of Justice, Naomi Long, has outlined the operational steps that need to be undertaken, but she says that not all of them are in her department’s control. There would seem to be a role for the NIO in asking for updates of what is happening and providing support to her, to try to make these other operational areas happen. What steps is the NIO taking and when was the last meeting with Naomi Long to discuss this?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is right when she talks about the review. The judge made a clear ruling that the Executive Office was acting unlawfully in not designating a department. This is now happening—this process is now taking place. I cannot tell the noble Baroness precisely what is happening at this moment, but I reassure her and the House that the Northern Ireland Office continues to regard this as a priority. It is doing its best to work with the parties to take this forward and to get the payments made at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has pointed out, Naomi Long, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister has—to her great credit—volunteered her department for this challenging task. She says that she is determined, if possible, to progress this by an earlier date than March. But surely the Governments need to work together to overcome these challenges. This is a UK scheme. Does the Minister recognise that UK Ministers cannot walk away from either the funding or the delivery of the scheme? They will be held accountable. If funding or operation are not adequate, they will not escape the blame.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord’s question is unnecessary. The funding is there; it has never been a block. It comes through the block grant. In the background to the funding through the block grant, the UK Government have provided very generous financial support to the Northern Ireland Executive since the start of this calendar year. This has included an additional £2 billion through the NDNA financial package and £260 million from the Budget.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to meetings. My information is that the Northern Ireland Executive is seeking meetings with both the Secretary of State and the Treasury. Have those meetings taken placed or are they planned? Of course, the Treasury is reflecting on the issue of funding, the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. My information is that the Northern Ireland perspective is that this cannot go ahead without funding from Westminster.
In his supplementary question, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, said that this money, in backdated and interim payments, is urgently needed. Could Westminster not find some money to at least cover some payments now to ensure that people get the compensation they desperately need?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness is putting cart before horse. As I said earlier, the money is there; it has never been a block. The point that I made earlier is that certain systems need to be expedited and set up by the Ministry of Justice, and we are giving it every support. Payments cannot be made until those things are done, but it is not a matter of the money not being there.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that, during the Troubles, 1,441 brave men and women of the British Armed Forces and the Ulster Defence Regiment were murdered, as well as 319 men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They were among the bravest of the brave. Collectively, more than 20,000 of these people were injured and their families traumatised. Can my noble friend assure me that the injured and the relatives of these servicemen and women and police officers will be in the front line for any payments? After all, they were in the front line defending this country.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We should always remember all those who were caught up in the Troubles. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for the delivery of the scheme and for processing applications. This will be a matter for the independent board, which will consider applications carefully before expediting payments.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the debate about the funding of the victims’ payments scheme is clearly frustrating its progress. In September, there seemed to be a suggestion that it was up to the board to assess the number of victims that will be supported by the scheme—and therefore its cost. Do the Government have their own assessment of the cost of the scheme? If so, how does the Minister know whether the funding that the UK Government have supplied is adequate?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can give a little more detail. The noble Baroness is right: we do not know precisely the number of people caught up in the Troubles. A figure of 40,000 has come my way. Therefore, she is right that we do not have the exact figure. A figure of £800 million has been bandied about, but we believe that it is wholly in excess of what will be required. This needs to be taken forward by the board, which will make the decisions.
COP 26: Sponsors
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards identifying sponsors for COP 26; and what criteria are used in the appointment of any such sponsors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have set strict sponsorship criteria for COP 26 to partner with companies committed to fighting climate change and running their businesses in a sustainable manner. The Government have published an online form for companies to register their interest in sponsorship and are already in discussion with a number of companies. We are looking for companies committed to reaching net zero by 2050 with a credible short-term action plan to achieve this.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am very glad to hear that we are setting standards; I have indeed read the form. However, I want to press a little further. I understand that conversations have taken place between some leading oil companies and the team funding COP 26. Governments around the world are, as we know, still subsidising the fossil fuel industry, and even if many of them are developing alternative energy streams, these are still an actual fraction of their output. While this remains a fact, allowing any fossil fuel company to sponsor the climate talks seems to me not dissimilar to allowing a tobacco company that produced vaping products to sponsor something like the Olympics. Can the Government guarantee to the House that the process of sponsorship of this critical meeting will not allow any greenwashing on behalf of any company? Will the Government further agree that all the sponsorships will be very clear and transparent, and if not open to full public scrutiny, open to scrutiny by the House?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will be working most closely with organisations that are committed to taking real, positive action and have strong climate credentials; for example, companies which have committed to achieving net zero and have published a credible plan of action on how they will achieve this.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, what exactly will sponsors receive, apart from exhibiting space, in return for their money? Will the Minister confirm that no sponsor will be allowed to sit in on any part of the negotiations?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are looking for both monetary and value-in-kind sponsorship. Value in kind refers to goods and services that are acquired, or highly desirable, in exchange for branding, etcetera. There is of course no question of companies taking part in negotiations.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Minister said that sponsorship would be restricted to companies committed to net zero by 2050, with credible and short-term action plans to achieve it. In the light of that criteria, does he not think it time that the Government themselves had a credible short-term action plan?
Lord Suri (Con) [V]
My Lords, what do the Government believe these companies can offer compared to companies that are already focused on green energy? Have the Government taken the stance that large global corporations may be of no use?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I did not quite catch all that the noble Lord said but I can confirm that we are looking for both monetary and value-in-kind sponsorships from companies that, as I said, have a credible short-term action plan and are committed to net zero.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for having asked a question earlier on. Ahead of COP 26 next year and given concerns about greenwashing, and with the positive move of UK businesses pledging to environmental targets of net-zero carbon by 2050, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to make sure that these companies deliver on these targets? With a gap of over 1 million people in the green economy, how are the Government promoting the upskilling of workers in this sector of the economy?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will be closely studying and monitoring companies that come forward for these sponsorship opportunities, which will favour taxpayers’ money—that is the ultimate objective. We will study their plans carefully and monitor them as they progress.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
According to overnight reports, the Government are planning for all 30 million homes in the UK to be powered by gusts of wind from offshore wind installations. The Government have always maintained that they stay technology-neutral in their encouragement of renewable energy sources. Yet the Conservative Party has advised that the sun does not always shine brightly, nor the wind blow consistently. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are now picking winners and losers among green technologies and whether this will be reflected at COP 26 in its sponsors?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, we are not picking winners. We always examine a range of different technologies and we are backing a range of different technologies. The contract for difference auctions will not discriminate between different technologies and we will keep them all under constant review.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, while I understand that the focus of formal sponsorship is on businesses, is the Minister able to confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are also keen to engage in similarly deliberate ways with other bodies, including faith communities? These communities are highly motivated—indeed mandated—to care for God’s creation, locally and globally, and many, including the Church of England’s General Synod, have already committed to challenging targets for carbon reduction.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are always willing to consider sponsorship opportunities if the right reverend Prelate wishes to offer them. To be serious, we will of course be engaging with both NGOs and faith communities in this endeavour as well.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
Can my noble friend confirm that before appointing any sponsors for the COP, Her Majesty’s Government will undertake due diligence in the supply chains of any companies under consideration with regard to negative environmental impact?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. We will be carrying out due diligence on all potential sponsors. As I said, we are looking for companies that are running their businesses in a sustainable manner and working to reduce their environmental impact through net-zero targets; that will include studying their supply chains as well.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, a leader article yesterday stated bluntly that:
“The global climate crisis is the emergency of our times.”
How many heavy hitters are being targeted that meet the committed criteria outlined by the Minister? Can he give any indication of examples? In addition, and underlining other contributions this afternoon, will the Government agree that COP 26 sponsor selection must focus unreservedly on those fully committed to the cause, and not on those only paying lip service out of self-serving expediency?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can certainly agree with the latter part of the noble Lord’s questions. We need to pick companies that are walking the walk as well as talking the talk. We hope to announce some names shortly.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while they are doing their due diligence, will the Government look carefully at the way pension funds that decide to become a sponsor are investing, and at how all supply chains, of British and global companies, are working? Further, given that companies are pushing to have 30% women on their boards, will the Government look at ensuring that we have at least 30% women on our COP delegations—unlike the present COP delegation to the UN which has no women at all?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will of course conduct due diligence on all potential sponsors and will ensure compliance with rigorous government standards on all matters.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made an interesting point that companies ought to be truly climate credible. Which climate-credible people in the Government will make the decision on which companies are climate credible?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As in all these matters, the ultimate decisions will rest with Ministers. We will judge companies closely against the criteria that we have already published, and I am sure that the noble Baroness will want to hold me to account for those decisions.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and indeed all Questions on the Order Paper answered.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, to ask address the Private Notice Question on Post Office prosecutions, I should inform the House that the Question concerns the Post Office’s decision not to challenge the forthcoming appeals in 44 cases that are pending in the Court of Appeal. As the House will be aware, part of my role is to decide whether, in specific circumstances, it is appropriate to waive the application of the sub judice rule, under which we do not debate matters pending the courts. I have decided that, in this case, it is right to do so. This is a rare step and one that I do not take without advice and thoughtful consideration.
I have taken the view that it is in the public interest for the House to be able to consider this matter, given that it is known that the appeals will not be contested. It is relevant to my decision that, yesterday, Mr Speaker took a similar decision to allow an Urgent Question on the same topic in the House of Commons. In taking this decision, I ask all noble Lords to exercise their normal caution about referring to individual cases and to avoid referring to the minority of cases that remain contested.
Post Office: Horizon Accounting System
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to decisions by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Post Office in relation to the Horizon accounting system, what is their response to the 44 appeals not being opposed by the Post Office.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.]—the largest number of referrals by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in history. Yet the Government are expressly excluding from the scope of their inquiry the Post Office Ltd prosecution function, the Horizon group damages settlement and the conduct of current or future litigation. Given that the sub-postmasters who sued remain impoverished and, in many cases, bankrupted by the Government, why have the Government excluded these most important things? Why are they punishing those brave people who brought this essential litigation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The noble Lord was getting a bit ahead of himself in asking his supplementary question before he asked his main Question, so I will answer that main one first and then come on to the second one.
The answer to the Question that he originally posed to me as a Private Notice Question is that, on 2 October, the Post Office announced that it would not oppose 44 of the 47 cases referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This is an important milestone for the postmasters appealing their convictions. It is now for the courts to decide whether their convictions should be overturned, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on these cases until that process is complete.
I will now move to the question which the noble Lord just asked. The settlement was agreed in December and was full and final; for this reason, it has been excluded from the scope of the inquiry.
On the question of its prosecution function, the chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, has assured the Government and confirmed publicly that the Post Office is not currently conducting any private prosecutions and has no plans to do so.
As regards current and future litigation, of course only the courts can decide on criminal matters, such as whether to overturn the postmasters’ convictions, so it would not be appropriate for the inquiry to look at these questions, especially when the court process is still ongoing.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I think we have dealt with both questions there.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for continuing to press this issue doggedly over the last decade. Under the framework document, the Post Office business plan must address
“the state of the relationship … with the community of postmasters.”
The sole shareholder—the Government—is required to meet the CEO
“at least twice a year”.
Ministers have known all about this grotesque scandal. It is not good enough to hide behind the pretence that these matters were merely operational. At how many of those biannual meetings did the Minister pursue this? If he did not, surely that is negligence? If he did, why has it taken so long?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not the Minister directly responsible for the Post Office; Paul Scully is the Minister who is directly responsible. He has regular meetings with the Post Office chief executive, and, indeed, I have also met him to discuss this matter. This scandal has been going on for the best part of a decade now, through successive Governments and Ministers. We are not trying to hide behind anything. That is why we have announced this inquiry with a High Court judge to try to get the bottom of these matters. It has been extensively looked at and the High Court opined on it, but we think that more can be done, and I assure the noble Lord that we want to see these matters properly examined and the appropriate blame apportioned.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the Criminal Cases Review Commission refers cases of miscarriage of justice to the Court of Appeal. In this case, we understand that it will not receive a challenge from the Post Office on this matter. When the matters have been dealt with, would the Minister promise that the matter will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to see what further action could be taken in relation to this matter?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The CPS is already examining the conduct of Fujitsu in this case, but the noble Lord will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on those proceedings.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in earlier responses to questions on this issue, the Minister has confirmed that, although the review is not a statutory inquiry under the Act, the reviewer—we now know his name—will get full access to the Post Office’s and Fujitsu’s papers and personnel. Can the Minister confirm that the reviewer will have similar rights of access to Ministers and civil servants involved in this case?
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for bringing a measure of justice to this case. In a debate in February, he said:
“It is hard to find words strong enough to condemn the people in charge of this catastrophic fiasco. What have the people in charge suffered as a result? One of them, Paula Vennells, has been given a CBE and now sits on government-sponsored boards. None of the rest, as far as I can see, have suffered at all.”—[Official Report, 25/2/20; col. GC 87.]
When the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, in March, he said:
“There is no question but that the Post Office management at the time behaved disgracefully but none of them is now in post.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 719.]
None the less, what are the Government doing to hold these people to account, at least by reviewing honours and public sector appointments awarded?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I made my views clear on this matter earlier in the year, and I have written to the Department of Health and Social Care—the letter is now public—expressing my views on this. Of course, there are appropriate procedures that need to be followed in appointments and in honours, but personally I would have no problem with those matters being looked at.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as this is a reserved matter, has the Minister and the Minister for the Post Office had initial discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the inquiry by Sir Wyn Williams will be all-encompassing and cover all the issues that emerged in the Horizon programme in Northern Ireland post offices, with assurances that such actions will never happen again and that those people will never suffer such undue burdens?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is for Sir Wyn to decide how the inquiry gathers the necessary evidence, but I imagine it will want to gather evidence from all affected postmasters, including those in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness makes a good point and I will ask my officials to speak with the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many lawyers were engaged opposing the sub-postmasters’ appeals? How much taxpayers’ money has been spent on it? How much of that money was spent since it was realised it was the Horizon scheme to blame, not the sub-postmasters?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer. I do not know how many lawyers were engaged. I will try to find out and will write to him on this. I should imagine a lot. But I do not know the number because the matter was one for the Post Office. We have announced the inquiry. These are matters that the inquiry will want to go into. I am sure Sir Wyn will want to pursue this. I hope he will produce the appropriate conclusions and will attach the blame—if there is any—to those who are responsible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. The time limit on the Motion is one and a half hours.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I will start by summarising the changes to the regulations. These regulations, which were made on 13 September and came into force on 14 September, amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020. They mean that people may not participate in social gatherings, in any place, inside or out, in groups of more than six. The exceptions are members of the same household, two linked households, or exceptions that apply such as for work and schools. This is the measure we call the rule of six; its sole purpose is to halt the spread of the virus by breaking the chain of transmission.
Our message is clear. Those who flout the rules cannot do so with impunity. However, for those who follow the rules, we will provide support and encouragement. That is why the regulations gave police powers to enforce these legal limits, including issuing fines to a maximum of £3,200. It is also why we have introduced financial support for those in isolation.
After a period in the summer of reduction, or stabilisation, in the transmission of the virus, the headline numbers were clear: by mid-September we were seeing daily case numbers rise rapidly in most parts of the country. For example, on 14 August 2020, 1,168 confirmed cases were announced; whereas a month later, on 11 September, 3,286 confirmed cases were announced. That is why the Government, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Advisor jointly agreed the changes we announced.
We know that an increase in infections leads to increases in hospitalisations and deaths, and early indications were of hospital admissions increasing. For example, on 14 August, 99 patients were admitted to hospital; whereas on 11 September, 219 patients were admitted to hospital. We also looked at international data on the feedback on the transmission of the virus in large groups from contact tracing and the advice of infection control teams on the local front line who said the old rules were clearly being flouted. That is why we took the decision to act promptly to introduce these changes.
Regulations such as these are meaningful only if people comply with them. We recognise that in the last eight months the sum of all our regulations had become confusing for many people. Anecdotally, local leaders told us that the term “households” was not well understood—and could be misunderstood as including people’s extended family, whether or not you lived with them—and that a numerical limit was likely to be better understood. Our instincts and these anecdotes were supported by evidence from the Health Protection Research Unit at King’s College London, to which we owe thanks. That is why we have moved to the rule of six: one number; in all settings; inside and out; at home or in the pub. Clear, easily understood guidance, based on clear principles—that is what we have sought to do.
To be clear, in this instance, the buy-in of the public and adherence of the majority are more important than the epidemiological transmission analysis and fine-tuning points of the committees of experts. Breaking the chain of transmission is all that matters. We tightened the regulations so they exactly reflected the guidance, rather than there being one set of numbers in guidance and another set in the legal framework.
I accept that there are seemingly many inconsistencies, injustices and perceived unfairnesses in rules such as these. I have heard many of them already. Probably everyone in this Chamber has an instance where the rules do not seem to make sense. We cannot legislate for every scenario. The virus does not respect special circumstances, however moving. However, there is wisdom in simplicity and there is effectiveness in being easily understood. That is why the rules were simplified and strengthened: so that they were easier to understand, people knew where they stood, the police can act without hesitation and we can get the virus under control. If we achieve that, it is our sincere hope and expectation that the measures will be effective, and we can potentially lift the restrictions.
Let me say a few words about the impact of the measures—I note of course that they have been in place for only three weeks. We have seen the proportion of people who have socialised with six or more people from outside their household at the same time reduce by over a third to 7% last week, compared to 12% in recent weeks.
Let me say a few words about the impact of the measures by giving some examples of where local lockdowns have worked. In Northampton, the weekly incidence rate on 21 August was 116 per 100,000, mainly because of an outbreak in the Greencore factory. We brought in measures and the prevalence rate was brought down to 25.8 per 100,000. Swindon was put on the watchlist, the rise there being linked to a large-scale workplace outbreak and car-sharing issues. These were addressed and the prevalence was brought down to 15. I could go on. I accept that the picture for local lockdowns is complicated, and there are places where the numbers have gone up and have come down, but where measures have been supported by communities, we have broken the chain of transmission.
I want briefly to say something about the way these measures were introduced. Our natural inclination is to lift restrictions wherever and whenever we can. In the summer, we were hopeful that the country had got the message, that our exhortations on hands, face and space had got through and that, except for some local outbreaks, we had basically got a lid on it. However, the numbers told another story. It was therefore essential that the Government moved quickly. As in the past, we used the powers under the public health Act. Our lawyers diligently crossed every “t” and dotted every “i”, so the paperwork was not laid until hours before the measures became law.
None of this is ideal. The Government accept that parliamentary scrutiny has an important role to challenge the detail and to build support. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the other place last week that, for significant national measures with effect in the whole of England, the Government would consult the House of Commons wherever possible and hold votes before the regulations came into force.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government have heard the message on this point and that we are building on the success of these regulations to take them forward. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert “but that this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty’s Government adequately to consult the public in the preparation of the Regulations and the impracticality of enforcing the measures”.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled this amendment to raise a few questions about the rule of six, on which I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He has already conceded that there are lots of inconsistencies and injustices but that these are put there in the name of simplicity. However, for many people, that makes it more difficult for rules to be accepted as legitimate.
Many people want to know the basis on which the rules are made and the scientific basis for the rule of six. The very fact that there are different regimes in different countries in the UK, all based on exactly the same science, suggests that there cannot be a precise basis for the figure of six. Is it just fingers in the air for each country of the UK?
Six means that a family with four children cannot have a family gathering with even one set of grandparents. If a couple invites another couple from next door and have two children upstairs, that counts as six, but if the couple who have been invited have three children next door, for some reason the three do not count. How can this be logical and how can it be fair in terms of spreading the risk of infection? It does not make sense. Why cannot children under 12 all be exempt, as in Scotland and Wales? What is the point of the rule anyway, when one can go into a carriage on the Tube or into an office or supermarket and find oneself positively close to a lot more than six people?
It becomes more difficult to understand when one considers some of the exemptions; for example, that for “linked families” and “support bubbles”. What exactly is a linked family? What exactly is a support bubble? Who decides whether a support bubble is genuine or just a convenient excuse?
The SI that we are considering has a limit of 30 for a wedding, but it has already been altered to 15 in another statutory instrument. The 30-person limit was guidance and not law in July but overnight became a 15-person limit on 28 September without any parliamentary process. This law affects many couples and an important sector of the events industry. A rather dry, cynical, mathematical friend of mine pointed out that, at a wedding, there are two main participants: each gets seven and a half friends. At a funeral, there is one body, who gets four times as many friends. This may not be the most appropriate way of looking at it, but it has a certain logic. Can the Minister explain what his logic is and why it is superior?
There are so many different events. At a christening, is it true that a baby counts as one of the total for the six? As for Halloween on 31 October, apparently parents will be fined if children go trick-or-treating in groups of more than six. The fine, I am told, is £200; perhaps the Minister will tell me that it is £3,000. Is the person who answers the door to the trick-or-treater included in the total of six?
Edmund Burke once remarked that
“laws reach but a very little way.”
There is a limit on how far laws can influence behaviour, and a wise Government do not pass over-intrusive laws.
My amendment refers to the difficulty of enforcing these rules. How is this to be done? Will police officers force their way into private houses? The police in Glasgow have announced that they have already broken up 300 gatherings in private homes. What will this do for public support for the rules? Two Ministers have suggested that people should inform on their neighbours. It is one thing to report your neighbour if you see that he is building a bomb factory, but if he is holding a barbecue for seven people, are you really going to report him?
I deplore any suggestion that we should become a nation of informers like the old East Germany. As the Minister said, the whole point of the rule of six was to simplify things, but when the regional variations are added on top, it becomes absurdly complex. As well as the national rule of six, there are seven local regimes, and that is on top of the variations between the devolved Administrations. As we saw the other day, Ministers, including the Prime Minister, struggled to explain what the rules were in the north-east of England—I sympathise, with the “gotcha” journalists all around him—but ordinary people face fines if they do not know what the rules are. A noble Lord on the other side of the House drew my attention the other day to a cartoon in one of the newspapers which showed a man in a pub talking to his companion, and he said to him, “I’ve just downloaded a wonderful new app. It tells you whether in the last 14 days you’ve been in close proximity to anyone who understands the rules.”
My amendment refers also to the lack of consultation. With this SI, as with others, we have the element of retrospection. The SI was introduced on 13 September and became law one minute after midnight—which probably left some people breaking the law in the wrong house at the wrong time. Last week, MPs won the right to have a say in the implementation of national rules. That is welcome; I hope it will really happen, and it should have happened earlier. Local government matters. Some mayors have complained about a lack of emails, a lack of phone calls and no documentation.
Last week, when we had the debate, I put to the Minister a direct question which he did not answer. May I put it to him a second time? The Health Secretary has talked of eradicating—that is the word—the virus. The PM, in his interview on “The Andrew Marr Show”, referred to bringing the virus
“to an end in the speediest possible way”.
What does this mean? Other Ministers give the impression that government strategy is simply to suppress the virus until there is a vaccine. If so, what is there to stop the virus bouncing back every time the rules are relaxed? Are we to continue suppressing the economy until there is a vaccine? What happens if there is no early vaccine? That is the key question I hope the Minister will answer. What exactly is the government strategy?
I am not arguing that we should let the virus rip. We need rules, but we have not had satisfactory explanations. I do not intend to divide the House, but I say this to the Government: this cat’s cradle of rules is in danger of collapsing under its own weight. Popular consent is undermined by arbitrary rules that are hard to follow. For rules to have legitimacy, people need to understand the rationale, and above all, government needs to observe the appropriate limits of laws.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and surely he is right. It is one thing to publish and enact regulations, which, from the Government’s view, are simple, but there has to be some rationality behind them. I hope the Minister will answer the question. He said there was no science at all behind the plucking out of the figure of six; can he confirm that that is so? Also, I do not understand why the Government did not exempt young children in England. What on earth is the reason for that? Does he not agree that Government would carry more credibility if there was some confidence in the overall direction we are going in? As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has pointed out, different Ministers have been saying different things today about the endgame.
It is not surprising: we have seen a litany of failures, such as the original behaviour by Mr Cummings, which was so damaging to public confidence, and the contrast between the “world-beating” test and trace system and the shambles we have seen week after week. Watching Mr Johnson on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, when he spoke of the tension between the interests of the economy and public health, which, of course, we understand, he came across as indecisive, late to act and failing to find a way to steer between these two options. The result is that we have failed in both.
Public confidence is very important, and so too is parliamentary scrutiny. Mr Speaker intervened last week. Mr Hancock agreed that, where possible, the Commons would have a vote on national regulations in the future. What opportunity will this House have? In all the talk about new rationalisation of local lock- down regulations into three tiers, can we be assured that Parliament will debate this before they are introduced?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, on 21 September, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
“Assessments of the proportionality of measures must be up-to-date, based on the latest scientific evidence, and formulated as a result of a precautionary approach to minimising overall loss to life. Importantly, the Government must be transparent in justifying its decision-making, including in explaining how it has balanced competing interests and the evidence on which the balancing decision has been made.”
Twice, now, I have asked the Minister: What is the evidence base for this rule of six? I have had unsatisfactory answers.
On 14 September, the noble Lord said that the phenomenon they had noticed was that large groups of people, sometimes in pubs and other places, would seemingly say that they were from two households. It was
“proving to be extremely flexible in the minds of many people. Therefore, putting an integer into the formula makes it much clearer.”—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1002.]
We now have regulations under which it is possible for a person to meet and socialise with 35 people from six households in the course of a week. The public has figured out that that, in public health terms, is an absurdity. It will not work. I am surprised that, during freshers’ week, more students have not got into trouble inadvertently due to the lack of clarity.
Between March and September, Dominic Cummings has, without competitive tendering, paid people and bodies such as Hanbury Strategy £946,000 to
“research public attitudes and behaviours in relation to”
the pandemic. That information is paid for by taxpayers’ money. It is not the property of the Government or the Conservative Party, so I ask the Minister: when will that and similar reports be published so that Members of Parliament can scrutinise the basis on which decisions such as these are being made? We are six months in, and the Prime Minister does not know what we are doing, local authorities do not know what we are doing and the general public are bamboozled by the lack of clarity and consistency. It is time for us to get real about this and stop putting people in danger.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, we are talking about the rule of six. I declare my various interests.
The hospitality industry employs 4 million people and has been one of the hardest hit in this crisis. The British Beer and Pub Association said:
“Make no mistake, a 10pm curfew will devastate our sector during an already challenging environment for pubs.”
During the current circumstances, every hour of trading is crucial to the survival of pubs. For many, this curfew will render their business unviable. Can the Minister explain on what scientific basis this 10 pm decision was made? I understand that fewer than 5% of infections come from the hospitality sector, and evidence from our trade shows that 10% of drinks are consumed after 10 pm. So, why are the Government doing this, and will they remove this 10 pm restriction?
Another aspect is that Sir Bernard Jenkin, the chair of the Liaison Committee, wrote to the Prime Minister on 29 September, saying:
“We would also like to understand what new measures the Government will be taking to achieve the ‘moonshot’ of 10 million tests per day.”
Will the Minister acknowledge that mass testing is now available? In America, there is Abbott’s BinaxNOW test—10 million were produced last month, and there will be 50 million per month from this month onwards. This is a $5 test that gives a 15-minute result on whether, on an antigen basis, you have Covid or not, with 97-98% accuracy. Why are we not getting such a test over here and making it widely available? I have heard that this Abbott test has not been approved here in the UK. Could the Minister confirm this? If that is the case, why has the FDA approved it, and why have other countries, such as Greece, which has dealt with the pandemic relatively well—it has 36 deaths per million versus our 633, which is very sad. Is this a question of the best being the enemy of the good?
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, like others, I tend to think that carrots are more effective than sticks. It is, therefore, vital, if people are to behave as the Government might wish, that they understand and assent to the reasons for particular restrictions.
My understanding of the rationale for the rule of six is that is about restricting the mixing of households. I understand that, and I seek, in my role and personally, to abide by that principle. But what the Minister has said notwithstanding, the anomalies do not help to gain that consent. If I have understood things correctly, I may, in a given period, be a part of more than one group of six, and thereby, I am multiplying the households with which I have contact. Yet, as many have observed—and there are other examples—a couple with three children cannot meet with two grandparents at the same time, even though that would only be two households in most instances.
I genuinely worry about the effect of these regulations, particularly the rule of six, on the long-term flourishing of family life and cohesion, if they persist for too long. My simple point is that the rule of six gives a kind of cliff edge, which could surely be graduated without compromising the principle about household mixing. I rather hope that Her Majesty’s Government will be able to think creatively about how that might be done.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. He is not there. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of the so-called libertarians in the Conservative Party and the well-meaning, but not very competent, government action to deal with the pandemic. The regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is really a fundamental challenge to the Government’s strategy and should not be supported. However, those of us who want the Government to succeed in saving more lives need more clarity and consistency and, in particular, actual delivery of an effective test and trace system, with care homes and health staff given priority for testing and receiving results in good time.
It is very easy to mock with regard to funerals and weddings and to give examples of inconsistency. What is not easy is delivering effective policies that we all want to unite behind. Please could the Government do better?
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
Mr Johnson presented the new regulations as a simplification and a strengthening of the coronavirus mitigation regime, based on consultation with the police and feedback from the public that the existing rules had become quite complicated and confusing. However, the Explanatory Memorandum recorded that a public consultation had not taken place, and nor had a regulatory impact assessment, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has highlighted the public consultation issue. Perhaps if it had occurred, the public, or local authorities in particular, would have been able to highlight some of the illogicalities of the rules, because now they are even more confusing.
I, too, would like to ask why the rule of six in England includes children, even when they are upstairs in bed, when school-age children can go to school and work in their class or year bubble of dozens of children? This appears to be contradictory. Why are children under 12 excluded from the rule of six in Wales and in Scotland but not in England? Is there evidence in England that young children are more contagious than they are in Wales? If so, why can they go to school? I would really like to know on what scientific evidence the decision is based.
Secondly, I would like to ask about people with a learning disability or autism, for whom contact with family is vital in helping to maintain their well-being, especially during the pandemic. Current guidance on visitation is mainly aimed at care homes; other settings, such as supported living, have little guidance. There is no information, for example, about people with a learning disability visiting family in the community. Will the Minister ensure that this gap is filled? Will he ensure that people who may have difficulty social distancing or following other guidelines are considered when decisions are being made about the prioritisation of testing at a national and local level?
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, remarks do not target the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. If possible, he would be mentioned in dispatches as being of excellent ministerial calibre, but he has political masters. The light-hearted but serious remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, can be extended beyond the lack of public consultation to constitutional neglect by the Executive in undermining the functions of Parliament to scrutinise and hold the Executive to account. Statements and questions have their place but are not sufficient. The other place must debate and be given the opportunity to impact directly the decisions of government.
The Government had a simple and practical choice: allow parliamentarians, who are the agents of the people, to fulfil their role, or decide at the outset that existing statutory provisions should be set aside. They chose the latter course. This undermining of the role of Parliament as the prime guardian of our constitution is regrettable; provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 that ensure appropriate parliamentary and civil consultation were at their disposal. The subsequent manner in which secondary legislation has been introduced has brought widespread confusion, and council leaders and some police chiefs are uncertain how to interpret local requirements, let alone enforce them.
The mindset of inadequate “consult and inform”, together with the impracticality of enforcing measures, should be reversed, with correct governance reinstalled. The urgency of the situation requires it.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
Balderdash. Twaddle. Gobbledegook. Piffle. Oops, I am sorry, my Lords, I misspoke. I do not want to talk about the content of this order but about its communication, or rather non-communication, led by the Prime Minister.
Every time I speak to friends, I ask them this question: we all know that we are allowed to see only six people indoors at once, but can they be different people, or does it always have to be the same six? Of those who claim to know, a majority think that it is okay to host two guests or family members one night, and two different guests or family members another. But if we are to believe the noble Lord, Lord Bethell— I always believe him—they are wrong, as he said this afternoon and in a Written Answer to me on 10 September:
“Support bubbles should be exclusive. This means people should not … make connections with multiple households.”
I accept that communicating these rules is hard, especially since the utterly meaningless “Stay alert” was substituted in England for the clear, if unpalatable, “Stay at home”. It is particularly hard if, like me, you live in both Wales and England, or if you live in one of the local areas subject to stricter restrictions. It has been made immeasurably harder still when Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, are quite unable to spell out from day to day, even if they know, what the regulations they have flashed through Parliament with minimal scrutiny mean.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I give my commiserations to my noble friend the Minister, who yet again finds himself in the stocks on this particular debate. I support my noble friend Lord Lamont’s regret Motion, which was introduced with typical aplomb and great good humour. I point out to the House that humour and ridicule are not far separated. I hope that he might divide the House, but he seems to be a little bit pusillanimous on this, which is not like him at all.
By what can we judge the rule of six? There was no consultation, there has been no parliamentary scrutiny until today, and, as the Motion says, it is totally impractical. Every day, and yesterday would be no exception, an average of 1,700 people die in the United Kingdom. According to the National Health Service, yesterday the total number of coronavirus deaths, every one tragic, was 19. Could my noble friend confirm that that is correct? The NHS news release yesterday of deaths in hospital in the preceding 24 hours was 10, all aged between 67 and 91, and all but one patient, who was aged 85, had known underlying health conditions.
Does my noble friend think, therefore, that the rule of six is working? Surely it has not had long enough to stop infections, and it has been widely ignored, as we hear. He said that it would reduce by one-third the number of people gathering, but I am not sure that is enough to stop the spread of infection. Does he think that actually this rule of six is entirely pointless, and that it is entirely pointless to stop young people meeting as they are not going to suffer serious illness or death? Could he also explain “long Covid”, to which he often refers, because is not any respiratory illness difficult to overcome? If you have pneumonia, it is quite likely that you may spend up to six months with effects from that.
Finally, on testing, what proportion—I am told it is a high proportion—of these tests bring back false positives? It seems to me that the testing, and the number of infections, is not the most important thing. The most important thing is who is dying and who is suffering very serious illness as a result of getting Covid.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
I, too, am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, but the fact is that the Government are making a mess of handling this health crisis. As the mayor of Manchester has said, the public have had just about enough of it. Parliamentary democracy has been sidelined, and basic civil liberties have been cancelled. In their place we have been given ever-changing draconian regulations, often incomprehensible, unenforceable and apparently based on speculation, someone’s pet theory or pure guesswork, and all done without any prior debate. This regulation is a good example.
Back in March, we gave the Government almost carte blanche; we wanted them to succeed and we still do. Now, we know a great deal more about Covid and its potential death rate. More people have died of flu and pneumonia over the same period, and many more are likely to die from conditions that have been untreated as a result of this epidemic. We also know that current repressive policies are destroying our industries, our culture, our sport and indeed our way of life.
Randolph Churchill said, “Trust the people”. The Government have not done that, but if they do not do it then people will stop trusting the Government, and that is what is happening. Of course we need rules, but we need sensible ones which everyone can see are sense and which are enforceable. Some people are foolish and irresponsible, and they are now, but no one wants to get Covid and most people will co-operate with things they think are worth doing. If you order people to obey laws which they can see make little sense and which are almost wholly unenforceable, and if you try in this particular regulation to ban things such as “mingling”—whatever that is—you undermine respect for the whole rule of law and you will come to a tipping point in compliance, even with the most law abiding among us. We are reaching it now, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support a very strong response to this virus and believe we need to bear down upon it very heavily. An unadulterated libertarian approach to this public health crisis would be disastrous for our country and our people. I believe the public will respond to clear, consistent messaging, and I urge the Government to ensure that such messaging is better focused, clearer and consistent, because that has not always been the case. Indeed, there is often confusion about the basic messaging. I agree with other noble Lords and with my noble friend Lord Lamont that we need more parliamentary input and proper scrutiny in order to be able to look closely at the regulations and offer support to the Government.
On a completely different front, although one that is clearly related to the virus, I would like to say something about Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance. It was dreadful that they were attacked in the other place. I am very pleased that that has not been the case in your Lordships’ House, because they are public servants and not able to respond. They are doing a very difficult job in difficult circumstances and they deserve our support.
I would welcome confirmation from my noble friend that ultimate success will come only with a vaccine, and, in the shorter term, with effective testing and tracing. Clearly there is still much work to be done on both of those fronts. On the former, it is more difficult for the Government to take a lead on the vaccine, but in relation to test and trace, they really do need to get their act together.
I support these regulations. I cannot support the amendment, though I understand the motivation of my noble friend Lord Lamont in bringing it forward.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, these regulations came into effect 28 minutes after they were laid. That is far from satisfactory. The Minister himself accepted that there were many inconsistencies in the regulations now. As others have pointed out, the lack of logic is what makes people so angry about the ever-changing rules with which they are expected to comply.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised many valid questions, including the contrasting rules between weddings and funerals. A friend of mine, a priest, is suggesting that there should not be any split families over Christmas: the host simply has to slaughter a turkey and stage a humanist funeral. Such jokes arise because the regulations do not make sense. I can see the point in limiting the mingling of households, but where is the sense in preventing grandparents, from one home, meeting with a second household of their son, his partner and their three children? Regulations need to make sense, but they also have to be based on a degree of humanity if people are to abide by them.
Many families are now facing problems with childcare. It is fine under the regulations for them to send their offspring to a nursery or to a registered childminder, but how much more sense might it make for those children—maybe from two different households—to go to the home of their grandparents to be looked after while their parents contribute to the economy? Would that not be a healthier solution? It would limit the mixing of households, but it is not allowed. We need some common sense.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, governing in these torrid, complex, challenging times is not easy. None of us should pretend that it is. I have three questions and a plea for the Minister, specifically about the rule of six.
First, given that scientific studies have shown that the risk of transmission is 20 times greater indoors than outdoors, why does the rule of six abandon that distinction? I know the answer: simplicity. I understand the force of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said. However, if the Government want to use the authority of science to generate legitimacy for and adherence to rules, and the science suggests that a rule is not grounded in science, they must at the very least bring the public inside their reasoning for why there is an exception. You cannot simply cite science and say that it always supports your conclusions, and not mention it when it does not, and then simply keep citing the mantra: “We will always be led by science”.
Secondly, have the Government considered the unintended perverse behavioural effects of the rule abandoning this outdoor/indoor distinction? Eliminating the distinction between gathering in groups of up to six outside, where the risk is very low, and gathering in groups of up to six indoors, where it is around 20 times higher, means that people who want to break the rules, and are determined to do so, are incentivised to gather indoors and not outdoors, where the rules are more likely to be enforced. Why did the Government not follow the Welsh option of having more relaxed rules for outdoor gatherings?
Thirdly, if we look to our partners in western Europe, we see variations in rules, of course, but also some constants. Public gathering limits are considerably higher: 10 in France, 50 in Germany, and none in many countries. Private household gathering limits, apart from in Ireland, are rare, and mask wearing is considerably more compulsory in public than in the UK. Taken together, this suggests the UK is becoming an outlier: it is restriction heavy and face-mask-wearing light relative to other countries. Is this because our science knows something that they do not, or is it because the British people behave differently from those in other countries? What is the reason for the UK being an outlier in the portfolio of measures we seem to be taking?
Lastly, I make my plea. The Government rightly adopt a mixture of national rules and local variations. However, across England, local authorities have consistently complained about an absence of consultation, decision sharing and refining of rules in the light of local circumstances. Can the Government please now commit to greater responsiveness and flexibility towards local considerations, to allow a local refinement of rules that are, after all, unlikely to be equally appropriate for Camden, rural Dorset and Manchester?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, here we are again: post-legislative scrutiny and a hapless Minister, who has worked with prodigious vigour—we all salute him for that—given a frankly indefensible brief. The hallmark of a good law is clarity and simplicity, so that we all understand what it is. Here we have a law that is continually riddled with new anomalies and new inconsistencies. My noble friend Lord Lamont pointed out a number of them with his customary good humour, but it is not really funny, is it? This is touching the lives of people throughout our country, in a cruel way in many cases.
The rule of six was most effectively ridiculed in your Lordships’ House a week ago. Not that it was a directed ridicule, but our new noble friend Lady Morrissey said with quiet pride that she has nine children, seven of whom were still at home. We have got to have a law that can be seen to be fair. We have got to have laws that can be seen to have been properly discussed and debated in the other place, and indeed in your Lordships’ House where there is an accumulation of ministerial and medical knowledge second to none in any chamber in the world. We really must get the horse before the cart, because we are not doing that at the moment. Of course I feel sorry for my noble friend, who I genuinely like and admire, but he is being given an indefensible brief. May we hasten the day when he has one that he can truly defend and that we can all support.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name down to speak with some reluctance because I am getting fed up with saying the same thing about the lack of parliamentary accountability and the way in which these regulations have been introduced. It is scandalous and high time that something was done. I agree that the most important point was made by my noble friend Lord Hunt, who asked whether the Minister could guarantee that when further major changes to these regulations are introduced—the new so-called three-tier system—the House can debate them before they are implemented and become law. This could be done through new arrangements for a special committee, agreed through our Procedure Committee, or by the whole House.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, gave a sparkling speech, much of which I agreed with. If regulations can be ridiculed in such a successful manner, they cannot be sensible and command public assent.
I end on a policy point. Far from stressing the rule of six, if we are to control this disease, it is most important to get the test and trace system right and tackle the fact that a low proportion of the people being contacted and asked to self-isolate are doing so. Getting that system right and involving local authorities on the ground is most important, as well as personal contact to persuade people to self-isolate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont on two grounds. The policy is wrong for reasons that I will explain, and I am disturbed by the level of scrutiny the regulations have enjoyed.
I appreciate that life is difficult for the Government and that there are many uncertainties, which is not dissimilar to the problem that businesses face most of the time. The more difficult the problem, the more important it is to keep a cool head and have proper impact assessments or cost-benefit analyses—call them what you will. The bottom line is that urgency is not a good excuse for bad decision-making.
Such an assessment should cover at least four issues. First, is there a medical and scientific case for the measure? There seems no logic behind the rule of six other than a general wish to slow down the infection rate, but we can surely do better than that. My noble friend Lord Lamont set out the nonsenses clearly in his typically brilliant and witty speech. Dr David Strain of Exeter Medical School, in an area without much Covid, put it succinctly. He said:
“There is no science behind it and there is no logic as to why six would be useful.”
Therefore, my first question to my noble friend the Minister is: what is the scientific justification for the measure? I have asked this several times and have yet to receive a satisfactory reply, including in the Minister’s introduction.
The second issue, not yet focused on, is whether the rule can be justified economically. It is killing our service sectors—pubs, entertainment and spectator and community sport. Where is the assessment of damage that the Government should have done before embarking on such a huge step? Socially the measure has many adverse effects, notably in separating families. My third question is whether these adverse social effects are necessary or acceptable. I suspect not. Fourthly, can such a rule be implemented and enforced properly? On that, we know the answer: it cannot.
The measure fails on all four counts. Accordingly, it should be replaced with something more realistic and less damaging. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Lamont said regarding scrutiny.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, although the requirement in England limiting group meetings to no more than six people, indoors or outdoors, came into effect on 14 September, data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre has indicated that the incidence rates of Covid-19 around Birmingham are significantly above the national average, and increasing. The data also indicated that a high proportion of the new cases were due to transmission within or between households. The regulations therefore impose tighter restrictions on those living within the protected areas of Birmingham City Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. They prohibit those living within the protected area from gatherings of two or more persons from different households in private dwellings in or out of the protected area, except for linked households as defined.
The regulations allow visits to care homes only in exceptional circumstances. When the restrictions were announced, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, said:
“After seeing cases in the West Midlands continue to rise, the decision has been taken in collaboration with local leaders to ban households mixing in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull.”
Can the Minister say how many people have been arrested or fined since the rules were declared?
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, safety is, of course, paramount. Somehow, the messaging from the Government seems not to be acceptable to many. It is seen as irrelevant and sometimes incomprehensible. A young man from Leicester said to me recently, “The advice from the Government about mixing with other people makes no sense—too complicated. I would just like 100% clarity on what I can and can’t do but with an explanation based on the science behind any restriction.” It concerns me that local councillors, political leaders and people in communities complain about a lack of consultation. The Mayor of Middlesbrough called it
“a monstrous lack of communication and ignorance”.
Communities need to feel communicated with. I have much sympathy with the amendment to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
I give another example. The other day, I asked the Minister a question about encouraging people to take up the NHS Covid app. One noble Lord asked how many university students had downloaded it. The Minister replied that he could not give an answer to a “reasonable question” and that we did not have that kind of demographic insight. I do not blame the Minister but that suggests that we have no knowledge of who is doing what at a local level, including in the hotspots in the north of England. I suggest that we need these granular demographic insights and efforts to influence behaviour, not only locally but in specific cases, such as among university students and younger people. We need to attract and involve younger age groups in the light of findings that, while few may be ill, many may have the virus but be asymptomatic. We also need insights from older age groups. Asking people to restrict their movements and groupings, and behave differently, means involving them in decision-making. The Government handing down edicts will simply not work.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Lamont said and I shall list as many of my concerns with the regulations as I can in the two minutes that we are allowed.
First, the rule of six is not based on science. Indeed, the Minister revealed its basis when he said on 14 September that the Government had relied on
“marketing advice from our communications department”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1000.]
He also referred to focus groups. The Minister might think that that is science-based but most would disagree with him.
Secondly, Ministers would double down by encouraging snitching. That is not the kind of society I want to live in. Thirdly, the rule lacks logic. It is illegal for seven children to gather together to feed ducks, but it is perfectly okay for 30 adults to go out shooting them—the ducks, that is.
Fourthly, the order lacks precision. It makes mingling yet another way to break the law, but does not define it. On 14 September, the Minister said that it was
“a concept which, frankly, I do not think needs much description”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 999.]
Frankly, I think that that is an unacceptable way to legislate. Fifthly, as usual, there is no analysis of impact or alternatives and no attempt to explain the balance between the competing interests of our economic future, non-Covid mental and physical health matters and the narrow Covid impact.
I could go on, but sadly I have run out of time. I regret that my noble friend Lord Lamont is no longer pursuing his earlier fatal Motion. That would have had my vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the measure we are discussing today will have the effect that the Minister and the Government intend—that it will limit the spread of the coronavirus in our society. But anyone who thought that the rule of six was going to inject some clarity and simplicity into the regulatory framework needs only to read the 25 pages of these regulations and the seven new definitions, along with the interesting new legal concept of “mingling”, which has never before surfaced in British legal history; good luck to the judges in making sense of that particular term.
I hope that the measure will have some impact—we all want it to. I have three brief points to make; many of them have been made already. First, the Government now have to find a different way of legislating to impose these restrictions. I do not believe that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is a viable platform for this legislation because we need more parliamentary scrutiny. I echo the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in inviting Ministers to reconsider the use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. As a minimum threshold of parliamentary scrutiny in this field, where our cherished personal freedoms are being overridden, the minimum requirement of 30 days’ duration for any new law is a threshold that we should follow.
Secondly, but better still, the Government should consider again devolving much more of the responsibility for imposing local restrictions to tackle the Covid epidemic to local authorities. I do not think that central government can manage the workload of doing this. The Government have centralised everything in their response to the Covid pandemic and that is failing. They have to find a different way of proceeding. If we go on this way, we will run the risk of civil disengagement and, worse still, of civil disobedience, which would bring disrespect for the law into mainstream public behaviour in the UK, which would be a tragedy.
Thirdly and finally, at the very least, we must avoid examples of last-minute lawmaking behind closed doors. Now that Parliament is sitting again, there can be no justification whatever for laws which impact on the lives of so many people being introduced with 30 minutes’ notice from behind closed doors.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, “hundreds of thousands” of people would die if we simply “let the virus rip”. That is what the Health Secretary said last week, but I am baffled because I have no idea who is making these silly suggestions. The Prime Minister has said that some people think we should
“give up and let the virus take its course”.
Who is proposing that? It worries me when we go to extreme lengths to deal with extreme arguments; that only adds to the confusion, and there is confusion. I share the confusion of my noble friend Lord Lamont about the 10 pm pub curfew and about how we are going to get through Christmas with the rule of six.
Kate Bingham, the head of the Vaccine Taskforce, in an interview with the Financial Times, has offered a rather more interesting insight: less than half the population is going to get the vaccine—if there is one. There will be no vaccinations for the under-18s because it is aimed primarily at those over 50. Looking at the death rates rather than the infection rates, that seems to make great sense. It suggests that we can and must be far more flexible in our approach by differentiating between those most at risk and younger, healthy people who are not going to die from the disease. If we can do that and put aside the one-lockdown-rule-fits-all approach, we could put our economy back into shape much more quickly. We could speed up medical help for non-Covid patients and we could strike a stronger balance between the competing medical, economic and social tensions. However, it is news to most that not everyone is going to get the vaccine and I hope that my noble friend will be able to shed a little light.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for tabling his amendment to focus attention on the deficiencies of process which have attended these and related regulations. I very much welcome the fact that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and others have pointed out some of the awful inconsistencies that are resulting from these kinds of regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, quite rightly pointed to the failure to consult closely with local government in a number of instances where, if proper consultation had taken place, it could have made a real difference.
Confusion is widespread, as is inconsistency. A resident of Berwick, where, according to the Government’s dashboard figures, there are three cases per 7,000 people, is being subject to the same restrictions as those in parts of Tyneside 60 miles away, where in one area there have been more than 280 cases per 7,000 people. The regulations lack any ability to distinguish. Indeed, a citizen of the north of England, whether the north-east or the north-west, having secured a copy of the regulations we are debating today, might think that they would be able to glean what the law is, but they would be mistaken because they would also need to look at a series of other regulations. They would find themselves bound not just by the rule of six but by the rule of two, which is actually the rule of not meeting anybody else at all. You are not even allowed to meet one other person; you are the only person you are allowed to meet under those regulations.
To understand the law, the citizen would also need to look at the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) Amendment Regulations 2020, which were made on 29 September and came into force at midnight on that day, but were laid before Parliament only at 10.30 am the following day, and therefore accessible to us—10 and a half hours after they had come into force. As far as I could establish, they were not on the Government website at 8 am that day. The Prime Minister had no idea what the provisions were anyway, while the previous statutory instrument relating to the north-east had to be amended within hours of being made.
I welcome that the Government have promised parliamentary votes on major orders of national application, but I have to say that the loss of freedom in Berwick, Blackburn or Bolton is no less significant than the loss of freedom in London and other parts of the country. Some of these local orders are of massive significance in terms of the civil liberties they abrogate.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, who made a related point, that we need to question the Government’s attitude to the made affirmative procedure under which orders come into force before Parliament has considered or approved them. They have been overused. I recognise that sometimes there is a case for using them to guarantee that an order will come into effect quickly if there is a very serious need for it, but Parliament can act quickly if the Government are prepared to co-operate. I hear criticisms of Parliament, such as by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, for not having considered and debated these matters, but the Government control the agenda in the House of Commons, so Parliament’s inability to act quickly is a matter for the Government to resolve. I am glad to see that the Minister has noted that point because it can be the Government who hold up debate.
I do not see why new restrictions which have been announced many days—or even a week or more—before they come into force cannot be debated. When they are announced, the order should be laid before Parliament and strenuous efforts made in the days before they come into force to have at least the short debates for which our procedures provide. The capacity for democratic control over major incursions into people’s freedoms should not be diminished because not enough resources have been made available to draft the orders in time.
Parliamentary scrutiny can identify bad drafting and increase the chance that at least some people inside and outside Parliament will actually understand what the law is. There are several threats to the effective application of emergency measures: when the public do not understand them or the reasons behind making them, a point which has been illustrated in this debate by a number of noble Lords; when those responsible for enforcing them do not know what is the law and what is guidance, a mistake which has even been made by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service; and when the measures are themselves defective to the point that even those responsible for carrying them out have failed to recognise that they are, so that prosecutions have to be abandoned or fail. All these problems would be addressed and reduced by parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has argued, there needs to be a clear government strategy and we need to know what it is.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I start by asking the Minister a procedural question, as other noble Lords have. Will we in this House get to discuss the statutory instruments following the debate on the renewal of emergency legislation in the Commons? We know that the Commons will be able to vote. My understanding of what the Minister has said is that we will not get to see these statutory instruments in advance. I had been rather optimistic and excited, because I thought we might see an end to the dozens of pointless, time-expired statutory instruments that we have had to endure for the last few weeks and months—and indeed can look forward to between now and Christmas.
I fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is frustrated by the rule of six and has asked many pertinent questions. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Liddle, Lord Lipsey and Lord Wood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy, Lady Massey and Lady Mallalieu, for making strong, sensible and quite often witty remarks today—which is quite hard when you are discussing statutory instruments that have already been in place a couple of weeks. The theme running through their remarks, and those of other noble Lords today, is that we are all fed up with these unsatisfactory legislative and accountability decisions.
I have a few questions of my own. As we know, it is now illegal for groups of more than six to meet. That is simple and clear, we are told by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The law applies to all parts of England, except of course places with local lockdown rules, where the rules may be tighter. It is therefore clear, as long as you know the rules and the lockdown situation in your area. We are told that the reason for this restriction is the rise in coronavirus cases in England. The Government have decided to lower the number of people allowed to socialise at any one time to help keep people safe. Scotland took similar steps, cutting the number of people who can meet but excluding children under 12. Wales too has its own rule of six, which came into force on the same day, but it does not apply to children under 11 and covers only indoor meetings. Northern Ireland has stopped people meeting indoors completely, but allows six people to meet in the garden and up to 15 in a public area.
Can the Minister please point me to the science that has led to all these different decisions? His explanations did not provide that, and I dispute the idea of this being at all simple. We did not see an impact assessment. Would it be possible to see one? When is the effectiveness of the rule of six to be reviewed? When will there be an assessment of its impact on the young? The Children’s Commissioner has asked for children to be excluded from the rule in England, and I agree with that.
Last week, when she responded to the Prime Minister’s Statement, my noble friend Lady Smith pointed out that she could have breakfast with one group from this House and lunch with a different group—I think she even invited some of us to join her for a curry in the evening. This was to demonstrate the fact that the rule is flexible and probably rather unclear. I think that she is right, and I am looking forward to having a curry with my noble friend.
These rules will work only if people comply. While the police have powers to fine people who break the rule of six, forces in England and Wales have said that they will do so only as a last resort. I do not understand how that works, because people will be in a group of six or more only for a very short time. How on earth will the police issue warnings to all those people and then watch them to see whether they get themselves into another group of more than six? Can the Minister confirm how many fines have been issued for breaking the rule of six and their value? The penalty for failing to wear a mask or breaking the rule of six has now doubled to £200 for a first offence. I would like to hear from the Minister whether that is working as a deterrent.
The Metropolitan Police also said that officers will not generally pursue people retrospectively—whether famous or otherwise—if photographs or video footage emerge of them breaking these rules, including the rule of six. Does the Minister agree with that approach? Does he share my concern that people flouting the rules and getting away with breaches undermines public faith in their effectiveness? Perhaps that could act as a deterrent.
On the other hand, does enforcement of the rule of six rely on people grassing up their neighbours? Can the Minister confirm how these regulations will be enforced in public spaces? For example, if an employer suspects that two or more groups of six in his pub are actually together, and in breach of the rules, what enforcement action are they required to take?
One of the more controversial exemptions from the rule of six is for those involved in certain sports, including shooting and hunting. Will that also be reviewed? Does the Minister accept that these are often social occasions and that, if we follow his line of thought on pub curfews, people will be less likely to observe social distancing guidance across the piece?
In other words, it is a very confusing framework and the rule of six is very far from being simple.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for this debate, not because it was particularly enjoyable for any Minister to be described in the terms that I was—although I am grateful for some of the kind words—but because it was an important one. What I heard, loud and clear, was huge frustration: it was like listening to an elastic band being stretched to breaking point—not a pleasant sound. However, it was an important moment when we heard quite clearly the deep and heartfelt concerns of noble Lords about the key issues around this statutory instrument. I will address those concerns in turn.
Fundamental is the science, and I will talk a little about the background to this statutory instrument because there is clearly enormous concern about that—about the Government’s strategy and its complexity, and about the sheer volume, sophistication and confusion of the guidelines and the requests that are being made to the public, and the process by which these instruments are being put together. It is a lot to bite off, but I will cover it as well as I can.
I want to convey to noble Lords that in the past six months our understanding of the virus has changed dramatically. From receiving telephone calls from the front line of the health system we now have a massive information system plugged into the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which was designed by the best minds that the Government have from the intelligence services, the data services and the Cabinet Office. That gives us a very clear picture of what is going on on the ground. Some of that information is data flows from the health system, hospital logs and test and trace, while some is local intelligence from infection control teams on the ground, local resilience forums and local councils. Some of it is then filtered by analysts with epidemiological training, who plug into the proper scientists—the white-coated scientists—who provide their own analysis.
I do not offer this Chamber a volume and say, “This is the science”. Rather, I offer a huge amount of technical insight that is pored over every day, is delivered in extremely sophisticated dashboards, is interrogated by inquiring minds and is challenged by sceptics. We now have a much clearer day-to-day picture of what is going on, in the country as a whole and in different parts of it. When we drafted these regulations, we considered all that information.
The story being told in mid-September was that the public had miscued: that they had, during the summer, massively relaxed their behaviour. The key form of transmission—the trigger to a huge amount of infection —was families taking an extremely lax interpretation of what social mixing they could do. The insight that came from the ground—not from the top—was that we needed to give a much clearer, more easily understood and more enforceable story, or instruction, to the public in order to separate people.
For all that has been said in the Chamber, it is clear to all of us how this disease is spread. It is spread in the aerosol from our breath and by our touching and feeling things. At the end of the day, what we are talking about here is something deeply uncomfortable. We can rightly challenge the regulations for being too complex, and I have enjoyed the speeches that poked fun at some of the difficult and potentially ludicrous parts of sophisticated and complicated guidelines. I can hear the frustration in that kind of challenge, but the bottom line is that social distancing means putting space between ourselves and the people we love. There is no avoiding that bottom line.
You can try to blame the laws, if you like, and blame the regulations for being at fault—“We’ve drafted bad regulations”. But it is not the regulations; it is the space. We all want to spend a lot more time with the people we worry about and care about. We want to enjoy the conviviality of groups we know and trust. We want to plug into the networks of spiritual connection, interest, power and familial connection. These regulations emphatically break those connections. Where there was love, they put in space. I cannot apologise for that. I cannot change it or find some form of words that transforms that simple fact, or in any way changes the grim realities of how we have to limit the transmission of this disease.
I completely hear the ridicule. I feel the frustration and I do not doubt that things could have been done better. Some of these regulations could have been written better. My noble friend Lord Lamont has rightly queried the differences between weddings and funerals. There is an explanation for why they are treated differently, but it would be churlish of me to stand here and plod through it in a bureaucratic and, frankly, frustrating manner. However, I would be glad to write to my noble friend with that explanation. The honest truth is that they are hurtful, they do damage the way in which we show our love, and they will leave a lasting effect on the psychological health of the country and on the economy. I would like quickly to address those two points.
I have been questioned on the strategy many times but, as most noble Lords know, the strategy is clear. The Prime Minister was clear about it last Thursday, as was the Chancellor this morning. We will suppress the virus, while supporting education and the economy, until we eliminate it by vaccine, therapeutics and mass testing. This is a middle way. It emphatically is not a national measure to lock down the country—we tried that and it was horrible, although successful and made a big difference—nor is it running hot. It is the middle way. Therefore, we have to accommodate. We have complexity. We are using local lockdowns and we are trying to instruct by consent, rather than by force. We are trying to be flexible with those who have special needs. Most importantly, we are letting those trying to defend their jobs and education pursue those interests. Those are our two major priorities.
Time is tight, so I will address just a couple of points. As a father of four children, three under 12, I completely hear the point on children. There are many parents and grandparents here who feel it harshly, but the research from the front line was crystal clear: people were using children’s birthdays, drop-offs and congregations around children to flout the rules and create events where infection was happening. Clarity and preventing those nodes of transmission became a priority, which is why we have pursued the route we have.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Dobbs, I can be crystal clear: the Vaccine Taskforce has done brilliantly in researching, identifying and buying vaccines. Advice on how they will be distributed will be given by the JCVI. Our policy on vaccine distribution will be to listen to the JCVI, which has yet to pronounce on it.
My noble friend Lord Robathan is right that some of long Covid is post-viral fatigue, but there is more to it than that. Neurological, cardiac and renal failure are being seen in many people, which is extremely alarming.
I have to draw stumps there. I reassure the House that we have learned the lesson about parliamentary scrutiny, which builds support and brings the light of scrutiny to these measures. We would not have had this debate today, with all the pain and frustration that has been present, if we had had more debates like it previously. My right honourable friend has given a commitment in the other place to bring measures to the House more promptly. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, it will be up to the usual channels and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to bring these instruments to the Chamber for debates more promptly, as has rightly been suggested today.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke. We had an excellent debate, with many good speeches and many new points made. I also thank the Minister, for whom a lot of sympathy was rightly expressed. He comes here for debate after debate, is attacked and attacked, and bears it with great good humour and is absolutely on top of his brief. He said he heard the sense of frustration in this debate loud and clear and would take that away; I hope he conveys that to the Government. He emphasised again and again that the Government have more and more information. It is one thing to have that, but are we using it to get on top of the virus? I am not sure I heard an answer to my question about the virus just bouncing back every time we go through suppress, relax, suppress, relax.
There was near unanimity in the House that the message has not been clear. It is messy and confused, which makes compliance with the law more difficult. These are not just rules; they are laws. People are subject to arrests and fines. Compliance is much more difficult without public acceptance. Important points were also made about the need, as the Government have said, to consult Parliament well in advance of legislation. That is profoundly important, but I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he has heard the frustration of the House and will convey it back to the Government. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there is an issue with the sound in the Chamber, so we will need to adjourn for a further 15 minutes, until a convenient moment after 3 pm.
Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before us today will establish a breathing space scheme for individuals who live in England and Wales. This is a temporary period of respite from creditor action to help people in problem debt consider their options and engage with professional debt advice. To many in this Chamber, the scheme will need no introduction, as noble Lords were the driving force behind amendments to the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, under which the Government present these regulations today. Since then, of course, the Government have had to make unprecedented policy interventions to save jobs and support livelihoods due to the impact of Covid-19, so the need for this scheme is even more pressing.
A breathing space—or, to use the term in the regulations, a moratorium—will pause most enforcement action, creditor contact, and interest and charges on a person’s qualifying debts. There are two kinds of moratorium. The first, a breathing space moratorium, lasts for 60 days and is open to anyone who engages with debt advice and meets the eligibility criteria. The second, a mental health crisis moratorium, available where a person is in mental health crisis treatment, extends those protections for as long as that treatment lasts, plus 30 days.
Professional debt advice providers have a central role in the scheme. They can initiate a moratorium for anyone who meets the relevant eligibility criteria and conditions. They should not do so if it would be inappropriate—for example, if their client could go into a debt solution like an IVA or bankruptcy straight away, or if they could manage their finances without a moratorium. There are other important safeguards to ensure that clients are complying with the scheme’s rules as far as possible. For example, certain ongoing liabilities such as a mortgage or rent must be paid as they fall due during a breathing space moratorium. If they are not, or if the client is not engaging with debt advice, the debt adviser can decide whether the breathing space moratorium should continue.
Of course, the Government recognise that, during mental health crisis treatment, it will be harder to engage with debt advice in this way and that it may be less reasonable to expect the individual to keep up specific obligations on them. The scheme anticipates this, with alternative access for people in mental health crisis treatment to a moratorium with equally strong protections that last longer, and where the conditions on the debtor are relaxed. This type of moratorium can only be accessed once an approved mental health professional has certified that a person is in crisis treatment. The debt adviser need not provide advice directly to the person but will still check that the relevant eligibility criteria are met and that an AMHP has provided the necessary evidence. A breathing space moratorium can only be accessed once every 12 months, but there is no limit to the number of times that a person can enter a mental health crisis moratorium.
I will now move on to implementation and begin by addressing the recommendations made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It recommended that the Government consider establishing a comprehensive debt adviser register. Access to professional debt advice is crucial, but our view is that instead of creating a new register, this can be best achieved by working with the Money and Pensions Service and other stake- holders to clearly direct people to free debt advice provision, including on GOV.UK and via MaPS’s existing online tools. In its most recent report on the regulations, the committee also suggested that the Government should bring forward the start date for the scheme to earlier than May 2021, in response to Covid. Simply making the regulations does not give effect to the scheme’s protections; creditors large and small need time to change their systems and debt advice providers need to plan and train their staff. This is against the backdrop of everyone making unprecedented efforts to help people affected by the financial impact of Covid. While the Government appreciate the committee’s intent, they are firmly of the view that May 2021 is ambitious but achievable. The Government continue to work to support implementation next May, and detailed scheme guidance is to be published by the end of this year.
Beyond the committee’s recommendations, there are other areas of implementation that I would like to bring to noble Lords’ attention. A barrier to individuals seeking help with debts can often be fear of the impact any intervention will have on their credit score. The Government have considered this issue carefully. Debt advice providers need clarity on this to advise their clients, and the Government are mindful to avoid unintended consequences for debtors and creditors in the scheme. A moratorium is not a payment holiday or a payment deferral scheme. Other than pausing interest and fees, no new arrangements are made regarding the debts protected in a moratorium, so the Government do not consider it appropriate to ask creditors to pause reporting to credit reference agencies. Credit files take up to 50 days to update, so the impact on an individual during the 60-day moratorium would in any case be limited.
The Government have also considered whether it would appropriate to seek a new flag or code to show a breathing space on a credit file. This could have longer-lasting effects and, in the mental health crisis moratorium, sensitive information about a person’s treatment could be inferred from credit files. This is not acceptable. We therefore propose that creditors should continue to report payments in line with their existing arrangements, encouraging payments to continue during the moratorium wherever possible. The Government will keep this position and its effects under review.
The breathing space scheme will encourage people to engage with professional debt advice and create the necessary space for them to make better decisions based on that advice. Importantly, it will also protect people receiving mental health crisis treatment until they are more able to engage in this way. I hope we can agree that these regulations are a positive step forward in an area that has long been important to many in this Chamber, with the potential to change lives. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest regarding my work with alternatives to payday loans. Everyone taking part in this debate will be in favour of the modest but important measures encapsulated in these revised regulations. They are the very least we can do, given the enormity of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government should now take two steps.
First, the Government should bring forward the implementation date from May to January. I take the Minister’s point about preparation, but many things have changed over the last eight months. People have moved more quickly than they could ever have envisaged in changing the way they operate, drawing on expertise they did not know existed. Three months would be a perfectly adequate time to get our act together nationally and locally and to implement the scheme. Secondly, consideration should again be given a register of independent advisers, because it is already clear that many unprincipled people are prepared to take advantage of what is now a tsunami of debt for individuals and companies.
Debt, by its very nature, is not deferment for ever: as the Government will find over the years to come, it is deferred repayment. For individuals and businesses across the country, including those that have taken out bounce-back loans, the day of reckoning eventually comes and it is really important that we are in a position to understand how best to schedule their repayments over a manageable period, so that their other outgoings are not affected and their livelihoods are not destroyed.
I heard a woman on the radio in the last two days saying that she was making impossible choices about whether to keep a roof over her head or to eat. She had chosen to keep a roof over her head. Other people do not, and there are knock-on consequences. I know a small company that refurbishes and then rents out houses; these are not always the most popular kind of people in my party, but I put this out as a real possibility for action across the country. This company has reached an agreement with Sheffield City Council in effect to become a social landlord. It refurbishes, maintains and is responsible for the property. The council is responsible for the tenant and the rent due, and therefore for supporting and helping that tenant to continue to pay their rent and to have a roof over their heads.
That kind of collaborative deal is something that I believe we should look at urgently. There will be hundreds of thousands of people, both those renting and those with mortgages, who find themselves in enormous difficulty. Some will do what my grandfather described as “a midnight flit”. Simply, that means that they up and go without paying anything they owe and try to make a new life somewhere else. That is already happening.
My other point is how much we can build on the work of Money and Mental Health and the campaigns that it and many others have run, such as tackling the threat that people face in the kinds of approaches that are made, the letters they receive, the knock on the door. Again, I heard someone just in the last 48 hours talking about their 16 year-old daughter being confronted at the door with a bill for £2,000. There is an enormous amount here to build on. The Government need to be sure-footed and extremely willing to put aside previous determinations of timing and methodology and, instead, work with all those who are willing to do so. They need to ensure that this debt crisis—that is what it is—does not become a prolonged crisis that destroys the livelihoods, living space and well-being of people across the country.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I broadly and warmly welcome the provisions in these regulations. While the effects of the pandemic certainly give increased importance to these provisions, the issues are, of course, of very much longer standing. I pay tribute to organisations, including the Children’s Society, which have long campaigned on these matters, as well as to the honourable Member for Rochester and Strood, Kelly Tolhurst, my own Member of Parliament, who, before she was made a Minister, proposed a Private Member’s Bill in the other place to address some of these issues.
It is estimated that 2.4 million children in England and Wales live in households with problem debt. Some 600,000 families spend more on overdue bills than they do on food. This issue has devastating social consequences for families and for wider communities, as well as for businesses, contributing significantly to mental ill-health, homelessness and relationship break- down. The matter is urgent.
Therefore, in welcoming these regulations, I want to touch on the implementation date. If it is not possible to bring this forward, I urge that it is not delayed, despite any issues there may be about implementing it. Rather, that date should be protected with vigour. I also urge that serious attention be given to connecting this with other policies and provisions to support those, especially families, experiencing debt and financial crisis. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has already referred to the connection with housing issues, and there are others.
It is encouraging to know that there is support for these provisions from within the enforcement sector, and to read about some of those organisations’ guidance to their staff on how they should act properly and in accordance with humanity and with these regulations. I applaud, and am a committed supporter of, organisations in the debt advice sector, many of them charitable. I am pleased and proud to see many lay people within congregations in my diocese volunteering to be trained as debt advisers, many of them with backgrounds in the financial world. Also, a number of churches host debt advice centres, many under the umbrella of CAP— Christians Against Poverty—an organisation with a long track record in debt advice. These and other such institutions and initiatives will need to be sustained, and of course funded, if these regulations are to achieve their intent.
I have a handful of concerns or questions to raise. It is good that benefit and council tax debt is included in the definitions of debts to be covered by these regulations. I hope, however, that Her Majesty’s Government might think again about the exclusion of debt that arises from advance payment of universal credit. Such debts are not insignificant and, again, can contribute to the problem. The 60 days provision is, of course, welcome; I believe that it is an extension from an earlier proposal. However, I would welcome some assurance from the Government that this will not be reduced in any future review of these regulations.
It is important that those delivering this scheme locally are able to refer indebted people to other sources of support and sound advice, whether from local authorities or from within the charitable sector or other places. Clear guidance about this for debt advisers—those who are offering the advice—would be incredibly useful. That is probably not something for government to mandate in detail, but rather to make sure that it happens in particular local areas so that people can be clearly signposted to organisations that can support them beyond the debt advisers themselves.
I am sure that this is not the last time we will debate these issues; the current circumstances mean that debt will continue to be an issue on the national agenda. However, I welcome these regulations as a good step in the right direction.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a founder member of the Mental Health Act commission back in the 1980s. It is because of that interest that I wish to concentrate my remarks today mostly on the aspects of the regulations that refer to mental health.
I am sure we all appreciate that debt and mental health are a bit of a vicious circle. Worrying about finances and having limited capacity, and possibly limited assistance, in dealing with money matters can exacerbate mental illness, often to the point of triggering a crisis. It follows that a person’s critical mental state means that managing finances becomes an impossible burden. I therefore welcome these proposals, which, despite applying only in limited circumstances, bring some relief to a number of those in receipt of critical treatment throughout the period in which that treatment is necessary. This breathing space is important. However, it should not be regarded as just a delay to the inevitable but as an opportunity for resolution of outstanding pressures.
I am a little disappointed that the second part of the proposals, for a statutory debt repayment plan, is not being introduced at the same time. Indeed, no date has yet been suggested by the Government. Can my noble friend the Minister give us any indication as to when those proposals might be introduced, and what, if any, problems are preventing a date being set? A moratorium of limited time and scope, without these additional provisions, may just kick the can down the road, especially if other assistance is not fully deployed in the meantime. As these first proposals are now to come into effect in May next year, speed in completing the other provisions is essential.
The Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, to which my noble friend the Minister has referred, provides us with the powers that we are examining and which are needed to obtain debt respite, but without a wider scheme in place we are taking risks in proceeding with this element alone. They surely rely on each other to have the best chance of success. For those who are not currently under mental health crisis treatment, the regulations set out the means whereby they can get advice, as well as the criteria and qualifications needed by those who give such advice and have the powers afterwards to trigger a moratorium, pending, I hope, some settlement of the issues. Is my noble friend happy with the qualification requirements for those entrusted with those responsibilities?
Even with great care, the process itself can be daunting to anyone with a mental illness. The specific exclusions of certain categories of debt under regulation 5(4) are difficult to understand, especially if they currently include universal credit allowances and third-party deductions or if a VAT-registered business is involved. While the regulations are otherwise reasonably clear, some people may regard any moratorium as cover for all their debts at the time, so it must be clearly explained to them—as my noble friend the Minister has said—that their general ongoing liabilities must still be met, if possible, during the break. Is my noble friend happy that the qualified advisers will be able to convey this message and deliver an appropriate outcome for clients?
These general provisions apply equally to those receiving mental health crisis treatment, but, pursuing a different course, they must get relief in reliance on the approved mental health professionals, who will then need to notify the debt adviser in order to trigger a moratorium. Bearing in mind the historic and long-standing communication problems between AMHPs and local authorities, for instance, over responsibility in mental health matters, can my noble friend offer some further explanation as to how this process might be expected to work?
Sadly, many mental health patients have episodes of crisis that can be repetitive, and, in such cases, there may be difficulties in implementing the breathing space for them. It could be for one crisis treatment followed by the 30 days set down in the regulations and then a further 60 days arranged by the debt adviser. However, if further crisis treatment is necessary, this could be a very long-term situation, which can lead to misunderstandings or, even, unfairness all round. I know that the regulations acknowledge this different approach, as they, of course, limit other cases to only one breathing space in any 12-month period.
The issue of published guidance is also important. It must not be just for debt advisers or AMHPs; it must also be available in simple language for those who might benefit most from it and, surely, also for creditors, who are directly affected by these proposals. I am pleased to see that the provisions will be reviewed after five years, but I hope that, as implementation takes place, there will be careful monitoring and, if necessary, adjustments will be made as and when required. Finally, I hope that my noble friend can reassure us on that point as well.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear presentation, and speak in support of these regulations. We very much welcome the incentive the Government are providing here for people with problem debts to seek debt counselling. People with problem debt will have the chance to apply for a breathing space of 60 days, with a freeze on enforcement action, interest and charges. There will also be the opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, has said in detail—for people suffering a mental health crisis to apply for a moratorium to take stock of their position and not to face the stress of being threatened with recovery action.
Owing significant sums of money is a very frightening experience. I know because, when I was a local councillor, I met lots of people in this position, and it can be made very much worse by being pursued to repay debt, particularly when on a very low income. It is stressful and fraught with threats of insolvency, eviction and bailiffs. As other noble Lords have said, these have knock-on effects on other services. Creditors’ overzealous use of court orders, debt collectors and bailiffs has led to dreadful experiences and compounds the desperation for vulnerable people and the risk of debt spiralling out of control through fear.
The moratoriums will provide time and resources for debtors to receive debt advice and for a sustainable repayment plan to be agreed. The statutory debt repayment plans are a welcome part of these regulations, but they are not as yet included. What timeframe are the Government looking at for SDRPs? Through the extension of continued breathing space protections, SDRPs would give people a safe way to pay back their debts and reduce the harm that debt causes.
Will the Minister also let us know what plans there are to publicise the scheme? In one of the briefings we had, we heard that—certainly—half the people who approach debt counsellors say that they had been worrying about their debts for a year or more before seeking advice. However, nearly eight in 10 surveyed said they would have got advice earlier if they had known this could stop interest charges, collection and enforcement action. Six in 10 said they would have sought advice earlier if they had known it would deliver the temporary help from creditors that they needed. Therefore, it is important that the Government give a great deal of thought to how these new regulations will be publicised to the people who need them.
I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the service can cope, particularly with the further increased demand caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the projected economic consequences. Many debt counselling organisations, such as the CAB, have ever-increasing client lists. Members of my family who work as volunteers for the CAB have drawn this growing problem to my attention. Cuts to local authority budgets have meant that funding for the service has fallen dramatically over recent years.
Can the Minister also tell us how realistic he considers the tight timescales for conducting reviews are, given the pressure on the agencies and the specific assessments that are needed for people suffering from mental health problems? What will happen to people who suffer long-term mental health issues as well as recurrent episodes, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned?
It is intended that these regulations will come into force on 4 May, and others have said that they would like the scheme to be brought forward, which I also support. However, if the scheme is to be successful, there needs to be protection for creditors. Creditor organisations will need to adapt their systems, policies and processes to ensure that they are able to fulfil the new regulations in order that no action is taken against individuals who are subject to a moratorium, no interest fees and charges accrue during it, debtors are not contacted regarding the debt during the period of the moratorium and no action is taken to challenge the grounds in applying for a moratorium that should be taken before the deadline to do so expires.
What plans do the Government have to support creditors to adapt their organisations to the new regulations? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that a great deal has advanced in this area, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment, and I very much look forward to his response.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these important regulations and to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is a good illustration of the breadth knowledge of the specialist areas that we find in our House, and the extent to which there has been consensus on this matter is gratifying.
I also express my gratitude to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which brought a previous iteration of this instrument to the attention of the House. It has since engaged in correspondence with the Treasury regarding its plans for effective signposting to the new measures, as acknowledged in the committee’s 27th report and paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
These regulations are an example of the value that your Lordships’ House brings to the scrutiny of legislation. My noble friends Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Mackenzie of Luton, and several others, took up this cause during the passage of the parent Act. It is to the Government’s credit that they heard and accepted the arguments, bringing forward their own amendments on Report. Given the volume of legislation that we are currently dealing with, perhaps the Minister could remind his colleagues that good things can come from having an open mind and working together.
The breathing space scheme introduced by this instrument has been long championed by organisations such as StepChange. It is based on a successful scheme that has been working in Scotland for a number of years and is designed to offer people with unmanageable problem debt greater access to the financial advice they need—and at an earlier stage, too. We are delighted to note that the Government accepted the views expressed by virtually everyone they consulted on the draft regulations and agreed to include in the scheme all unsecured debts, including those owed to the Crown. There is also a welcome focus on special support for those who suffer from mental stress as a result of their debts. This will make a huge difference, particularly as the pandemic continues.
Implementing a 60-day freeze on charges, fees and certain forms of interest, as well as a pause in enforcement action, will provide valuable time for advice to be sought, provided, considered and ultimately acted upon. It seems obvious to say it, but complex debt cases take time to resolve. Recognition of that will, I hope, lessen the stress and anxiety faced by those who feel that their situation is spiralling out of control. Dedicated provisions for those experiencing a mental health crisis are particularly important. The taking into account of treatment lengths and recognition that mental health problems often recur undoubtedly strengthen the scheme. I hope that we will see such issues considered in future policy-making.
The impact assessment published alongside the instrument makes clear the scale of the problem. Out of 9 million overindebted people in the UK, just over 1 million seek and receive advice each year. Estimates suggest that between 650,000 and 2.9 million people would benefit from debt advice but do not actively seek it, often due to the stigma of problem debt. The impact assessment suggests a clear net benefit to society, and the regulations include five-yearly reviews. Although it will clearly take some time to assess the full impact, can the Minister indicate whether the department plans to publish any interim analysis before 2026? This new scheme will undoubtedly help to encourage more people to seek help, but the problem of stigma requires further work. Is the Minister able to comment on the steps being taken?
Ministers have met their target to launch the new scheme in May 2021, which is to be welcomed. We could perhaps have arrived at this destination at an earlier date—the parent Act received Royal Assent back in May 2018. Earlier publication and consideration of the detail would also have afforded financial institutions additional time to prepare.
We all agree that the new scheme will be of significant value, but we must also be mindful of the fact that it is only one part of a very complex puzzle. As noted in the Explanatory Memorandum, plans to introduce the option of a statutory debt repayment plan are ongoing. I wonder whether the Minister will feel able to go beyond the contents of paragraph 2.1 of the EM by naming a target date for the SDRP to be introduced.
I will end with a brief comment on the timing of this instrument, which is hugely symbolic, if coincidental. Covid-19 and the economic challenges that it has presented have forced millions of people to deplete what little savings they had, and in many cases to take on personal debt. I raised this point in the recent Private Notice Question on personal savings.
Although it is good that we have reached this important milestone, we must also acknowledge the challenges that lie ahead. Unemployment is likely to rise in the coming months and this could have a profound impact on levels of personal debt. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Treasury is not only aware of this risk but proactively considering how to mitigate it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, and I am grateful for the chance to respond to the points that have been raised.
I think we can all agree that current events make the case for this scheme to be introduced as soon as possible. I understand the point made by some noble Lords about the need to try to bring it in sooner. However, we have worked extensively with the sector and we feel that it is unlikely that we will be able to bring it in much sooner, probably due more to the need to train advisers than to issues related to the lending sector. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester are concerned about that. However, we want the scheme to work well, so we want to get it launched properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about the SDRP. Many of the challenges apply in relation to the statutory debt repayment plan, which is complex; the Government want to ensure that the strong protections promised can be achieved. The financial services Bill will shortly be debated in Parliament. It contains a clause to give the Government the full range of powers they need to implement the SDRP and ensure that the protections that it offers mirror those in the breathing space regulations. Secondary regulations will then need to be prepared, appropriately consulted on and made. I cannot commit today to a specific date for introducing the SDRP, but I assure noble Lords that the Government are aware of the desire to see the second part of the debt respite scheme up and running as soon as possible.
We have also heard concerns that creditors will struggle to be ready, given the challenges of operating in the pandemic. The Government understand those concerns, but the scheme is, and remains, a priority in the current circumstances. The date of May feels like a reasonable compromise to achieve its introduction and have it working properly.
Noble Lords asked specific questions about how the scheme will work. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how the Government will prevent stigma in the scheme. I am aware that stigma can cause people to delay seeking advice. I am assured that this is being considered in the scheme design, including in the approach to credit referencing, which I set out for noble Lords in my opening speech. The Government’s intention is that the scheme’s strong protections should incentivise more people to see the value of taking advice earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked about unscrupulous advisers. I assure him that the FCA requires the provision of sound, impartial debt advice that is in the best interests of consumers. Debt advice providers cannot charge a fee in connection with the moratorium. Fee-charging debt advice firms must also signpost clients to sources of free debt advice. They must be transparent about the fees and charges payable by their clients and must ensure that those fees and charges do not undermine their clients’ ability to make significant repayments to creditors. The FCA’s most recent thematic review of the sector, published in March 2019, found significant improvements in the standard of advice given. The FCA takes supervisory and, if necessary, enforcement action where it finds that harm is caused by firms providing inappropriate debt advice.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked about the inclusion of universal credit debts. Universal credit overpayments will be included in the breathing space scheme from day one. Universal credit advances and third-party deductions will be included in the breathing space scheme on a phased basis as early as possible after the policy starts. These two additional aspects require significant IT changes, which need to align with the requirements of the wider UC programme. The Government recognise the importance of including all universal credit debts in the scheme as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked about approved mental health professionals. They are qualified and experienced, approved by local authorities, and have specific expertise and training in mental health and mental capacity law. They are experienced in supporting people in crisis and usually based in community crisis or home treatment teams. The Government will provide guidance on the scheme and are working with MaPS to smooth the process for AMHPs to reach debt advice providers.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked whether debt advice providers would be able to navigate the definition of excluded debts in the regulations. This point will be covered in the guidance. The Money and Pensions Service is working in partnership with the Money Advice Trust to develop and deliver an online training module, which will inform and support debt advisors with the introduction of the scheme in May 2021. The intention is for the training to be accessible to all debt advisors across the sector. MaPS is also working to provide debt advice providers with access to support on technical questions.
It is a complex scheme, necessarily so, given the wide range of public and private debts included. I explained in my speech that the Government will publish scheme guidance by the end of the year to offer further explanation where possible. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked for whom this guidance will be provided. I can confirm that it will be prepared for debt advice providers, creditors, AMHPs, and GOV.UK will include a high-level overview of the scheme.
The Government are fully committed to closely monitoring the impact of the breathing space scheme, and developing and monitoring an evaluation strategy to facilitate an effective post-implementation review. As in all such matters, financial services firms will need to take their own legal advice on their approach. In addition to the government scheme guidance, I understand that the FCA will publish a consultation on guidance for firms shortly.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester asked about training. Government support for debt advice has already seen an extra £37.8 million support package made available to debt advice providers this year. The Government are working closely with MaPS on training for debt advice providers to help ensure that they will be ready to offer the scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about demand for the scheme. Moratorium can be accessed only via professional debt advice, so the take-up rate of the scheme is constrained by the available supply of that debt advice. Covid-19 poses many uncertainties, and we will continue to monitor the evolving situation. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was also concerned about the impact of Covid-19 and the downturn of the economy. The Government recognise that people are struggling with their finances during this very difficult time and have put an unprecedented package of support in place to try to help people during the pandemic. We will keep this area under close consideration.
I believe that the breathing space scheme will encourage people to engage with professional debt advice and create the necessary space for them to make better decisions based on that advice. Importantly, it will protect people receiving mental health crisis treatment until they are more able to engage in this way. I hope we can agree that these regulations are a positive step forward in an area that has long been important to many in this Chamber, with the potential to change lives. I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 6th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
17:25 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 27 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches, or before the noble Lord sits down, are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. As this is Report, other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once in 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 any amendment for a separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should already have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw an amendment. When putting the question, I will collect the 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.
During the debate on Amendment 20, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, indicated that he intended to press Amendment 23, which was grouped with it, to a Division. I will therefore begin by inviting the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to move this amendment formally. No further speeches will be heard on this amendment. I will now put the question. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, wish to move Amendment 23 formally?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 24. Once again, I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover or the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make this clear in the debate.
Amendment 24
“Recourse to public funds
(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052);(b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments repealed by Schedule 1; or(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.(2) Regulations under section 4(1) may not be made until the Government has brought forward legislative measures to ensure that P can access social security benefits, where P is habitually resident, including repealing or amending the following provisions insofar as they relate to P—(a) section 3(1)(c)(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971;(b) section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;(c) any provision in subordinate legislation, which imposes a “no recourse to public funds” condition on grants of limited leave to enter or remain; and(d) any other enactment or power exercised under any other enactment, which makes immigration status a condition to access social security benefits.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to restrict measures prohibiting access to public funds.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 24, which appears under my name, is one of a suite of amendments that I moved in Committee. I continue to stand by all of them, but in achieving a disappointing response from the Minister then, I have restricted myself to just one. I record now, as I did then, the role of Liberty in working on all of them. When I saw that no one else had brought forward a similar amendment, I felt that this issue had to be raised in any immigration Bill.
This amendment is about “no recourse to public funds”. It is something I find myself talking about so often that the phrase rolls off my tongue like poetry, but of course this is the stuff of nightmare, of personal desperation and great suffering. It is the situation of the victim of domestic violence facing the choice between homelessness and penury for herself and her children and the very real danger of being maimed or killed if she stays. It is the situation of the child going hungry, suffering the miserable, desperate pangs that prevent concentration or hope, when his peers get free school meals.
I assume there is no Member of your Lordships’ House who would deny the human right to life, but “no recourse to public funds” denies access to the most basic essentials. People are forced to rely on the fragile, overstretched resources of specialist charities, and people fall through the cracks of that hopelessly underresourced, fragile net of support.
I fear that in this Bill, the Minister and I are trapped on a merry-go-round. I believe I can foresee the response I am likely to receive: that this is discriminatory if applied only to people newly covered by immigration law, EU and EEA citizens, and not to everybody. At the risk of sounding like a recording, I want this to apply to everybody. The Government could and should end any application of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. In this amendment, I have tried to save as many as the rules of the Table Office will allow me. Saving some people from being penniless and homeless, from hunger and abuse, and perhaps from death, is better than saving none. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 24. In supporting it, I will not repeat the evidence I rehearsed in Committee showing the damaging impact of the “no recourse to public funds” condition on children denied free school meals, in particular—she mentioned that particular group. But I will draw attention to a national survey published since then by the Children’s Food Campaign and Food Active, which found that nine out of 10 parents agreed that eligibility for free school meals should apply regardless of immigration status.
I also want to return to some specific points I raised in Committee. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for responding to my question about data in her letter. I hope the department will follow this up with the Children’s Society, to see how it might improve the data so as to provide a better indicator of the levels of hardship created and the demographics of the groups worst affected.
In Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister referred to what I said about the temporary extension of eligibility for free school meals to support families with NRPF. But she did not acknowledge the point I made that this was a partial concession covering only some NRPF families, nor that the concession has now been withdrawn. I asked what possible justification there could be for this, and I quoted from a letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary, which among other things noted that these children will face having to make up half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs. Could the noble Lord the Minister who is speaking today respond to that point now and, at the very least, commit to taking it up with colleagues in the Department for Education?
According to a briefing from the Children’s Society and others, the Government have indicated that there will be a full review of the free school meals system and that that is needed before the extension to NRPF families can be made permanent. But why? Why does it need a full review? Hunger cannot wait for a review. What is the scope and timetable of this review? If the Minister cannot answer that now, please could it be covered in a subsequent letter?
The Minister did not respond either in Committee or in her letter to a specific question that I posed, echoing the Work and Pensions Select Committee. I asked for a definitive clarification as to whether local welfare assistance funds counted as public funds for these purposes. They act as a kind of safety net below the safety net—a rather ragged safety net below the safety net—but if even those are not available, it makes life that much harder for this group. Again, if the Minister does not have the answer, could it please be covered in a subsequent letter?
The comprehensive improvement plan, published last week in response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, identified the NRPF as one of six primary streams in the compliant—aka hostile—environment. It is interesting that the Home Secretary, as far as I can see, did not refer to this rather important plan of the Home Office in her speech on Sunday at the Conservative Party conference. But in contrast to the plan’s emollient tone, while talking about compassion and so forth, we have learned in the media—and I know that the Minister will say that he cannot respond to leaks, but it did not seem like a leak; it seemed like it had been deliberately placed—that there is a push by Downing Street to
“radically beef up the hostile environment in 2021.”
If this is true, it makes a mockery of the review of the hostile/compliant environment detailed in the Home Office’s plan. Can the Minister provide a categorical denial that the intention is not to radically beef up the compliant/hostile environment, because that certainly was not what Wendy Williams was calling for?
I refer back to the exchange that I had in Committee with the Minister on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review—and I thank her for the offer of the meeting. It seems to me from the comprehensive improvement plan that the review of the hostile/compliant environment will not include questioning its legislative underpinnings. For instance, it will not question the right-to-rent legislation itself, but simply how it is being implemented. What if the review concludes that the legislation itself is not proportionate in meeting the Government’s stated aims, which is part of what Wendy Williams’s recommendations said it should be looking at? I would be very happy if the Minister responds to say that I have misinterpreted what the plan says, and that the terms of reference are that it is open to those reviewing the hostile/compliant environment to question the legislation, if that is where the evidence takes them. Surely—going back to my first point—the denial of free school meals to hungry children is not proportionate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The concept of no recourse to public funds is one that causes significant difficulties to a small number of people, but for those individuals it can be very significant. Quite how many people fall under this provision is perhaps a little bit unclear. I cite a paper on no recourse to public funds written by Professor Catherine Barnard, a colleague at Cambridge University—and I declare it as an interest that she is a colleague. She quotes Stephen Timms at the Liaison Committee in May raising with the Prime Minister the issue of destitution as a result of no recourse to public funds. The Prime Minister is reported to have said:
“You have raised a very, very important point if a condition of their leave to remain is that they should have no recourse to public funds. I will find out how many there are in that position and we will see what we can do to help.”
Does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister has yet been able to answer that question of how many people fall into this category? Will he tell us what plans the Prime Minister has to help individuals who have no recourse to public funds? I suspect that his briefing does not include answers to those questions, so I confine myself to reiterating the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister of Burtersett. That is really to say that, while ideally the provision for no recourse to public funds should be looked at in its entirety, in the confines of this Bill we understand that it can only be the case for EU nationals. However, in the context of the Covid crisis, it has become clear that individuals can face very significant difficulties that are not covered by the normal provisions for seeking benefits precisely because they fall under this condition of no recourse to public funds. Will the Government think again on this issue? It relates not to people who are coming to seek benefits, who simply say that the United Kingdom is a country where they think they are going to be able to benefit from the system. It rather relates to individuals who are already here, exercising their rights as EU nationals. It is a finite number of people, and surely they deserve our help and a degree of generosity.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express concern about Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She has highlighted some hard cases in the cause of her apparently wide-ranging proposed new law. That is an approach that I always discourage. I think legislation of this kind has to be carefully thought about, assessed for cost and consulted on.
In Committee, the main focus of amendments on this issue was to seek greater support from public funds during coronavirus. The Minister explained that some of the Government’s coronavirus measures—quite generously, one might say—applied to those with no recourse to public funds, who are the subject of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
I believe that migrants coming into the UK should be able to maintain and support themselves and their families without posing a burden on our hard-pressed benefit system. I do not know much about the detail of the arrangements for prohibiting access to public funds, but I know that taxpayers already foot large bills for lawyers to prioritise immigrants’ needs and to block the deportation of those who do not have the right to remain.
We cannot introduce an immigration system, as posited here, that has the effect of attracting migrants—whether from the EU, which is today’s subject, or elsewhere—for welfare benefits and not for work. This will not win the support of UK citizens who are struggling to make ends meet and are facing job losses and fiscal deficits as a result of the coronavirus crisis. In short, those who are, in reality, economic migrants should be contributors to the public purse, as I think many are. I hope that the House will reject this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, in replying to this and the other amendment on no recourse to public funds in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, according to Hansard, that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be “reduced”. I would like to think that that might have been about reducing the numbers of people with no recourse, but I suspect that it was a misprint for “produced”. The noble Baroness is nodding.
Almost all the speakers have lit on the issue of lack of data. It occurs to me that a lack of data indicates something of a shortfall in interest among the policy makers on the impact of the policy that they are making. Like much that relates to the immigration system, this amendment is about humanity and common sense: common sense because of the important public health argument about ensuring that people are not prone to disease that can be prevented and that children are fed well enough to be educated and to grow into good citizens, and humanity for obvious reasons.
Hard cases are not to be excluded when we think about policy; they have to be considered to bring attention to bad law. I do not think that the taxpayer is a single cohesive figure. Taxpayers have a wide range of views and there are quite a lot among us who would like to see our taxes spent differently and better. If that means more tax being raised, that is a price that we understand we have to pay.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would prevent regulations being made under Clause 4 until the Secretary of State had provided legislative measures to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK are not subject to no recourse to public funds. This includes repealing or amending relevant no recourse to public funds provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I assume this means any regulations under Clause 4 and not just regulations relating to no recourse to public funds.
We had an amendment in Committee that would have had the effect of not applying the no recourse to public funds rules during the current Covid-19 pandemic, and then until such time as Parliament decides. To keep the amendment within the scope of the Bill it applied only to EEA and Swiss nationals. We have been calling since April for no recourse to public funds to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. We asked the Government to lift no recourse to public funds as a condition on a person’s migration status to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken in the fight against the coronavirus. In June, the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees recommended that the Government should “immediately suspend NRPF” for the duration of the pandemic on public health grounds. The Work and Pensions Committee said:
“As a result of the no recourse to public funds condition, many hardworking and law-abiding people are being left without a social safety net and at risk of destitution and homelessness.”
Our amendment found no favour with the Government —as, indeed, may prove to be the case with every amendment on this Bill, with the exception of perhaps just one. As set out in Hansard, I asked—as did my noble friend Lady Lister—for some numbers in relation to no recourse to public funds. The Minister said they were not part of published statistics, but that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be produced. As has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it said “reduced” in Hansard, but it has now been confirmed that it should have said “produced”. Whatever the situation, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say exactly when the Home Office analysts expect to complete the exercise that they are undertaking in relation to figures, information and data available.
This amendment goes further than our amendment in Committee on no longer applying NRPF, in that it does not relate only to the period of the pandemic and does not leave it for Parliament to decide if and when its terms are no longer to apply. Like the noble Baroness, I await the Government’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and all other noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. I completely understand the concern that they have expressed for the welfare of people with no recourse to public funds, especially during the current pandemic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says, it is a matter, first and foremost, of humanity, but the Government cannot accept this amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government’s general expectation is that people immigrating to the United Kingdom should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That reflects the importance of maintaining the confidence of the public in general that immigration overall brings benefits to our country, as it certainly does, rather than costs to the public purse. Those restrictions, which have been in place under Governments of all political hues for many years, are an important plank of immigration policy designed to assure people that public funds are being protected for those who are normally or habitually resident in the UK, reflecting the strength of their connection to the United Kingdom. This includes those with indefinite leave to remain, refugees, protected persons and people granted discretionary leave.
I acknowledge the level of concern that has been expressed today, and, indeed, in Committee, particularly regarding the deprivation of children. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, asked a number of questions about children. She generously suggested that I could write to her on the timetable for the review and other points, and I am very happy to commit to do that so she can have the fullest possible answer. I will certainly ensure that the point she raises about free school meals has been heard by the Department for Education. I am sure it has been but I will take that forward and make sure it is reinforced. On free school meals generally, they are not listed as public funds under immigration legislation; they are available to the most disadvantaged pupils, including asylum-seeking children whose parents or guardians receive support under Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act. I hope that that gives her some reassurance in the meantime, but I will certainly take the point forward, as she asks.
The noble Baroness will not be surprised that I cannot comment on leaks, so I shall not, whatever their suspected provenance. I can point her to the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, both in her speech to the Conservative Party conference over this weekend—which I am glad the noble Baroness noted was marked by its compassion—and also in a number of Statements she has made in another place about the Wendy Williams review, committing herself and the Home Office to taking on board all the recommendations that Wendy Williams had made and shifting the culture of the Home Office. I would direct the noble Baroness to those words for the view of the Home Office.
Regarding children more generally, where a child is in need, local authorities are already required to provide support through Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Recognising the potential financial impact on local authorities at the moment, the Government have allocated more than £4.3 billion to those in England, and additional funding under the Barnett formula to the devolved Administrations, to help them respond to the pressures of Covid-19 across all the services they deliver, including services helping the most vulnerable people. The funding will mean that councils can continue to provide vital services, including adult social care and children’s services. To ensure that children who have been affected by the no recourse to public funds condition are protected from destitution, as we pointed out in Committee, people with leave under the family and human rights routes can apply to have this condition lifted through a change of conditions application. Change of condition decisions are being prioritised, at this difficult time, and dealt with compassionately. The change of conditions team in UK Visas and Immigration is working through applications as quickly as possible and is exercising flexibility when seeking additional evidence, which is often needed, to help reduce unnecessary delays. Additional staff have also been trained to work on these cases in response to the increased demand and urgency during the pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the statistics that would be produced—not “reduced”—on this. The Home Office chief statistician recently replied to a letter from the UK Statistics Authority on the subject. He made clear in that letter why it is not practical for the Home Office to produce an estimate of the total population subject to no recourse to public funds at any one time. However, the Home Office has acknowledged that there is a clear public interest in publishing the number of applications to have the restriction lifted by making a change of conditions application. I am pleased to say that these data have now been published, and will be released as part of the regular migration transparency data henceforth.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response, although I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the direction of his comments. I apologise for the misidentification of the respondent. I think other noble Lords will join me in being pleased that the Home Office will produce these figures, as raised by multiple noble Lords. We will all look forward to seeing and scrutinising those.
I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her powerful and detailed analysis of the Government’s current position and their review plans, and I note her overview, “Hunger cannot wait for a review”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to, we are talking about destitution. Everything is in the context of Covid-19 now, and it seems that at the Tory party conference today the Prime Minister suggested that is going to be the case for the next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the cost of this amendment. I would say, some things are priceless: ensuring that we do not see Victorian conditions of destitution in the UK in 2020 is something we should seek to deliver with every sinew, as human beings. She referred to the bills for immigration matters—for people exercising their legal rights, that means getting what the law entitles them to. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, cited figures showing that the British public overwhelmingly do not want children to go hungry. That is what we are talking about here; as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this is about humanity.
I note the amendment in Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to, which is something we could go back to in the context of Covid-19. Noble Lords will have had heard me refer in other cases to universal basic income as the best solution of all—we could then ensure that nobody was left stranded or left with nothing.
I understand that the restrictions on scope have not allowed me today to make this the amendment I would like it to be on no recourse to public funds. On this occasion I will not be pushing it to a Division, but I fully expect to take a different approach in future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 27
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“Grant of leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals
(1) Immigration rules must make provision for leave to remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to a person aged 18 years or over when—(a) the person is either a Swiss national or an EEA national who is not also an Irish citizen; and(b) there has been a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking; and(c) subsection (2) applies and subsection (8) does not.(2) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking;(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment;(b) the person is participating as a witness in criminal proceedings; (c) the person is bringing any civil proceedings including pursuing compensation.(3) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker, the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (2)(a).(4) Immigration rules must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.(5) Immigration rules must provide for leave to remain to be granted from the day on which the conclusive determination is communicated to a person for at least 12 months.(6) Immigration rules must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (5) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (7).(7) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (6), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (2).(8) A person may be refused leave to remain if—(a) the person is a sexual or violent offender; and(b) the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a genuine, present and serious risk to members of the public.(9) If subsection (8) applies, the Secretary State must ensure the person affected is given reasons for the refusal in writing.(10) In this section—“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings;“conclusive determination” means a determination that a person is, or is not, a victim of slavery or human trafficking when the identification process conducted by a competent authority concludes that the person is, or is not, such a victim;“EEA national” means a national of a State which is a contracting party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2 May 1992 (as it has effect from time to time);“immigration rules” in this section has the meaning given by section 33 of the Immigration Act 1971;“sexual or violent offender” means a person falling within the definition of a “sexual or violent offender” in section 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (section 325: interpretation) or who has been convicted of an offence under the law of another country which would have constituted an offence falling within those subsections if it had been done in England and Wales;“victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” mean a person falling within the definition of a “victim of slavery” or “victim of human trafficking” in section 56 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (section 56: interpretation).”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to Amendment 27 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would like to thank my co-signatories for their support, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who would have been here to speak in support of my amendment had it been reached yesterday, but is unable to join us today. I would also like to thank the former Conservative Party leader, the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith, for his support for my amendment, expressed in our joint PoliticsHome article yesterday. I should say at the outset that I very much hope that the Government will accept it, but if they do not it is my intention to test the opinion of the House.
I make no apology for raising once again the difficult situation that confirmed victims of modern slavery will face as a consequence of the current drafting of the Bill before us. By “confirmed victims”, of course, I mean those who have been through the national referral mechanism and received a positive conclusive grounds decision that they are indeed victims of modern slavery.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who responded to my Amendment 7, and to my noble friend Lady Williams, who responded to Amendment 81. The Government have made all the right noises about protecting trafficking victims, but it is clear, as I shall explain, that in future victims of modern slavery who come from EU countries will be significantly worse off than they are currently.
As a firm supporter of Brexit and advocate for victims of modern slavery, I know that, while free movement must end, the restoration of our sovereignty does not require us to create a situation in which the effective rights of some confirmed victims of modern slavery are diminished. Parliamentary sovereignty actually gives us the opportunity to improve provisions for all victims of modern slavery if we want to. It does not necessitate that we should acquiesce to the effective erosion of the rights of any confirmed victims. That we should inaugurate the Brexit era by doing so for EEA national victims is, in my judgment, unthinkable.
One of the main ways in which a confirmed victim of modern slavery who is an EEA national can seek help for their recovery today is through their treaty rights to remain in the UK and access public funds: in other words, to get benefits and access to local authority housing. In the event that an EU citizen is unable to exercise their treaty rights, perhaps because their ID documents were taken from them by the traffickers, or they have no paperwork to evidence the work they were doing while being exploited—for those exploitations, by their very nature, do not meet the requirements—they have the second fallback option of applying for what is known as discretionary leave to remain.
At the end of the transition period, and once any opportunity to apply for settled or pre-settled status has passed, victims of human trafficking who are EEA nationals will be worse off because they will lose one of the key avenues to support that is available today—exercising their treaty rights—and that will be replaced by nothing.
The confirmed victim will simply be left with the option of applying for discretionary leave to remain. This may not matter if there were a statutory basis for granting discretionary leave, with statutory criteria to make up for the loss of the opportunity for confirmed victims to access support through their treaty rights.
Discretionary leave is only given on a discretionary basis to confirmed victims in very special circumstances set out in the guidance, when they are not eligible for any other form of leave such as asylum or humanitarian protection. The criteria are that a victim is assisting police with investigations into trafficking or modern slavery, that there are compelling personal circumstances which mean the victim needs to stay in the UK, or that the victim is making a claim for compensation against their traffickers and needs to remain in the UK to pursue that claim.
As a Minister said in 2017, discretion to grant leave to remain has been considered as “exceptional”. That might have been acceptable when EU citizens had an opportunity to access treaty rights, but they will no longer be able to do so and it is unlikely that EU victims will be considered for asylum in the future.
In order to really understand this effective erosion of the rights of confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals, it is also important to consider their lot in the wider context of that of victims who are non-EEA nationals. Many non-EEA nationals will have the option of applying for asylum, which, as I said, will not be open to EEA nationals; some will be granted humanitarian protection and the remainder will be automatically considered for discretionary leave. Given these other routes, it may not be surprising that discretionary leave has been considered “exceptional” for non-EEA victims as well.
Internal Home Office data, reported to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee in 2017, showed that just 12% of all victims of modern slavery were given discretionary leave in 2015. Of these, 52 cases were EEA nationals and 71 non-EEA nationals. On 24 September, the Government confirmed that they do not have current data in a reportable form for the different immigration outcomes for victims of modern slavery. This lack of data begs the question as to how the Government will measure the impact of changes in immigration policy on victims of modern slavery if there is no baseline from which to measure.
In July, the Centre for Social Justice, published a report on modern slavery, It Still Happens Here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s. It states:
“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to be a co-signatory to Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I remind the House of my non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the anti-trafficking charity, Arise Foundation.
Characteristically, at midnight last night, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is in his 88th year, was waiting to move this amendment. If he had been required to, he would have stayed all night, such is his commitment to this cause. I admire him greatly for that. Over several decades, I have been truly fortunate to get to know the noble Lord. I have often found myself on the same side of arguments and deeply admire him on many fronts, not least in the use of his skills as a surgeon in life-saving and life-changing work on the Mercy Ships and his indefatigable efforts to raise in the House the plight of victims of modern slavery. It was also good to see the article on PoliticsHome yesterday by the noble Lord and the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP setting out the case for this amendment.
In 2015, I participated along with many other noble Lords throughout the debates on the Modern Slavery Act and warmly congratulated the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, on pioneering with great skill and determination world-class legislation, a rarity in enjoying bipartisan and bicameral support. Following our debate in Committee on 16 September, I sent our debate on the noble Lord’s earlier amendment to Lady May, as she now is, and received a warm response encouraging us all to continue to champion and speak up for victims of modern slavery.
It has been deeply shocking for us all to see the way in which human traffickers have been fuelling the migrant crisis in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge. We have heard in our debates on amendments to this Bill about how young children have been exploited, used as pawns in a lucrative and sometimes deadly trade. The House will recall that it is less than 12 months since the deaths of 39 Vietnamese people trafficked into Tilbury. I was particularly pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said yesterday in your Lordships’ House about what she and the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, are determined to do to end this murderous trade in human misery.
No one can doubt the vulnerability of victims of trafficking and modern slavery by those who manipulate and exploit them. The Government are right to accept that other vulnerable groups such as refugees have conferred upon them an immigration status that recognises their vulnerability. When someone is recognised as a refugee in the UK, they are offered an initial period of five years’ leave to remain. That is not the case for victims of trafficking. Confirmed non-EU victims of modern slavery are able to apply for asylum, but for completely understandable reasons this option has not been open to EU nationals. That is what this amendment addresses.
After 1 January, EU victims who are trafficked into the UK will not have any free movement rights and, unless the rules change, will not be able to apply for asylum. Their immigration options are therefore slim. I am sure that the Minister will respond by confirming that victims of modern slavery are able to apply for discretionary leave to remain. Currently, non-EU nationals are automatically considered for this discretionary option if no other immigration path is available; EU nationals are not.
Looking into the background for discretionary leave to remain, I realised that the facts of who the individuals are who get such leave, and why, are opaque—to put it mildly. The Home Office has published guidance on when a victim of trafficking can be granted leave to remain. The guidance is totally discretionary and sets out three criteria on which leave to remain can be given. A person may get leave to remain, first, if they are seeking compensation for their exploitation or, secondly, if they are assisting police with criminal investigations. The third criterion is defined as “personal circumstances”. The data on how many individuals receive such discretionary leave and under which of those criteria is far from clear.
In 2017, the then Home Office Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Field, when he was Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. What a pleasure it was to be here today when the noble Lord took his seat; I know that he will bring great commitment to the fight against human trafficking during his time in your Lordships’ House. In that letter, the Minister made some clear statements that DLR was the last resort and given only when there are “exceptional or compelling reasons”. Since then, no DLR data has been published in response to multiple Parliamentary Questions. This point is raised in the report of the organisation, After Exploitation, entitled Hidden Futures, published on 27 September. The report demonstrates that the Government have multiple opportunities to provide the data on the immigration outcomes of victims of trafficking. Only last week, on 29 September, the Government responded to a Parliamentary Question in another place by the Member of Parliament for Nottingham North, saying:
“Numbers and reasons for grants of discretionary leave to remain to victims of modern slavery do not currently form part of modern slavery published statistics.”
Less than a week earlier, on 24 September, the Government said that the data was not held in a reportable format. It begs the question: why not? There is considerable confusion about the immigration outcomes for victims of modern slavery and even about whether there is any data that would give such clarity.
Notwithstanding the Government’s failure to be forthcoming and transparent on this issue, in 2019 the British Red Cross was able to get information through freedom of information requests about the grants of discretionary leave to remain and it published in its report, Hope for the Future, some of its findings. These suggest that between just 8% and 9% of all victims of modern slavery were granted leave to remain between 2015 and 2017. Given the small numbers granted DLR, which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to, and the fact that the individuals who are vulnerable enough to be subject to trafficking are unlikely to be those who meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system, it is clear to me that Parliament should now act.
Without Amendment 27, European Union nationals who are victims of trafficking will find themselves significantly disadvantaged compared to the status quo. Ending free movement must not be associated with an increase in exploitation. Given that, unlike non-EEA nationals, who are considered automatically, EU nationals will have to apply for discretionary leave to remain and given that so few grants are made, EU nationals who are unable to claim residency and the benefits associated with that immigration status are more likely to find themselves destitute and subject to potential retrafficking.
Lord Morrow (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In Committee, when introducing my Amendment 81, I made plain my grave concerns about the possible negative impact that ending free movement will have on victims of modern slavery. I said then, and I reiterate today:
“I am not opposed to the end of free movement.”
However, as I said then,
“it absolutely does not follow that we have to create a situation in which a significant proportion of trafficking victims have uncertain immigration status and will lose recourse to public funds.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1343.]
This, however, is precisely what will happen, courtesy of the Bill before us, if the Government do not accept Amendment 27.
With the ending of free movement, victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals and who arrive in the UK from 1 January onwards will no longer be entitled to stay in the UK or to access benefits, beyond the period of support granted under the national referral mechanism. This means that the effective rights of these confirmed victims of modern slavery will be subject to significant erosion, and there is currently nothing in the Bill to put in their place.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said, from next year EEA victims, who have never enjoyed the option of asylum that many non-EEA victims can access, will lose the immigration status and recourse to public funds that they currently enjoy through treaty rights. The only remaining option for victims from EU countries to gain a credible immigration solution will be through an application for discretionary leave to remain. All victims can seek discretionary leave at present but, as with accessing the option of asylum, EU nationals are again at a disadvantage. Unlike victims of other countries, victims of EEA countries are not, at present, automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave.
Amendment 27 would remedy this difference and ensure that all EEA nationals who are confirmed by the NRM as victims of trafficking are given a grant of leave if they meet the criteria set out in the amendment, which are similar to criteria by which applications are currently assessed under guidance. I urge the Government to support this amendment to ensure that there is a clear route for EEA nationals to have the option of immigration security and recourse to public funds to enable them to recover.
In reflecting on this, we must not forget that care for confirmed victims of modern slavery is not just about fulfilling our moral obligations to the victims, who, let us not forget, have been exploited in the UK; it is also in our self-interest. There is no point spending taxpayers’ money finding victims, then taking them through the national referral mechanism, only to release them without the requisite immigration security to enable them to access the kind of help they need to recover. Failure to provide them with security and tailored support will leave them vulnerable to being re-trafficked and make it impossible for them to have the space needed to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court. This is unsustainable. Securing increased testimony from victims in court is crucial if we are to see an increase in the stubbornly low conviction rate of traffickers.
In reflecting on these imperatives, the truth is that, while we badly need Amendment 27 to pass today, we also need a more far-reaching solution that provides immigration certainty and support for all confirmed victims, including UK nationals. This is a position which all 27 organisations that make up the Free For Good campaign agree with. That is why the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, introduced to the House by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and sponsored in the other place by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, is so important.
It is odd that if someone is recognised as a refugee they automatically get five years’ leave to remain, but if they are recognised as a confirmed victim of human trafficking they get no statutory leave to remain on that basis. I am not entirely sure why we consider that we have a lesser obligation to people whose lives have been exploited and traumatised in the UK than we have to refugees. I am not saying for a moment that the way we treat refugees should become less generous. I am not saying that at all. My point is simply that we should treat confirmed victims of modern slavery more generously.
The Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill states that, once someone has been through the national referral mechanism and is a confirmed victim of modern slavery, they should be offered specialist tailored support to help them recover and a minimum of 12 months’ leave to remain to access that support. In that context, they will be protected from re-trafficking and be much more likely to have space to consider giving evidence against their traffickers in court.
Moreover, it will benefit not only England and Wales but Scotland and Northern Ireland by providing immigration security to those who are given support after they have been in the NRM. I note that, in the commemoration of UK Anti-Slavery Day later this month, a Motion is to be debated at Stormont on 13 October that calls on the UK Parliament to pass the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will agree to act to ensure that there is a clear immigration path for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals, and to accept Amendment 27. To lead the way on modern slavery and to take immigration policy back into the hands of the UK Parliament, I call on the Government to make time for the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill to become law by the end of the year. In the 2017-19 session, it cleared the House, unamended, in less than four hours. If the Government want it, this very Conservative Bill—sponsored, as it is, by a former leader of the Conservative Party and the noble Lord—could easily become law by Christmas. Rather than inaugurating the Brexit era on 1 January by eroding the effective rights of some confirmed victims of modern slavery, we could strengthen the rights of all victims, on a basis that, as the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab has demonstrated, will save the Government money.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has withdrawn and I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is no longer with us. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has also withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, discretionary leave is a precarious response, as we have heard, and it is not frequently granted. We support the amendment and the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, as I have said on many occasions.
Some victims—though one would prefer to say “survivors”—want to get back home as quickly as possible. Others want to stay in order to recover—as far as recovery is possible—and for other reasons, as set out in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment. One of the frequently expressed concerns about our response to slavery is the limited period provided for recovery after rescue, and 12 months is hardly a big ask.
One of the findings of the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, published last year, was that few victims pursued or were granted civil compensation where that was possible. I therefore particularly support paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2).
Participating as a witness seems to be a factor that leads to the granting of discretionary leave. That can be a very big ask—I have used that word before—of the victim. Evidence is obviously important in prosecuting traffickers and exploiters, but granting leave to remain—the immigration response—should not be a transaction balanced by the person being prepared to give evidence. The issues that have been raised of course go far beyond the Bill. In Committee, we were reminded of the Government’s commitment to a world-leading system—and we have led the world.
Regarding the programme to transform the identification of and support for victims, and the legal framework, this is the second debate this afternoon in which data has been mentioned. Data is important. It indicates, among other things, a real interest in the impact of policy. That framework could, if we get it into the Bill, repeal the current provisions and be extended to all victims, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, seeks—as do all noble Lords who have spoken. Having that framework in prospect should not preclude agreement to the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been tenacious and resolute in his efforts to speak up for victims of modern slavery, and it is very much to his credit that he has continued to be a voice for the victims of these appalling crimes. It is a matter of much regret that, so far, the Government have not been minded to listen to him. I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have respected and admired the noble Lord since my earliest days in this House. He is a thoroughly good and decent man, and an example for all of us to follow. He set out a powerful case for the amendment. If it is not accepted, I have no doubt that it will be carried by a large majority when the House is divided. It was good to note his confirmation that he had the support of the honourable Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the other place—not somebody who would normally be described as a lefty do-gooder.
The amendment provides for the circumstances whereby a person over the age of 18 is to be granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and proposed new subsections (2) and (8) set the necessary parameters for granting this status. The amendment is of course confined to EEA and Swiss nationals, but that is to get it within the scope of the Bill. Many victims of modern slavery are vulnerable people who are British and so do not need this additional protection, but that does negate the importance of helping those victims from abroad.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich for instigating this important debate and I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to him for his dedicated and unswerving commitment to supporting the victims of modern slavery. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, it is a commitment that is strong at any hour of the day and one that applies to all noble Lords who have spoken—and would have done to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who, as my noble friend said, would have spoken today had we reached this group sooner.
The Government are equally committed to tackling this heinous crime, which has absolutely no place in our society. We are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring the perpetrators to justice than ever before, and we are committed to supporting victims and survivors and helping them rebuild their lives. However, we do not accept that the victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens should automatically be granted leave to remain in the UK, which is what my noble friend’s amendment seeks to do.
Granting leave to remain is appropriate in some cases, but the individual circumstances of a case are what must be central to the decision. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that a decision on whether leave is granted should not be determined by someone’s nationality. That is certainly an approach which complies with our international obligations under the trafficking convention. Where leave to remain is granted, it is normally where the victim is supporting the police either in an investigation, through being a witness in court or because of a requirement for medical treatment that needs to be provided in the UK—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted, because they are pursuing compensation for the exploitation that they have suffered. It is perhaps worth reiterating, as we touched on in Committee, that the most common nationality among all referrals in 2019 to the national referral mechanism was British, with UK nationals accounting for 27% of all those being referred, so tackling this abhorrent crime is separate from immigration policy.
For those who are not UK nationals, some victims of modern slavery already have leave to remain in another capacity or may qualify for a more advantageous status, such as refugee status. Victims from the EEA, who, as my noble friend noted in his opening remarks, may find that not possible, may also qualify for leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. There is a further option that my noble friend did not touch on in his remarks, which is that victims can apply for support from the Home Office modern slavery victim care contract, which includes accommodation and support. We want to ensure that all victims and survivors, who are often very vulnerable people, as has been made apparent so powerfully today, have the support that they need.
For those who do not qualify for leave to remain, the Government are committed to supporting them to return to their home country and to rebuild their life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, they often want to do that as soon as possible. We have links with NGOs around the world, including a memorandum of understanding with La Strada Poland, which supports the victims of modern slavery when they return home and helps them reintegrate into their communities. The Government are proud of the work we are doing to stamp out this abhorrent crime and I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, pay tribute again to the world-leading legislation which has been passed in this area.
A blanket policy of granting discretionary leave risks creating the incentive for some—a minority of individuals—to make false trafficking claims in an attempt fraudulently to obtain leave to remain. We have to ensure that the system we have put in place is focused on those who truly need our help and is not abused by the sort of organised and callous criminality which, as has been said, profits from human misery. It is for these reasons that we believe that my noble friend’s amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind remarks and for all the support and hard work that he does on this and many other subjects. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who has done such wonderful work in Northern Ireland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support and her amazing stamina. She never seems to get tired.
To respond to the debate, it is clear that my Amendment 27 does not—I emphasise this—automatically grant leave to remain to all EEA nationals who are confirmed victims of modern slavery. It guarantees leave only where the criteria in the amendment are met, which will require an assessment of the circumstances in each case. The amendment does ensure that all confirmed victims who are EEA nationals are automatically considered for leave to remain. Without this change, confirmed victims who are EEA nationals will not only lose one of the avenues for recovery currently accessible to them—immigration status and recourse to public funds through treaty rights—they will find themselves at a disadvantage when compared with victims who are not EEA nationals and who are already automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain.
Without Amendment 27, EEA confirmed victims of modern slavery will be significantly worse off as a result of the Bill. It is unthinkable that this House should acquiesce to allowing the rights of some victims of human slavery to be moved backwards, and so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the group consisting of Amendment 27A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 27A
Baroness Hamwee
“Rights and applications after the commencement of this Act
(1) In the event that a person with settled status granted pursuant to the Scheme applies for British citizenship, the period of residence in the United Kingdom which was the qualification for settled status must be treated as not being in breach of any provisions referred to in subsection (6).(2) A person resident in the United Kingdom on or before 30 June 2021 shall be treated as not being in breach of any provisions referred to in subsection (6) if he or she is in scope of eligibility for leave to remain under the Scheme.(3) The Secretary of State may not refuse an application by a person for settled status or pre-settled status under the Scheme made during the period ending on 30 June 2021 on the basis that he or she does not hold or has not held comprehensive sickness insurance.(4) The Secretary of State may not refuse an application for settled status under the Scheme made after 30 June 2021 by a person with pre-settled status on the basis that he or she does not hold or has not held comprehensive sickness insurance.(5) “The Scheme” means the scheme known as the EU Settlement Scheme for settled status or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules and the terms “settled status” and “pre-settled status” are interpreted accordingly.(6) The provisions referred to in this subsection are all provisions applicable to the person’s residence including the Immigration Acts and the Immigration Rules.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the amendment was written with the aid of anti-migraine tablets after some perhaps slightly unfocused exchanges in the previous stage and on the first day of Report about the grace period for the EU settlement scheme and comprehensive sickness insurance. I will not be seeking the opinion of the House.
I have tried to note situations that are giving cause for concern. I am aware that we now have a statutory instrument, and I hope that today’s debate can contribute to our consideration of that. As I said last week, those who know the subject were still poring over the SI, and I do not know whether they have yet come up for air.
I am seeking assurances, through this debate, that the propositions set out in the amendment accurately reflect, and are reflected by, the statutory instrument—I suppose it should be the latter. If what I am asking for cannot be put on the record today, a letter would be very welcome.
The first assurance I seek is that once someone has settled status he can be confident that he will be treated as not having been in breach of immigration provisions during the qualifying period; in other words, that nothing will come back to bite him—not the sort of language one uses in legislation. The second is that a person resident in the UK before the end of the grace period, and eligible for leave to remain, will be treated as not being in breach of those provisions. The third is that an application for status, whether settled or pre-settled status, may not be refused because the applicant does not, or has not had, comprehensive sickness insurance. I acknowledge that there could be another basis for refusal. Fourthly, I would like an assurance that the lack of CSI may not be a reason for refusing settled status after the same date to someone who holds pre-settled status.
I do not for a moment believe that the amendment is perfectly drafted but I hope that my objective is clear. It would be helpful if the Minister’s response is as jargon-free as possible and in the sorts of terms I have used.
On 16 September, the Minister said:
“The grace period statutory instrument does not change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme and those criteria do not include CSI.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1340.]
Later, however, she said that the grace period maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period, for students and people who are self-sufficient, and that
“EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; col. 244.]
My amendment is directed at what that means in practice because, with regard to the scope of the regulations, the Minister went on to say:
“People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; col. 244.]
What the withdrawal agreement does say in Article 18(3) is this:
“Pending a final decision”,
and I stress that phrase,
“by the competent authorities on any application referred to in paragraph 1”—
in the case of the UK this relates to applications to the EUSS—
“and pending a final judgment handed down in case of judicial redress sought against any rejection of such application by the competent administrative authorities”,
and I stress the next bit as well,
“all rights provided for in this Part”,
which are residents’ rights and all related equal treatment rights in the agreement,
“shall be deemed to apply to the applicant, including Article 21 on safeguards and right of appeal, subject to the conditions set out in Article 20(4).”
On the first day of Report, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained the concern raised with both of us by the3million that:
“In their current form, the regulations appear to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and whilst their application is pending. The regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were ‘exercising treaty rights’ in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; cols. 240-41.]
The organisation amplified this by saying:
“Crucially, there will be people who are eligible for status via the EUSS who will not have a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period. Furthermore, anyone who has … submitted an application to the EUSS before the end of the transition period … is pending a decision after the transition period ends … Will have to demonstrate they fall within the scope of the regulations to have the benefit of its protection.”
Generally, those protected by the regulations will be economically active at the end of the transition period, and they will have the benefit of legal protections during the grace period and while their application is pending. However, that is not the case for those who are not economically active by the end of the transition period, such as an EU citizen dependent on a British spouse and without private health insurance. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, the technical term is comprehensive sickness insurance, but really in this country we know it as private health insurance, which fulfils what is meant by comprehensive sickness insurance.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have little to add to the magisterial introduction made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Amendment 27A, but I will emphasise the deficit of the Bill as it stands especially with regard to Roma women with settled status who look after their children full-time and who apply for British citizenship. The underlying problem—in real life rather than in Home Office rules—is that while their children are little, the mothers have a weak connection to the labour market, like other full-time mothers. I am surprised that this Government should prejudice mothers in this way.
So, because they cannot prove they were exercising treaty rights—according to the Home Office, which does not accord with the European Commission’s interpretation—by showing that they have comprehensive sickness insurance, their application fails. I remind your Lordships that Theresa May, as Home Secretary, recognised this injustice and promised to do away with the requirement for CSI in these cases. So it is very odd that updated Home Office guidance in 2020 changed the application process to direct caseworkers to check whether such applicants had CSI. An undefined power of discretion has not proved much use in rectifying the injustices to full-time mothers. It is shocking that the Government have not honoured the earlier commitment.
In her letter to us of 29 September, the Minister said that the Government’s policy is that CSI is not required to obtain status under the EUSS. Nevertheless, the grace period SI maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period as a student or self-sufficient person, such as a full-time mother, under the saved EEA regulations because, according to the Home Office, this is consistent with EU law. This is not the European Commission’s view, and it is not right or just that applications are turned down because there is no CSI.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will go over very similar ground to that raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
The background is that, under the withdrawal agreement, the UK is obliged to create a grace period following the end of the transition period. During this grace period, EEA citizens have the opportunity to apply by a deadline for a new immigration status through the EU settlement scheme, as it is called in the UK.
As EU rights will end on 31 December, the Government need to create an interim status for those who have yet to acquire their new status via the EU settlement scheme—hence the grace period SI. As we know, it sets the deadline for applications to the settlement scheme as 30 June next year, but the Minister said last Wednesday, on the first day of Report, that it would also
“protect the existing rights of resident EEA citizens and their family members during the grace period.”
What does “existing” mean? A fact sheet published in July also used that adjective when it said that the power in Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 would be used—as has now happened with this grace period SI—to make regulations
“to protect the existing rights of those individuals who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, did in Committee on 16 September, the Minister said last Wednesday that she could reassure us—here, I repeat a quotation given by my noble friend—that
“EEA citizens’ rights to live and work in the UK will not change during the grace period, nor does the grace period SI change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. Therefore, there is no change to the Government’s policy”,
which, as we have learned, was set by Theresa May,
“that comprehensive sickness insurance is not required to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme.”
Therefore, so far we have established two government statements: first, that the existing rights of those eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme will be protected; and, secondly, that acquiring settled status will not involve a requirement for CSI. So far, so good. Ministerial assurances seemed to accord with Article 18(3) of the withdrawal agreement, which provides that, pending a final decision, all rights provided for in the citizens’ rights section of that agreement shall be deemed to apply to the applicant. That means residence rights and all related equal treatment rights.
However, things then get somewhat murkier. Last Wednesday, the Minister added a caveat—again, quoted by my noble friend—when she said:
“People need to exercise free movement rights to benefit from the savings in the grace period SI. We are not inventing rights of residence to save them, because that is not what the withdrawal agreement says.”—[Official Report, 30/9/20; cols. 243-4.]
When I checked back, I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, had explicitly said on 16 September in Committee:
“The grace period SI maintains”
comprehensive sickness insurance
“as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period for a student or self-sufficient person under the saved EEA regulations, as is consistent with EU law.”—[Official Report, 16/9/20; col. 1340.]
I will not go round all the houses again, but I beg to differ with that last comment, as I believe that the Commission is pursuing infringement proceedings—it is taking a while; it launched them in 2012—over the Government’s wrong interpretation of CSI as meaning private health insurance. In this country, it should mean accessing the National Health Service. However, for current purposes, I will just concentrate on the first part of the noble Lord’s statement: namely, the proposal that during the grace period students and self-sufficient persons will have to show that they have CSI—that is, private insurance—in order to qualify as lawfully resident.
The remarks confirm that in their current form, limiting a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were “exercising treaty rights” in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period, the regulations appear, as my noble friend said, to exclude a large cohort of people from having a legal basis to live in the UK during the grace period and while their application is pending. In general, a worker and someone who is self-employed will benefit from legal protections, but those not economically active by the end of the transition period will likely be unable to do so, with the consequences that my noble friend enumerated—possible removal, the denial of NHS treatment, being put out of a job, or whatever.
Even where someone successfully lodges an application with the EU settlement scheme, if they are awaiting a decision beyond the end of the grace period and are not in scope of the regulations, they will not have the legal protections it offers. Therefore, someone with a complex EUSS case could be without a legal basis to remain in the UK for many months beyond the grace period.
As a taste of things to come, a case has been brought to my attention where parents seeking to renew their five year-old son’s British passport were told that the EU citizen father had to supply evidence of having had CSI—I repeat: private health insurance—when he was a student many years ago.
To recap where I think we are, we have three government statements: first, that the existing rights of those eligible to apply to the settlement scheme will be protected in the grace period; secondly, that CSI is not a requirement for acquiring settled status; and, thirdly, that CSI is a requirement for some people to have lawful residence in the grace period. We can add in a fourth, given in the course of this Bill: that discretion will be exercised—we have not heard how—in regard to the absence of CSI in assessing eligibility for citizenship.
I am struggling to make sense of how those four statements fit together and to understand how the Government really intend to treat people. So far as I can see, it leaves matters as clear as mud and full of contradictions and obstacles. It seems that the Government are set on making a person cross a crocodile-infested river of legal uncertainty over residence before they can reach the safe shore of settled status.
Therefore, I back up the questions that my noble friend asked the Minister about the practical implications for people who do not fall within the scope of the regulations. Will there be further regulations to cover those eligible for settled status but not in scope of the regulations? When they apply for settled status, will they be told, “Oh no, we don’t need to ask you for CSI, but in the meantime, under the grace period SI, you need CSI”. It is like being on a chessboard, although I can think of some other analogy.
I have one last question. Are the Government willing to consider changing the draft regulation from stating a requirement to have been “lawfully resident”—which, as we know, according to the Government’s interpretation is an extremely loaded term—to a requirement simply to have been “resident”? Given that this definition operates for only six months, save in cases where a settled status application has been made, this might be a simple, workable solution that could save a lot of people a lot of anxiety. This sounds like an awfully complicated and arcane situation. It is, and in the real world a lot of people are affected by it. They are represented by the the3million group, which, again, is doing sterling work, although, as far as I know, even it has not got its head round it, so I do not know what hope there is for someone like me.
I hope the Minister can bring some coherence to this situation, or display a willingness to look again at the regulations under the grace period SI to see if the Government are creating unnecessary hurdles for people who were told they would not need CSI or settled status when perhaps applying later for citizenship. It seems to be creating an awful lot of unnecessary hassle.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The grace period regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were “exercising treaty rights” in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period. This must mean that such citizens who are not exercising their treaty rights fall outside the protection of having a legal basis to live in the UK. This appears to cover a potentially significant number of people, including those who have not held comprehensive sickness insurance.
Amendment 27A ensures EU nationals cannot have an application denied for citizenship, settled status, or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance. It is clear from the debate there is considerable confusion—which I share—about the actual position. Surely, any doubts, confusion or uncertainty would be removed by the Government accepting this amendment or returning with their own amendment at Third Reading. That would help clarify the situation.
I conclude by simply saying this, as I do not want to repeat all the valid points that have been made. If Government will not do that, could the Minister spell out the circumstances in which an EU national would have an application denied for citizenship, settled status or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has tabled Amendment 27A. I hope I can provide clarification.
The new clause has three main purposes. First, it seeks reassurance that comprehensive sickness insurance is not, nor will be in future, an eligibility criterion for applications to the EU settlement scheme. Secondly, it seeks to provide that if someone is eligible to apply to the scheme, their previous residence should be deemed lawful, whether or not that was the case under the EEA regulations. Thirdly, the new clause seeks to remove the lawful residence requirement from British citizenship applications by those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme.
Let me address the noble Baroness’s concern about comprehensive sickness insurance, which has been raised several times during consideration of the Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) of her proposed new clause concern eligibility to apply to the EU settlement scheme. I can assure the noble Baroness that currently, there is no requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance or previous lawful residence under the EEA regulations in order to be eligible to apply under the scheme. This will not change for applications made after the transition period, nor after the grace period. I can reassure the House that an application made before or after the deadline of 30 June 2021 will not be refused for failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance. Accordingly, the amendment is not necessary.
I turn to proposed new subsection (2), which seeks to provide that the previous residence of anyone who is eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of next June will be deemed to have been lawful whether or not it in fact was. In doing so, the intention is to support applications for citizenship, which I will come to shortly. However, the effect of this amendment is wider. It would create new residence rights for those who do not have them at the end of the transition period, as they are not complying with free movement law and have yet to apply to the EU settlement scheme. Those who are currently here without residence rights will continue to have no residence rights until they apply to the EU settlement scheme; that is why we are encouraging them to apply to the scheme.
In line with the withdrawal agreement, the Government are using secondary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—the so-called “grace period SI”—to save the existing rights of those EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period under 2016 EEA regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me to set out the existing rights; they are pre-settled or, indeed, settled status. This means that an EEA citizen, or their family member, who is resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but is not exercising free movement rights will still be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of 30 June next year. However, they will not have any residence rights under free movement law protected during the grace period. This is for the simple reason that they do not possess these rights at the end of the transition period. This reflects the current situation, as set out in the free movement directive and the EEA regulations.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to create new EU rights of residence beyond those saved by the grace period SI once free movement has ended. That cannot be right, nor accepted by the Government. Having an EU “right to reside” provides other rights beyond the right to stay in the UK, as it can confer access to social security benefits. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, at this juncture, after we have left the EU, it would not be appropriate to widen EEA citizens’ benefit eligibility any further than those groups who are already entitled to it.
This brings me to the final limb of the new clause, which I think is probably its main objective, concerning how EEA and Swiss citizens who hold settled status might then proceed to naturalise and become British citizens. The noble Baroness will be aware that the power to determine naturalisation applications from all migrants—not just EEA and Swiss citizens—is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, an applicant is required to show that they have sufficient residential ties here. For example, they must have resided here lawfully for at least five years and they must no longer be subject to any immigration time restrictions. Proposed new subsection (1) would require any residence before the granting of settled status to be treated as lawful, regardless of whether it actually was or the circumstances under which it occurred. That cannot be right, and I do not consider it unreasonable to ask anyone wishing to become British to have resided here lawfully.
Amendment 27A seeks to treat those with settled status under the EU settlement scheme differently from other EEA and Swiss citizens, and also non-EEA citizens. I believe the noble Baroness is most concerned about those who—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, outlined—are here as students or are self-sufficient. This is because free movement rules require them to hold comprehensive sickness insurance after their initial three months of residence in order to be lawfully resident. This is not a new issue. Had a student or self-sufficient person previously made an application for permanent residence documentation without holding CSI, they would have been refused.
The noble Baroness may be aware that, even where CSI has not been held by a student or self-sufficient person, it does not mean that a naturalisation application must be refused. The British Nationality Act permits the application of discretion to this requirement in the special circumstances of a particular case. Caseworkers will therefore continue to examine each application to understand why the individual did not comply with the EEA regulations, as well as any reasons which can nevertheless allow an application to be granted. This is already set out in published guidance for decision-makers. However, it is right that we assess on an individual basis, rather than having a general rule to overlook any non-compliance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, made a point which we went over in detail yesterday, about people who are applying either to the EU settlement scheme or for citizenship, which are two different things. There are a lot of voluntary organisations to help people who might need assistance through this process, but naturalisation as a British citizen is not part of the EU settlement scheme; nor is it covered by the withdrawal agreement. We welcome people who make the personal choice to become British citizens, but there is no need for any new arrangements because of our leaving the EU. The existing system already applies equally and fairly to all applicants. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurance that she sought and that she is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lady Ludford asked whether this was a chessboard, but I think it is more like snakes and ladders: up you go, you think you are settled and then you slither downwards into what she called the “crocodile-infested” waters of CSI.
When the Minister referred to “lawful residence” under the British Nationality Act I wrote a question to myself about whether this meant treaty rights—which you would need to have had CSI to exercise—to which I think the answer is yes. She then mentioned discretion. One always has a concern about discretion because the law should provide, not leave things to caseworkers, but the situation that we have posed is not unusual.
I do not intend a pun here, but the issue is not settled. I am glad that we have had this exchange. I do not pretend to know whether I am comforted. I think I am not, as noble Lords will understand from my last remarks, but much better that I leave the experts to use what the Minister has shared with us when they are considering the regulations. I thank her and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 28. I remind noble Lords that Members others than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 5: Power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination
Amendment 28
Lord Flight
“(2A) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) does not include power to make provision inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement as defined by section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the power to make regulations under subsection (1) can only be used in ways consistent with the UK’s obligations under the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I must participate by telephone, but Zoom did not work for me today. Amendment 28 would ensure that the power created by the Bill could be used only in ways which are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK-EU withdrawal agreement.
The retained direct EU legislation set out in Clause 5(2) is the full gamut of EU legislation on social security co-ordination. Under the withdrawal agreement, the UK is committed to apply this legislation to all those within the scope of Part 2 of the agreement —“Citizens’ Rights”— and to some others. It seems strange that essentially financial matters to do with pensions are mixed with other social matters here.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Is the noble Lord moving his amendment?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Well, the noble Lord has actually spoken, so he needs to move it for everybody else to respond.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
Right. I will withdraw the amendment when I sum up at the end.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on the first day of Report, on an equivalent amendment to Clause 4, the Minister gave an assurance that the Government have absolutely no intention of acting incompatibly with the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has said, that is not the point. He set out very carefully the social security provisions which are the issue here. The concern is that the use of regulations, or secondary legislation, to modify the primary legislation that is the basis of the various benefits could wittingly or unwittingly modify them—“modify” is a polite legislative word for “cause a lot of people a lot of problems”. If this amendment were part of the Bill, it would protect against this.
Last week, the noble Lord referred to the establishment under the 2020 Act of the Independent Monitoring Authority, and I was grateful for that. I share a rather wry smile with noble Lords because provided for in the authority’s powers is that it may make applications for judicial review—we all know the Government’s expressed position on activists and lawyers using applications for judicial review and generally not liking frequent resort being made to them. There is of course a review of the use of judicial review going on at the moment. So I thank the noble Lord for that moment of amusement in this complicated area. I support the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Flight, this amendment would prevent regulations made under Clause 5 including any provisions that could be inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. I presume that the aim is to avoid any action that might serve to undermine the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens here that were guaranteed under the withdrawal agreement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have had this debate at earlier stages and on Clause 4. On the basis of those past debates, I think there is a decent chance that the Minister will say that this amendment is unnecessary. But as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, pointed out: what is the downside? Given the uncertainty caused by statements elsewhere about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and the extent to which the UK is committed to it, the Minister will understand why some noble Lords are nervous and want the kind of assurances that one would hope she should be able to give without difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, explained the terribly important issues that are covered by Clause 5. This will be our only engagement on Report with the subtle joys of this clause. I raised many of the issues about social security co-ordination at Second Reading and in Committee, and felt that I did not get satisfactory answers in Committee. However, I have now received a letter from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, which has provided more information. In the light of that, I do not intend to move Amendment 29 in my name in the next group.
I remain very concerned about the implications for too many people of the loss of reciprocal arrangements for social security co-ordination, but I recognise that we will not get anything more at this stage of the Bill. I hope that the letter I mentioned will be placed in both Libraries. Because it contains information about new developments which were not reflected in the draft regulations shared with us in Committee, it would be helpful if the letter were displayed as soon as possible in the relevant place under the “will write” section of Bills before Parliament, so that its contents are readily accessible to those who are interested.
These are very important issues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for speaking to this amendment. The Government have given written assurances in every Bill document throughout the passage of the Bill on this point; I have reiterated those assurances in Committee, and I will do so again here.
I can assure the House that Clause 5 does not enable the Government to alter the rights guaranteed to those in scope of the withdrawal agreement. The entitlements of this cohort are guaranteed by Sections 7A and 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The power at Clause 5 will not and cannot affect those provisions. Rather, it allows for EU law retained by Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to be modified. The rights under the withdrawal agreement are therefore provided by a distinct and separate legal mechanism in relation to that of retained EU law, and this power will not affect the rights of those within the scope of the agreement. This includes those examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, such as state pension uprating, the S1 scheme and the aggregation of contributions. It is therefore the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out.
I note the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for my letter to her to be placed under the “will write” section—I am so pleased that that makes sense—of Bills before Parliament.
I reiterate that it is the Government’s view that Amendment 28 is unnecessary, on the grounds I have set out. I hope that with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Flight, will withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to ask a question of the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Flight.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, this amendment addresses the aggregation of social security contributions across the EU, mutual healthcare and, in particular, the payment of pensions and pension increases to pensioners living in different EU countries. It is important that citizens’ positions are protected. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has given a satisfactory undertaking that these areas cannot be affected by the clause in question and that this amendment is therefore not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
(a) (Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals),(b) (Initial detention: criteria and duration), and(c) (Bail hearings)which come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that new Clauses "Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss Nationals", "Initial detention: criteria and duration" and "Bail hearings" come into force six months after the Act is passed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 32. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate. I should inform the House that if Amendment 32 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 32A.
Schedule 1: Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.
Amendment 32
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, last but I hope not least, Amendment 32 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Amendment 32 addresses a very odd provision in paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1. As currently worded, it states that provisions of the EU regulation on free movement for workers cease to apply if
“they are inconsistent with … the Immigration Acts”
or
“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision.”
I suggested in Committee, with widespread support from all sides of the Committee, that the parliamentary draftsmen could and should do better than that. Paragraph 4(2) as currently drafted defies the need for legal certainty. The Bill should set out which provisions of the workers regulation will cease to apply.
The Minister promised to look at this matter, and she indicated that she would discuss it with me. Faithful to her word, as she always is, she has discussed the matter with me—for which I am very grateful—and has now tabled Amendment 32A, which satisfactorily addresses the point. I am very grateful to her. Amendment 33 addresses a similar problem, but sadly it has not received a favourable response from the Minister.
Paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 tells us that
“EU-derived rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures cease to be recognised and available in domestic law”
in two circumstances—that is if
“they are inconsistent with, or … capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of,”
a provision of the Immigration Acts, or if
“they are otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
I simply do not understand how advisers on immigration law, far less those individuals who are the subject of immigration law, are supposed to work out what their legal rights and obligations are. Legal certainty requires, in my view, that the schedule should set out those EU-derived rights et cetera which are disapplied, or those which are retained. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, criticised the legal uncertainty in our 11th report of this Session published on 2 September.
I think the only answer the Minister could possibly give to the concern I have identified about legal certainty is that Ministers and parliamentary draftsmen do not now know which provisions of EU law survive and which do not. That rather makes my point, I think. However, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter, troubling though it is. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to the noble Lord’s Amendments 32 and 33 because they address two long-standing concerns of the Constitution Committee. The first is the broad and unjustified use of Henry VIII powers. The second is the confusing and counterproductive complexity of immigration law, which we believe needs to be clear and consolidated. That is why I support these amendments. I welcome the fact that the Government have addressed the first of these issues by tabling Amendment 32A, which makes more specific the scope of the power, confining it, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, to Articles 2 to 10 of the workers regulations.
I would have welcomed a similar willingness to move on the issues that the Constitution Committee has raised in relation to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which nullifies EU-derived rights and remedies. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has quoted some parts of paragraph 6 and they are really extraordinary: rights should disappear because
“they are inconsistent with, or are otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of, any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”
and, even stranger, because they are
“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”
I can think of all sorts of functions that people might consider were “in connection” with immigration, but we really need laws that are clearer than that.
Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, said when he gave evidence to us:
“How is the ordinary person, never mind the legislator, to know whether the law is good or not in a particular area if you draft like that?”
I know that parliamentary draftsmen have had a pretty heavy diet of work lately, not least with Covid-19 orders, but it is possible to do better than that, unless the instructions given to them were so unspecific as to leave things so wide open that they had to draft the legislation in that extraordinary way.
Paragraph 69 of the Explanatory Notes tries to explain why this is necessary, but fails to do so—at least I find it completely unpersuasive. I did learn a little more about Chen carers than I knew previously, which was almost nothing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Hamwee thinks of little else at some stages of the Bill than the quite obscure provision that resulted from the Chen case before the European Court of Justice. However, I certainly found the argument unpersuasive.
The committee says:
“The statute book requires clarity rather than obscurity and provisions such as these threaten to frustrate essential ingredients of the rule of law.”
An essential ingredient of the rule of law is that it is on record and visible and capable of being understood, particularly by those who practice it professionally, but preferably by a wider range of people as well, including those who may face either a penalty or, in this case, the inability to have a right to which they believe they are entitled as a consequence of wording as vague as this.
There is still time to improve this: the Minister could come back at Third Reading with an amendment that makes clear the purpose of this paragraph, and I am only sorry that she has not done so thus far.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of how unsatisfactory the Bill is, particularly Schedule 1, was a model of clarity, unlike the schedule. He has also left us, from the earlier stage, with a vision of straining to read the Emperor Caligula’s laws, and that will stay with me, possibly longer than Schedule 1.
The comments of the Constitution Committee on the complexity of immigration law being a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently were, in a way, reassuring to those of us who struggle with it, but otherwise not reassuring at all, as the noble Lord and my noble friend made clear in their speeches. I am very sorry to disappoint my noble friend by not wandering off into comments on case law. I support the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on having persuaded the Government to introduce their Amendment 32A, in the light of his comments on this in Committee, and on tabling Amendment 32, to which I have added my name.
The similar concern over wording that resulted in Amendment 33 has not been addressed by the Government. Amendment 33 would remove paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. As noble Lords know, paragraph 6, like paragraph 4(2), is broadly drafted. It provides that any EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are inconsistent with or “capable of affecting” the Immigration Acts or functions cease to be recognised.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have both expressed their strong concerns about the sweeping powers that the Government are seeking to take under the Bill—powers that will not be subject to any effective parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Minister said:
“I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 580.]
Why then are the Government not also prepared to lay out the law and provide that certainty over the EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are being referred to in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1? I hope the Minister will answer that point in her response.
One has already been mentioned as a possibility. Bearing in mind that, in Committee, the Minister also said
“I note that the drafting of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 ensures that nothing is missed that might mean free movement was only partially repealed”,—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 576.]
that could mean that the Government are not prepared to move on paragraph 6(1) because they do not rate their ability to ensure that the Bill says all it needs to say to ensure that free movement is fully repealed. To cover up for their anticipated deficiencies, the Government take these powers to act without full parliamentary scrutiny and leave people in a situation where the legislation, in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, does not enable them to identify the exact nature of their obligations and rights. If that is the motive for not moving on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, in the way that the Government have on paragraph 4(2), one can say only that that is not the purpose for which use of these powers was originally intended. No doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government have not moved on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 or at least produced their own amendment in response to Amendment 33 of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords who have spoken to Amendments 32 and 33. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the noble Lord and draft Amendment 32A as a result.
I understand why noble Lords find these provisions difficult to follow. They are, however, essential in repealing EU free movement. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Schedule 1 disapply elements of retained EU law, where they are inconsistent with or affect the interpretation, application or operation of the Immigration Acts. “The Immigration Acts” is a commonly used legislative shorthand for the UK’s domestic immigration legislation. Most importantly, it includes the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the requirement for non-British and non-Irish citizens to have leave to enter or remain. “The Immigration Acts” is defined in Section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Bill, once enacted, will be added to that definition by Clause 3.
These phrases therefore clarify that the retained EU law in question does not provide a back-door route to enter or reside in the UK outside of the system of leave to enter and remain, once the main free movement legislation is repealed. That system is made up partly of Immigration Rules made under the 1971 Act. That is why the words
“by or under the Immigration Acts”
feature in these paragraphs.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister, certainly for government Amendment 32A, which deals with the concern that we have expressed in Amendment 32. However, the Minister’s attempt to defend paragraph 6(1) of the schedule is, I am afraid, wholly unconvincing. Her observations do not provide me with any useful clarification as to how the paragraph is going to apply. As the Minister has said, there are too many provisions and the position is too uncertain, and therefore the legislation cannot list the provisions. What she is suggesting, as I said in my opening remarks, is that the position is too uncertain for clarification, but the inevitable consequence is that the position is too uncertain for those who are advising immigrants and for immigrants themselves. They cannot possibly know with certainty how this provision will apply. I should respectfully warn the Minister that, if and when paragraph 6(1) is the subject of litigation in individual cases, the Government may well find that the courts will adopt a very unsympathetic approach to it and will give it the narrowest possible interpretation because it is so lacking in certainty. That is the real risk that the Government are running.
I have never seen a provision like paragraph 6(1) before in legislation—that is, a provision that depends on whether something is capable of affecting the exercise of functions—and I hope never to see such a provision in legislation again. I shall regard it as one of the increasing number of undesirable consequences of the decision to leave the EU and as setting no precedent for any other legislative content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 applies only to Articles 2 to 10 of the Workers Regulation.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for this Statement, which was made yesterday in the Commons, and for the one made on Thursday in the Commons. It seems like a good idea to take them both together, since the news about the unreported and untracked positive tests needs urgent scrutiny, and the Minister does not have to suffer double the pain of explaining the very real problems we face with the winter and the second spike.
For example, today, we see another increase in positive tests—14,522 cases reported, with two-thirds of those in the north and north-west. To summarise, we have had people being told to travel hundreds of miles for a test; hundreds of children out of school unable to get a test; tracers sitting idle, watching Netflix; care home tests taking days to be processed; the Minister’s hyperbole, saying this could be a moment of national pride, like the Olympics; and a Prime Minister in a complete muddle over the rules. The Prime Minister seems to be able to learn large chunks of Greek by heart, so why, when he does regional media, could he not at least learn which lockdown rules apply where? It is not much to ask.
The questions from my honourable friends Jonathan Ashworth and Stella Creasy in the Commons yesterday were very pertinent. The reason why they needed to ask what the contractual teams were for the contracts supplying test and trace is that they are not working well and a large amount of public money is being spent on them. Is it not sensible to ask if there is a break clause if goods being purchased with public money are faulty or not working properly, given that they have been sold to us as world-class and planet-beating? What did the Secretary of State say to these questions? Unfortunately, he reverted to the government line of blaming Public Health England. Can we see the terms and conditions and profit margins on all these contracts? Is it true that there is no break clause addressing whether these contracts do what they are supposed to? As the former chair for a few years of the procurement committee of a local CCG, at a very lowly level in the NHS, I can tell the Minister that these are vital questions which have to be asked—questions for which I would expect to be held to account.
Does the Minister agree that transparency would ensure proper governance and accountability for those charged with the stewardship and responsibility of spending public money? Let us examine this for a moment. Is it true that Public Health England’s older version of Excel has a 65,536-row limit, meaning that, in the data transfer from the big CSV file, rows were chopped off? Can the Minister confirm that the data could not be handed over to Public Health England due to the size of the Excel spreadsheet files? Why are critical databases in a national pandemic being hosted on Excel spreadsheets? Is it true that the upgrade to a later version of Excel, which copes with just over 1,000,000 rows, costs about £100? Is this an issue with one particular lighthouse lab or across all the lighthouse labs? Public Health England’s sources say that they report the data when they get it from NHS Test and Trace, so if the information is coming in incomplete, they cannot do their job.
We know that the budget for test and trace is in the region of £10 billion to £12 billion, and it seems to me that an IT audit might have been a good place to start. Was there one? What did it say? We know it is true—so, presumably, does the Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible for Public Health England—that Public Health England’s budgets were cut by 40%. So, is it the case that Public Health England had no IT upgrades of any kind recently? Given what we know, is it legitimate to ask where all that money has gone?
Why in October, after all the promises of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, are we now facing the possibility of 60,000 people unknowingly spreading Covid in their homes and communities, which might account for some of the sudden increases seen today? Have all those people been contacted, traced and isolated?
These are not irrelevant, disloyal or silly questions: they are vital if these matters are to be remedied. They are vital if the Government are to dispel what communities are feeling, described on Sunday by the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, as
“This deep sense of despondence, anxiety. And actually, what they want is hope.”
We on these Benches want the Government to do that: to give hope. Assuring us that they have everything under control will, however, not work anymore, because it is clearly not true.
Surely, what is needed is transparency and a strategy, expressed with clarity, that everybody understands and supports. It is, furthermore, urgent. Tonight, a group of leaders of the largest councils in the north—Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Liverpool—has written to the Prime Minister asking for, among other things, significant local control and support. I beg the Minister not to chant the mantra that test and trace are working closely at local level, because clearly they do not believe that it is. Again, it does not seem to be true. I hope that the Government will respond positively to these councillors.
Yesterday, Jeremy Hunt asked whether responsibility for NHS and care home staff testing should be moved to hospitals and laboratories, and that idea was repeated by the Nobel laureate Paul Nurse, of the Crick Institute, on the radio this morning. The fundamental problem is that there is no strategy: there is a vacuum. That is because there is division in the Cabinet over which strategy should be followed. This needs to be remedied and a clear way forward explained.
Finally, with regard to the part of the Statement concerning treatment: will the Minister clarify whether the establishment of Orbis will be in co-operation and collaboration with EU medicine protocols or in competition with them? Will Parliament scrutinise Orbis, and when?
Baroness Barker (LD)
I thank the Minister for yet again turning up at the crease to defend what is becoming increasingly indefensible: the poor performance of the NHS Track and Trace system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was right to note the admission in this Statement that 16,000 positive results had not been uploaded, and that by yesterday only 51% of those people had been contacted, despite the injection of resources into NHS Track and Trace over the weekend to try to make up the deficit. Given that we know that each person who tests positive is likely to report between four and five contacts, that is potentially 60,000 people who last week were walking around, not self-isolating and possibly infecting others. It is not their fault—they did not know. It is a really significant breach of trust.
In the part of the Statement that I find most curious, the Secretary of State said that the Chief Medical Officer’s analysis of the Government’s assessment of the disease as a result of the new data was that
“its impact has not substantially changed.”
Can the Minister give us further detail about that? The omission of 60,000 people not having any impact does not add up at all. The Secretary of State went on to say that the Joint Biosecurity Centre had confirmed that
“it has not impacted the basis on which decisions about local action were taken last week”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/20; cols. 625-6.]
When will that data come through and when will we be able to see the impact on local areas? As these statements make clear, the virus is beginning to have different impacts in different places. Can the Minister say at what point directors of public health were informed about this breach? Six months in, it is clear that, when local authorities are properly resourced and given correct and timely information, the virus is managed and contained. The major problems come about when decisions are made centrally, poorly communicated and badly executed.
Time and again, it comes back to track and trace, whether it is about a lack of skills and capacity or a lack of foresight. Who could not have foreseen the impact that hundreds of housefuls of students moving around the country in September would have on transmission?
Yesterday when this Statement was debated in another place, speaker after speaker, mostly from the Conservative Benches, got up to complain about the effect of the 10 pm arbitrary cut-off. They explained how well-run businesses, especially in the hospitality sector, will be going to the wall because of continued use of blunt instruments designed nationally and applied over wide geographical areas. How long will it be before the Government realise that local people—local professionals, directors of public health and environmental health officers—have detailed knowledge about businesses in their area, their hygiene ratings, their previous breaches of licensing conditions and where crowds congregate? When we can get decision making to a more local and granular level, we will be better able to protect good businesses without jeopardising public health.
I welcome the announcement of hospital funding for upgrades to A&E departments. We need a greater capacity for A&E. However, could the Minister give the House the definition currently used by this Government of what constitutes a new hospital?
On the Orbis project, we go into this having left a safe and highly effective system of medicines regulation, one where patient safety is paramount. How does the Government propose to withstand the commercial imperatives of American pharmaceutical companies in these circumstances?
The public are getting very worried about the extent to which the Government continue to wing it. It is time for them to bear down on the fundamental flaw in their strategy—thinking that they know best in the centre, above people who are professionals at a local level.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, for their remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is entirely right about the situation that we face. The latest update, as of 4 o’clock today, is that we have 14,542 daily positives today: 2,833 are in hospital with Covid; of those, 496 are on ventilators, and I am sad to report there were 76 deaths.
These are numbers that make us extremely focused on the challenge of Covid. Earlier today we debated the rule of six, when there was a large amount of challenge about whether such rules on social distancing were really necessary. We were reminded in clear terms about the social impact of separating those who love each other. Here we are talking about the impact on the health of the nation and the threat presented to those who are vulnerable, elderly and have pre-existing conditions. Getting the balance between these two things is extremely challenging, but that is the strategy of the Government—to bear down on the virus while protecting the NHS, education and the economy until we can see a way out through the vaccine, through therapeutic drugs and through mass testing. That is our approach.
I make no bones about it; the errors made over last weekend with the data was extremely regrettable. It undoubtedly causes grave concern among those in Parliament and the general public. I cannot hide from anyone the importance, impact, and severity of the situation. However, I would like to say a few words in mitigation. First, I pay tribute to those at PHE who have pulled together a remarkable system in extremely difficult circumstances, across the length and breadth of the country, integrating many systems into one. I know that that may seem like a trivial challenge and beside the point when we are dealing with a national emergency like this, but these are incredibly complex and difficult tasks. They have involved extremely committed personnel on the technology side of things who have personally checked a huge amount of the numbers. As my noble friend Lady Harding explained, it was through the perseverance of some of those personnel that the mistake was identified.
Between 17 and 23 September, 87,000 were identified through our testing and tracing programme; that is a phenomenal number of contacts where we had the opportunity to intervene and break the chain of transmission. Some 83.7% of those were reached and asked to isolate. I completely appreciate the concerns of those speaking in the Chamber today about the test and trace programme, but those figures are remarkable. That we have set up a system that can intervene in the lives of so many who are carrying coronavirus and can bring to bear such pressure on the disease after such a start as we had at the beginning of the epidemic is a phenomenal achievement. I know that the last thing one wants to be, at this stage of things, is a hollow champion of empty achievement, but that is a hell of a thing for this country to have got to.
There have been questions about the collaboration between the centre and northern leaders, and I cannot hide the fact that there are some quite fruity discussions on the pages of the newspapers and news channels between different community leaders. However, we have to be adult about this and acknowledge that there are different roles for different parts of government. The mayor of a city simply does not have a huge laboratory in which to do tens of thousands of tests a day. The mayor of another city simply does not have a control room filled with PhD analysts who can crunch the numbers and run massive supercomputers with complex algorithms to look at millions and millions of items of data within minutes. These are not the functions of local government, nor will they ever be.
Likewise, the JBC, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office do not have the local knowledge of what is going on on the ground and are not expected to speak a wide range of languages. We do not know what the behaviours are of people on a street-by-street basis. That is the role of local government, and it is through the collaboration of the local and national that we will beat this disease. To try to throw up a false dichotomy and set up test and trace as a scapegoat to blame and punish for the frustrations we all feel about the disease is counter- productive and reveals a shallow understanding of a complex situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that perhaps care home testing should be sent to hospitals. In many cases, hospitals are involved in care home testing and handle the staff of care homes, but hospitals have to cover their own clinical demands, and pillar 1 is stretched to do the testing of hospital staff and patients. Landing that additional burden is not something that the NHS would welcome.
With regard to the northern leaders and their running commentary on the work of test and trace, I reassure the House that the conversations held in private on a daily—and sometimes hourly—basis have an altogether more collaborative tone. I have been privy to a large number of those conversations; there is a huge amount of expertise on both sides of the conversation, and one should not take too seriously the knockabout commentary in the newspapers and on TV.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked for an update on contact tracing, and she is entirely right. To have missed a substantial number of contacts during those days was a really big disappointment, but we have moved a huge amount of resources in order to catch up. There has been a phenomenal catch-up already, and I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be updating the other place on the progress of that shortly.
I reassure the Chamber, however, that all those who had a positive test were informed promptly. There was no omission in that respect. Therefore, the primary index case, and the person of greatest threat to community transmission, was identified and isolated, and that chain of transmission was shut down.
I will now address the questions about the CMO and the JBC and their analysis of our numbers. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the integrity of the CMO is unimpeachable; if he judges that the change in numbers has not changed policy, I reassure the Chamber that that is a good judgment that is completely consistent with the way in which we have behaved over the last few weeks.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Barker, both asked about Project Orbis. This is a welcome move, enabling the UK to join an international framework to provide concurrent submissions and regulatory views of oncology products, which may allow UK patients to receive earlier access to medicines in the future. I pay tribute to colleagues at the MHRA, who I know have worked really hard on collaborating with American, Canadian and Australian regulators. I am extremely optimistic about the dividends from this collaboration. It augurs, promisingly, similar future collaborations across the health sphere.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 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 Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, cars can kill, but driving is not banned. Medical treatment reduces the mortality of those badly infected, but will banning work, study and family meetings through lockdowns and crashing the economy be the right strategy for months to come while leaving the more vulnerable to choose which precautions to adopt?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely sympathise with the observations of the noble Lord. No one wants to see the economy crashed. No one wants to see families separated. Nor do we think that locking up those who are either vulnerable or elderly is a thoughtful or reasonable way to approach this epidemic. What we are seeking is a middle way—a strategy that balances the needs to preserve the economy, education and the NHS with the importance of suppressing the virus and breaking the chains of transmission. That is the approach that we are pursuing today, and it continues to be our strategy going forward.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said in the Statement that all people testing positive are required by law to self-isolate. Can he tell the House what the fine is if someone breaks the law? Have all the people who travelled on the train and tube with Ms Ferrier MP been traced and tested? If so, how, and if they tested positive, have they been quarantined?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the case of the SNP MP has shocked the nation. I do not want to comment on it in detail. I do not have the details of what after all is a private matter. That is for the police and the House authorities to examine.
However, the principle to which my noble friend refers is very clear and simple. If you are positive, you isolate. If you are contacted by the contact-tracing system, you discuss your recent contacts with the contact tracers, who will coach you and rehearse with you fully the length and proximity of those contacts and will give a thoughtful clinical judgment on which ones need to be subjected to further contact and isolation procedures.
This is absolutely essential to breaking the chains of transmission. It has a huge amount of support among the public and a tremendous amount of compliance, and we are building on the existing compliance with the enforcement regime that we brought in recently. I call upon all members of the public to support this important approach.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)
The Minister will appreciate that the 10 pm curfew, the restrictions already in place in many parts of the country and, indeed, the likely further restrictions that will be brought in, given the levels of Covid, will have a big impact on employment. Other countries are continuing with their furlough scheme, but the scheme that we are introducing to replace it is not as generous. Will the Minister not accept that unless the Government put significant further financial support in place, we will face huge levels of unemployment in this country, with millions of people out of work, an increase in poverty and probably the worst recession that any of us have ever known?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the impact of all the restrictions, on the hospitality sector in particular, are particularly acute. I completely recognise the noble Baroness’s point that this touches on the lives of many hard-working people from low-income backgrounds who have casual labour arrangements with the hospitality sector. There are millions of people involved, and this epidemic has hit them particularly hard. That is why we put schemes in place like the furlough scheme.
The Chancellor spoke very movingly this morning on the “Today” programme about his intentions and his determination to ensure that people are protected from the worst outrages of Covid. We are also putting in economic measures to avoid the kind of recession which the noble Baroness describes. The honest truth is that other parts of the economy are doing extremely well. It is an awful shame and sadness that, once again, Covid is hitting the most vulnerable the hardest, and the noble Baroness is quite right to identify the people she does.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, in the other place yesterday, the Secretary of State was very definite that the virus is transmitted from surfaces. However, this has been recently disproved, for example by Professor Gandhi of the University of California and the microbiologist Emanuel Goldman, who state that while the virus may persist on surfaces, the traces involved are not viably infectious. Will their important new research now be instilled into our response to Covid, so that we can start to move on to “project hope”?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend’s recommendation. It is a source of huge frustration, and amazement to me on some level, that the precise nature of transmission in all cases is not crystal clear. I am not sure that I would completely agree with my noble friend that it has been thoroughly disproved that the disease can never be transmitted from surfaces. In fact, there are others who think that this may actually be a very important vector of transmission. We certainly do not understand the full nature of the way in which aerosol transmission behaves, and it is likely that it is a mixture of them both. That is why we urge the country to comply with the Hands, Face, Space protocols.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is significant that, in what can only be seen as a gloomy Statement, no reference has been made to the most vulnerable, many of whom were in the shielded category. National Voices has been listening to these people over the summer and published its report today. Too many in the most vulnerable category say that they feel, and felt, abandoned. They say, for example, that they want to be:
“given information that is relevant to me, in a way I understand.”
That is what many in the country, around all of this, are actually asking for. If we get it right for the most vulnerable, we might begin to get it right for the rest. When are the Government, after promising that they were going to issue more guidance and support to those shielding, actually going to do that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am touched by the testimony of the noble Baroness. I pay tribute to the work of National Voices, which has presented an extremely thoughtful and helpful guide and presented the testimony of those who have been under the extremely harsh regimes of shielding. She is entirely right that those who have had to go into the most extreme forms of lockdown depend the most on government guidelines. Those guidelines can be complex, and people can feel confused or lonely and separated because of their status. We have invested a huge amount in local authorities and in charities specifically to reach those groups. It is through that kind of civic and public service support that we can work with those people. It is not properly the role of central government to have individual communications with those who are shielding at home. We rely on our partners, and we have provided an enormous amount of resources to ensure they can do that job properly.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, if I was diagnosed with coronavirus today and subsequently recovered or showed no symptoms over the next couple of weeks, in 27 days I might get knocked over by a bus and killed, and that would be registered as a Covid-related death. My question to my noble friend is this: why are we including all these deaths that are nothing to do with Covid in the overall statistics that we publish every day?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend caught Covid today and recovered in two weeks’ time, I would personally celebrate that enormously, as I am sure would others in the Chamber. He is right that we have existing protocols for identifying cause of death, and we approach Covid in exactly the same way we do all other causes of death. This is to help our demographic analysis. Of course, the example that he gives—which is entirely correct—is an extreme example, but it is helpful for us to understand, when we are doing retrospective analysis, who has been touched by Covid in order to explain at a later date where the causes of those deaths may have come from. A death that is not apparently from Covid today may in future have a clearer connection.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
I have a question for the Minister and a follow-up to his response about local government. How can the Government prove that public money being spent on test and trace and IT systems fulfils all the requirements of public procurement? I support my noble friend Lady Thornton in her expression of concern. Some years ago, I was a non-exec director at King’s College foundation trust, and the responsibilities of the board for good governance, accountability and proper procedures for public procurement were very clear. I do not have the same feeling for the contracting and other procurement services in the Government today. The Minister says the Government are extremely focused. It feels more like the Mad Hatter’s tea party.
Secondly, the Government’s response to the approach today by council leaders in the north for help, including local test and trace systems, has been made clear by the Minister this evening. Frankly, it was breath-takingly patronising. Will he take the offer from local government seriously?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will tackle those in reverse order. I would not seek to be patronising for a moment. We value the contribution of local leaders enormously, and if I hit the wrong note then I regret that. What I was trying to get across is that the rhetoric in the public media and the realities of the day-to-day conversations between government and local government are not exactly as they might appear. The roles performed by both are complementary, rather than a zero-sum game. It is worth in this Chamber remembering that.
On procurement, the noble Baroness is entirely right; there is a real tension between the absolute requirement to move quickly to meet the challenge of Covid—to stand up facilities and services that did not previously exist—and to move on a national population-wide scale in a way that is not frequently seen in the health system. I can reassure the noble Baroness that a huge amount of work is being done on the auditing, checking and supervision of these contracts. They are not entered into in either a naive or flaky way—quite the opposite. We have put a huge amount of audit and legal resources into striking the right contracts. Cabinet Office colleagues provide a huge amount of analysis and challenge to the way in which these contracts are drafted and in checking against the delivery of the products and services involved.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has scratched, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, questions in your Lordships’ House on this Statement have understandably focused on Covid-19, but the Statement as delivered in the other place is a broad-ranging survey. It starts by talking about treatments for Covid and then shifts to approvals for new cancer treatments; it looks at the expansion of urgent and emergency care; and those mysterious 40 new hospitals appear yet again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, alluded to. In that context, I ask the Minister whether this Statement is sufficiently balanced. If this is a survey, where is the public health element?
Covid has exposed, even more than we recognised before, a deeply unhealthy society with terrible diets, inadequate opportunities for exercise, poverty, stress, and a mental health epidemic. We know from Victorian and early 20th-century times that it is public health measures that really make the difference. In facing up to tackling Covid, surely that is the direction in which we need to be looking. For example, new research today showing the impact of air pollution includes some very stirring suggestions that childhood exposure has an impact on the rates of dementia and Alzheimer’s. My questions to the Minister are these. Are the Government paying enough attention to public health? Is their strategy sufficiently balanced? Are they funding and doing enough on the broad measures that will create the healthier society that is so clearly desperately needed in the time of Covid or at any other time?
Lord Bethell (Con)
In her analysis of the Statement, the noble Baroness is, as ever, inspiring and optimistic. I am extremely grateful for her remarks. The Building Back Better programme will put a vision for public health at the centre of our efforts. We will build on this awful epidemic to ensure that our public health outcomes improve.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to know that I do not intend to ask any questions about the report from the department on testing between 17 September and 23 September. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, there is a reference in the Statement to the Chief Medical Officer and his analysis. I have a simple, very specific question. On what date, and at what time on that date, did the Chief Medical Officer become aware of the missing data issues? On what date, and at what time on that date, did he issue his analysis? If these answers cannot be given now, I would like a commitment that I will receive a letter with the answers.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. My right honourable friend was very clear. The Chief Medical Officer analysed our assessment of the disease and its impact, and assessed that it had not substantially changed as a result of these data. The Statement from my right honourable friend is crystal clear. I will be glad to send the noble Lord a copy of that Statement if he does not have it.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this afternoon’s release from the Office for National Statistics tells us that:
“There were 215 deaths involving … COVID-19 … in England and Wales in the week ending 25 September”.
This remains far below the numbers seen earlier in the pandemic and accounts for just 2.2% of all deaths in the latest week. Our liberties are being trashed and our freedoms removed. When will the Government get down to putting some hope into things? Most people do not know what the rules are, and if they do they are getting round them. I should like a commitment as to when we can open up surgeries and hospitals, and a promise that by Christmas people will be able to visit their elderly relatives in care homes and those who are unfortunate enough to be in hospital. Can we not have a bit of hope, as opposed to this constant gloom?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear my noble friend’s frustration, and he is right to call for hope. We all want some hope—we are all feeling exhausted by Covid. But it is ironic that my noble friend mentions the low level of deaths as though that were a bad thing. To me, that number is a source of huge pride, because it shows that we have kept a lid on Covid—our NHS is improving the treatment of people who have Covid and we are winning the battle against Covid. I celebrate that.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is increasingly apparent that the key to successful test, track and trace is the provision of a speedy test result, without which the whole process is delayed. Sir Paul Nurse of the Crick Institute makes the case for locally based laboratories to do this more efficiently. A similar argument applies to using the skills of local authorities to track and trace contacts. Will the Government reconsider their obsession with a centralised, world-beating system?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely endorse the views of Sir Paul Nurse on this and on all matters, wherever I can. The noble Lord is entirely right: speed is critical, which is why we have put major laboratories in regions up and down the country. There are nearly a dozen of them now; they are paired with the pathology networks of the NHS, and our tracking and tracing system works closely with local government. When the large call centre-based tracking and tracing has gaps or when local teams can supplement, augment or complement the work done by the major teams, we seek those opportunities wherever we can.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I am president of the Health Care Supply Association. I come back to procurement and contracting. Will the Minister respond to the question of my noble friend Lady Thornton about a break clause in the contract with the private suppliers of test and trace? Will he confirm that Public Health England is fully a part of his department, that its staff are officials of his department and that the Secretary of State is fully accountable for its performance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I cannot give a detailed analysis of the thousands of contracts that the test and trace system have gone into, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that these contracts are pragmatic, commercial and thoughtful. The interests of the taxpayers are paramount, and a substantial team of commercial professionals and lawyers from the Department for Health, the NHS and the Cabinet Office is focused on making sure that we get value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right: PHE is entirely accountable to the Department for Health. I do not know the precise status of the contracts for staff, but they are an important and valued part of the Department for Health’s family, and we work extremely closely together.
Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Labour broadly welcomes the contents of the Statement and we certainly share the stated determination of the Secretary of State to raise the status of further, technical and vocational education. However, we cannot welcome his statement that,
“for decades, this sector has been overlooked and underserved, playing second fiddle to higher education.”
That is an attempt by the Conservative Party to spread the blame for the role of successive Governments over the past 10 years in starving further education of the support it needed to make its full contribution to supplying the skills that our economy needs. That and the failure of the advanced learner loan scheme acted as barriers to many young people accessing further education.
For those looking to access training beyond level 3, it seems from the Statement that they will have access only to a flexible loan system. This does not seem to be a Government who listen to what people want and respond to the mistakes of the past. The need for training and retraining is urgent. Last month, the Open University’s latest business barometer revealed that 56% of UK employers continue to experience skills shortages.
I shall repeat some of the questions put to the Secretary of State when he made the Statement in another place last week. My colleague Kate Green MP put several questions to him, very few of which received an answer. I therefore hope that the Minister might do so now. On apprenticeships, the Statement talks of addressing some of the barriers that small and medium-sized enterprises continue to face three years after the apprenticeship levy was introduced. What additional support will be made available to that crucial sector of the economy, as well as to non-levy payers, to enable apprenticeship opportunities to be increased?
The Statement says that the lifetime skills guarantee will bring about equality between the further and higher education sectors. If that is to be the case, can the Minister say whether learners who study for the new funded courses at levels 2 and 3 will be eligible for maintenance support on the same basis as that which applies to higher education courses?
For adults not qualified to level 3, the Statement says that everyone
“will be able to call on a flexible lifelong loan entitlement for four years”.
There are around 9 million people in that category. Should they all want to participate, it will work out at about £250 per head. Does the Minister really believe that that is sufficient for anyone to build the necessary skills and qualifications that they will need? That figure is reached by dividing up the £2.5 billion we have been promised will represent the value of the national skills fund. When the Secretary of State made the Statement last week, he told the shadow Secretary of State:
“We launched the national skills fund, announced in our manifesto.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/10/20; col. 545.]
Only the second part of that is true. Not only has the fund not been launched but the consultation on it has not even commenced, as the Minister will know because last week she told me in a Written Answer that no date for it has yet been set. Is she any closer to being able to do so today? That is symptomatic of general government lethargy in relation to skills and job creation, which is inexcusable, given the urgency of the situation. Another example is the Chancellor’s announcement in July of 30,000 traineeships to get young people into work. That is a good idea but, three months later, procurement of the contract for that has still not commenced. Why is that?
The final piece of evidence is the Statement itself. It is upbeat and full of good intent but its provisions are scheduled to come into effect not next week or next month but next year—six months down the line—in April. Who knows what state the country will be in by then? However, we now know that we face an existential crisis of unemployment and the need for skills and retraining is acute. Why do the Government not see things that way?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is very good news. I do not have to sit on the Bishops’ Bench to say, hallelujah. As the chief executive of the Association of Colleges said:
“For many years, further education colleges have not received the recognition they deserve.”
In fact, for 20 years or more, we have allowed further education and vocational education to wither. The skills gap is huge: you have to look no further than the Grenfell inquiry, which daily produces examples of people carrying out tasks and supervision far beyond their skill level, with catastrophic consequences. The forthcoming building safety Bill will impose big requirements on design, construction, supervision and regulatory personnel, who will need CPD in-service training, plus a stream of incoming trained starters. There are critical safety gaps at present.
The Chancellor’s scheme of £3 billion to spend on retrofitting energy improvements to homes—which, by the way, is to be done by next April—opens up another huge gap. Most small jobbing builders do not have the full range of skills needed and there are not enough energy performance assessors to prepare or supervise them. Of course, the loss of EU workers is keenly felt in London and the south-east. The work visa plan is unworkable for an industry in which peripatetic working around different jobs with different employers is normal. There is no evidence that anybody has a grip on these issues. That is why this Statement is critical and we hope that “rolled out as promised” or “build, build, build” will be a joke.
An entitlement to a fully funded level 3 qualification and more flexibility in levels 4 and 5 are important steps forward, as the Government begin to implement the Augar review. We very much welcome the proposals on apprenticeship, which have lost their way in recent years. We welcome more training funding for small and medium-sized enterprises and more flexibility on how the levy-paying employers can use their funds. Can the Minister tell us whether the apprenticeship measures will be funded from the existing £2 billion a year apprenticeship budget?
The Minister will be familiar with the recommendations of the independent Commission on Lifelong Learning, convened by our former leader, Vince Cable, so this is something that we very much welcome. We would be glad of the opportunity to talk to the Minister about it. What consultations have already taken place with the sector about the detail of the plans, how they will look and how they will be rolled out in practice?
I am sure that people working in adult education and skills will welcome the ambitions that the Government are setting out. It sounds like they are being asked to alter ways of working and upscale capacity massively with a few months’ notice and during a pandemic. They need to be thoroughly consulted on these proposals and supported with the practicalities of delivering them.
We welcome the commitment to fund courses for anyone who left school without an A-level or its equivalent. It is, of course, essential to ensure that the benefit of this new plan is felt by those who need the support the most. As an aside, it seems that we are getting nearer to the day when GCSEs will no longer be needed.
Given the pace of change in the jobs market due to AI and automation, and the number of job losses being projected as a result of the pandemic, the Government should consider more ambitious proposals to give funding support to more people, with the introduction of universal personal education and skills accounts.
There is no mention of university technical colleges, which have done an excellent job. Does the Minister see an enhanced role for them? No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will pick up this point. In addition, in reply to a Written Question from me a couple of days ago, the Minister revealed that there are now 390,109 young people on education, health and care plans. Will these young people be supported through the FE sector with the resources that they need? Finally, although this is not mentioned in the Statement—I raised this last time—I want to write to the Minister, if she does not mind, about the Kickstart programme and how it is not involving 16 and 17 year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for welcoming the Statement. I believe that when I was at the Dispatch Box for the first time, I mentioned that this had for too long been the Cinderella of the sector, but it no longer is. The paucity of investment in this sector has been going on for decades, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined. However, £1.5 billion of capital investment is going into the FE sector for buildings, which have also been neglected.
There are skills shortages. That is why one hears that, at the heart of the institutes of technology, apprenticeships and the review of levels 4 and 5, there is a need for employers to lead on these technical qualifications to ensure that they fill the skills gaps which both noble Lords mentioned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, outlined, the newly funded courses at levels 2 and 3 are FE courses. Obviously, they are generally more flexible, so, although there is a need for learner support—to pay the costs of travel and, perhaps most importantly, the costs of childcare for people undertaking those courses—they are not funded in the same way as higher education maintenance loans. More often than not, this training is done by people who are already in some kind of employment and are reskilling. Of course, that is not always the case, as some people are claiming universal credit. However, we are fully funding courses, and funding for training will no longer be restricted to those aged 23 or under. That restriction has been removed, so any adult who does not currently have a level 3 qualification will have their tuition paid. That is a dramatic change, recognising that, as I think the Augar report mentioned, if you do not have a level 3 qualification by the age of 18, you will almost certainly not get one.
In relation to support for SMEs and the apprenticeship levy, we have previously made it easier for the larger levy payers to transfer the levy down their supply chain, often to SMEs. We have opened up the apprenticeship service to all SMEs and are looking at further initiatives to try to ensure that SMEs have access to it. We have changed the number of reservations that apply to SMEs. Previously, they could reserve three places; now, they can reserve 10, so that they get the opportunity to hire. We also announced that £2,000 would be made available per young person hired as a new apprentice, in addition to the £1,000 that was previously announced. Only if we ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can hire the apprentices they need will we see the beginning of the recovery.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has his beady eye on the procurement part of our work. In fact, procurement began this week of the 30,000 traineeships announced in July.
The level 3 offer will begin in April 2021, and we are encouraging FE colleges to take this up as soon as they can. It is intended to enable them to build the capacity they need to build at that level. However, the new digital bootcamps are available immediately. They started last month in the West Midlands and other regions, and provide flexible, intensive training aimed at getting people into that type of work in their region. We have put another 62 courses on to the Skills Toolkit. I went on it myself to see what training is available online. It provides digital skills and numeracy training. Therefore, there are things immediately available to people who currently need to retrain.
On the consultation that the noble Lord outlined, as I said, employers are at the heart of all the initiatives I have set out. Our response is not lethargic—we recognise that a need exists. There is also the Kickstart fund of £2 billion, which the noble Lord mentioned. It will mean that jobs are guaranteed for young people, so there is no lethargy in this regard. We obviously need to assist people while they are at a point of transition and uncertainty in their lives. I will welcome any further input or ideas from either noble Lord, as we need to work together to ensure that people are supported.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
Before we commence with 20 minutes of questions from the Back Benches, I point out that a number of Members, both remote and present, have dropped out of the debate so it may be helpful if I read out the order in which I will call speakers. I will first call the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, then the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, then the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, followed by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Aberdare, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Warsi, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and finally the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I fully support the speech made by the Prime Minister a week ago in Devon, when he set an ambitious target of equalising practical and technical education with academic education. That is a very ambitious target which no Prime Minister since 1945 has had or indeed implemented, and it has my full support. I am very grateful for the mention of the colleges that I support, the university technical colleges. At the moment, they are by far the most able and successful technical schools in the country. We are having a record year in recruitment and we have incredible destinations. Last year, one of our colleges on the north-west coast of England produced 90% apprentices, which is absolutely incredible when the national average is 6%.
The speech that Boris made had a Boris flourish in it:
“Now is the time to end the pointless, snooty, and frankly vacuous distinction between the practical and the academic.”
Of course it is. The trouble is that, since 1945, there has been a huge drive to send people to universities, which is good for social mobility but it means that graduates have had disproportionate esteem, disproportionate political influence and disproportionate reward compared with those who make things with their hands. This is the time when we have to elevate the intelligent hand: to train not only the brain but the hand as well.
I am particularly concerned about the level of youth unemployment today, which for 18 to 24 year-olds is 13.4% and likely to rise to 20%. Nothing could be worse for an 18 year-old than to start their lives on the dole: it is a blemish that will affect them all their lives. My proposal is that, instead of being on the dole, they should engage in a year’s or perhaps two years’ further training for a higher national certificate or diploma, through which they will get skills that will help them to get a better job a year later. At the moment, the youngsters who do that have to take out a loan of £6,000 to £8,000. That should be stopped for the next two years, and these courses should not only be free but should have maintenance grants to help students with their living costs, because they will not be eligible for unemployment pay. I will set out the details when I have more than a minute or two to speak.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I too pay tribute to the work of my noble friend. It was my pleasure to host a round table of UTCs which have been particularly successful. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned them as well. In fact, a new UTC was opened in September in Darlington. The colleges have been particularly involved in the T-levels, which were introduced to give parity at the age of 16 between A-levels and T-levels, and to make sure that such attitudes are a thing of the past—that those with technical skills or who make things with their hands are viewed with the same esteem as those with academic qualifications. Indeed, 81.6% of our 16 to 18 year-olds are in education or apprenticeships, which is as high as it has ever been.
However, we are aware that it is the young who could be hit hardest during this crisis, which is why there is additional support for employers to take on young apprentices. The Kickstart scheme is open to those who are young and claiming universal credit, and there are 30,000 traineeships, which the department has just begun to procure. These are a work-based progression for young people, to make them ready for work or an apprenticeship. I am sure that I can get a response to my noble friend’s proposal that levels 4 and 5 should be free, but that is not what is being offered at the moment. What is being offered is level 3 tuition fees for anyone who does not have a qualification at that level.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this announcement is welcome—as far as it goes. It is logical to start with the unqualified, but what of the many with middle and higher-level skills who are being squeezed by technology and finding that universal credit is catastrophic for them and their families? They cannot fund their reskilling. Has the Government’s National Skills Fund got anything to offer the squeezed middle?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to reskilling, there are, as I have outlined, the digital boot camps that we have offered so that people can gain training as they do that work. If they lack that level 3 qualification, they will be able to do that, but, as I say, there has been a particular focus on young people, who are more vulnerable to the effects of what is happening at the moment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of City & Guilds, for whom I worked on vocational qualifications and skills for 20 years. Statements like this have been made by successive Governments for very many years, yet little has been done to promote vocational, practical and technical education and training in schools, where the message must start. Can the Minister say whether league tables will cease to be based on A-levels and GCSEs? Will schools be encouraged to celebrate their apprentices, BTEC and work-based leavers with the same enthusiasm they give to their university entrants? Until schools are proud of all their successes, there is little hope of any real change.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, these are not just statements of intention; today, I have outlined that the numerous initiatives that have been started by the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions are matched by funding. They will be a reality—some of them are already. The noble Baroness is completely right: in relation to the UTCs, which are important in promoting technical education, there is now a duty on the local authority and on schools to make sure that young people are made aware of that offer. The careers service has a link with employers locally so that they are brought into schools to outline the needs and skills that they have.
Teachers have been assisted to make sure that they are also aware of the apprenticeship offers because, unfortunately, as the noble Baroness will know from a Select Committee we both sat on, many teachers have not gone through these routes. We have been helping and training them and giving them the links so that they can make people aware of these offers. We want a greater take-up of level 3 and, particularly, levels 4 and 5 qualifications and for them to be validated by employers as making people qualified for jobs.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the trajectory of the Statement, but, speaking as someone who had responsibility at home for skills and both further and higher education, I assure my noble friend that simply giving people training on its own is not enough. If it does not lead to a job, there is demoralisation and the young people find themselves going round in circles doing different courses and getting demoralised as they go. Important though apprenticeships are, for employers, it is not simply about money: unless there is an outlet for that apprentice, there is no job.
I personally believe that the biggest problem we face in our broader education sector is snobbery. It has been referred to, and we can call it whatever we like, but that is what it is. We do not value vocational education the same as academic education. When will the noble Baroness tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that those young people do not have their morale destroyed by not having some role? If those people cannot find a job, will her department consider the idea of reintroducing the old-style ACE scheme, where at least people had employment in a social enterprise to tide them over until such time as a job in the private sector became available?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that there is no snobbery in the Department for Education; we want to promote parity of esteem for vocational and technical qualifications across our sector. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are behind this Everybody has a role to play in ensuring that these skills are seen and respected; television programming over the last 10 years has shown the importance of construction in many of the programmes that they have chosen to produce. We have also invested £900 million in work coaches, who are essential to getting alongside people on a one-to-one basis to help them into work. There is £17 million for the new workplace academy programmes, which are helping people with their CVs and job interviews.
The noble Lord is correct: one of the things we have to do for young people is this review, particularly of level 4 and level 5 qualifications, of which there are over 4,000. I remember sitting with the noble Baroness on a Select Committee and seeing the plethora of avenues and qualifications that were there, so that the pathway is clearer for young people and they get a qualification that an employer says is relevant and equips them for the job that they want. I can only draw attention, once again, to the £2 billion for the Kickstart scheme, which is about jobs for young people who find themselves on universal credit at the moment.
Lord Aberdare (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement sets out a range of laudable and important aspirations and I very much hope that, unlike so many previous attempts, these will actually be delivered. I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Statement includes funding for extra careers advisers. Can she assure us that this will form part of a comprehensive approach to investing in professional high-quality careers advice and guidance to all who need it, from primary school children to adults of all ages without the gaps that currently exist? Secondly, what will the Government do about the perverse incentives that currently lead schools to try to keep young people in formal education rather than encouraging them to consider apprenticeships?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes, the funding that has been announced for the National Careers Service—that is the adult careers service. The Careers & Enterprise Company is available in schools and I know that additional funding has been given to that to ensure that young people are made aware of those opportunities. In relation to apprenticeships, as I have already outlined, through the Careers & Enterprise Company we are assisting schools to promote those. Fire It Up was our campaign to make sure that young people are aware of those apprenticeships. We are encouraging schools to know their destination data: it is important to know where those young people go on to, so that the best opportunity for the young person is put first by our schools and colleges.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I can only express my pleasure that the Government have suddenly been converted to lifelong learning after a decade of slashing the funding and support for it. The Statement refers to the risk that jobs will no longer exist because of technology. I would add that that is also the case because of environmental factors, Covid and many other changes in our society. I have two questions for the Minister. Would she acknowledge that narrowly focused job and skills training is not the right way to operate in this fast-changing landscape, and that employer-focused training that teaches for the jobs of today, rather than preparing people, particularly young people, for decades in a fast-changing workplace, is not the right way to go? What we need is creativity to encourage a love of learning and curiosity. The teach-to-the-test ethos pushed in our schools, focused on exams, is absolutely the wrong direction. What we need is to encourage an enthusiasm for soil, for growing food and other plants, for repairing things, for upcycling and recycling—something like, perhaps, the national nature service that the NGOs have been promoting. Do we not need that broader focus?
We should also acknowledge the fact that so many of our jobs now wear people down. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the construction sector, where 60% of manual construction workers are self-employed. Just the grind of getting through the day, of finding jobs, of getting an income, makes it very difficult for people to engage in training. We need to look at the broader issues that can keep people from training even if it is available.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct that, obviously, for many people, the concept of a job for life is a thing of the past. People have numerous careers or jobs during their working life. I can assure her that the curriculum taught in our schools is knowledge-based and it is rich. Young people are encouraged to explore nature and to use the outdoors. I know that many schools, whether it is forest schools or woodland schools, et cetera, have adopted that. Obviously, teaching about the environment is an important part of that.
She is entirely right, as well, that employers need to be at the centre of this. That is why there has been this transference on to employers. The institutes of technology will be a partnership of employers, universities and FE colleges. Apprenticeships are employer-standard led, and also there are local skills advisory boards that bring together local employers, the LEPs and others. There will now be a national skills and productivity board, so that we have a structure around employer engagement in these qualifications.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I welcome the Statement, particularly the announcement of a flexible lifelong learning loan. Picking up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I ask my noble friend this question, of which I gave notice: when do the Government anticipate this loan becoming available? As we come to the end of the furlough scheme, where many sadly will lose long-term jobs and possibly seek to retrain, do the Government see the necessity of speeding up the consultation process and the legislative process to implement these announcements?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, the level 3 entitlement will begin in April next year. I assure my noble friend that we will consult and legislate as necessary as fast as we can. We recognise that the changes happening out there in the workplace are swift, and we will act as soon as we can.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as recorded in the register—in particular, as far as this debate is concerned, a keen interest and involvement in rural issues and agriculture. I have been assisting and sponsoring the establishment of an institute of agriculture and horticulture tier, which receives valuable support from Defra and the Department for Education, and we hope that this will create a vehicle through which the Government can help to deliver its ambitions.
I would like to ask three questions, if I may. First, it is great that the Government have recognised that improving skills is a continuous process, but I would like reassurance from the Minister that the department appreciates the huge potential that remains unlocked within the rural space due to a lack of appropriate skills and fragmented delivery. Can the Minister confirm that rural businesses are involved in the bootcamp pilots that are being arranged?
Secondly, on the rural economy, we have heard from the Minister already that the role of SMEs will be recognised. However, in the rural space we have a much higher proportion of SME businesses; we have a very small number of large businesses, and tens of thousands of very small businesses. This represents a particular challenge in the application of the apprenticeship scheme and the use of the levy. Can the Government be as flexible as possible in the use of the levy to allow greater uptake in these small sectors within the rural areas?
Lastly, the role of LEPs in supporting the Government’s new ambitions in encouraging the uptake of opportunities to improve skills is hugely important. Can the Minister confirm that the LEPs will be playing their part in supporting this agenda?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, yes indeed. As I have just outlined, the LEPs play their role in the skills advisory board at local level, and we are looking to be as flexible as possible with regard to SMEs and the use of the levy. I can assure the noble Lord that bootcamps are being done in various regions, including, in the next lot, areas such as south Derbyshire. On the question of rural spaces, I will have to write to him in relation to the figures that he required.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this Statement and on the commitment it exemplified. Will my noble friend confirm that within this policy we will be supporting the Inspiring Digital Enterprise Award, from idea.org.uk? The award is designed to help people who have had to change career, or who are coming back after a period of unemployment, to realise that they have the potential for a career in the digital sector and to hone their enterprise and employability skills at a basic level—all of which is free. Will my noble friend also confirm that the Government understand that many people, particularly if they have lost a job in a sector that is contracting, will need to start to retrain at a level below that at which they are qualified? They may have a degree and need to go back to level 3 or 4 training to find a new place. Will taking a step back to make a new life going forward be something that the Government will fund?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. This is precisely why it is a four-year offer, so that those who have a degree might then be able to take level 4 or level 5 training. I regret that, despite copious briefing here, I have not heard of the specific award that my noble friend mentioned, so I will write to him to outline what the department is doing in relation to that.