House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We have been clear that the national security law has had a chilling effect on society and that it constitutes a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. It contains a range of measures that directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration. In response to the national security law, the UK has offered a new immigration path for British nationals, suspended our extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to abide by their international human rights obligations.
Robbie Moore
In July, books by pro-democracy figures were removed from public libraries, and just last week Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, said that it was important to
“weed out the bad apples”
from the education system in response to a teacher “promoting Hong Kong independence”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK reserves the right to take further action to safeguard the rights of those in Hong Kong, especially if the human rights situation continues to deteriorate further?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken clear action in response to the national security law, including, as I said, offering a new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, suspending our extradition treaty and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We will continue to bring together our international partners to ensure that we stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations.
Andrew Rosindell
Does the Minister agree that the national security law in Hong Kong has infringed the rights of many Hongkongers and broken international law by breaching the joint declaration? Will he now either urgently review his Magnitsky sanctions regime or outline how he intends to target those who instigate such appalling human rights abuses against this once proud British Crown colony?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As he will know, on 6 July we established our global human rights Magnitsky sanctions regime, and it is under constant review. However, he will be aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under any future sanctions regime, because to do so would reduce the impact of those designations.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with the Chinese Government. The resulting combination of over-dependence on China-based supply chains and the breaking of important international alliances has diminished our ability to exert influence on Beijing. Yet, despite these failings, there is clearly more that the UK could be doing for the people of Hong Kong. Will the Minister specify what the Government plan to do regarding citizenship for Hongkongers born after 1997? What consular support can he provide to the four BNO passport holders who are now detained in mainland China after attempting to flee? Will he commit to sanctioning the senior mainland Chinese Communist party and Hong Kong Executive officials who have been committing human rights abuses? It took the Government just days to sanction Belarusian officials. What, or who, is causing this delay?
Nigel Adams
We are working closely with the Home Office on our response for the BNOs, and there will be much more detail coming out in due course.
With regard to the cases that the hon. Member raises, we have raised the cases of the people detained in Shenzhen with the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, and we have made it clear that due process should be followed. The rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong, including their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, are expressly guaranteed in the joint declaration, and rights committed to under the declaration must be upheld. Under the memoranda to the joint declaration, BNOs are entitled to consular assistance in third countries, but not in Hong Kong, Macau or mainland China. The Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality, and absolutely would not grant UK consular access for those individuals. On sanctions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The Trinidad and Tobago Government decided to close their borders on 22 March due to covid-19, and they remain closed. Consular support for Trinidad and Tobago nationals remains the responsibility of their Government. However, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials are in close contact with the Trinidad and Tobago authorities, and we advise all Trinidad and Tobago nationals to contact their high commission in London for assistance.
Mr Baker
I have Trinidad and Tobago citizens in my constituency who are burning through their savings and really terrified about failing to get home to protect their homes and businesses from the approaching severe weather. Will the Minister join me in calling on Trinidad and Tobago to ensure that their citizens get home? I think it is common humanity to enable people to return to protect their homes.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend raises an important point about people in his constituency. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has alerted the Trinidad and Tobago high commission to cases of stranded Trinidad and Tobago nationals whom we have been made aware of, and has supported affected individuals to contact the high commission directly. It is also important to say that we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Trinidad and Tobago.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
About 650 million girls were removed from primary and secondary education at the pandemic’s peak, and some risk dropping out of school permanently, so we must mobilise global investment and commitment to get education back on track and defeat the global learning crisis. The UK is proud to be co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education 2021 financing conference. We have adapted our education aid programming, and have committed new funding to UNICEF, Education Cannot Wait and the United Nations Population Fund to address the impacts of covid-19 on women and girls. We will use our presidency of the G7 next year to rally the international community for greater support for girls’ education.
Nickie Aiken
I certainly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday about the summit on global education. One reason girls are prevented from receiving education is that they are forced into child marriage. A recent Save the Children report revealed that a further 2.5 million girls are at risk of being forced into marriage by 2025 because of the current pandemic. With that in mind, will the Minister assure me that the FCDO will ensure that programmes to end the heinous practice of child marriage are at the centre of international development strategy?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and ending child marriage is key to delivering the Prime Minister’s commitment of championing 12 years of quality education for girls. Since 2015, our £39 million flagship programme has helped to reach just under 40 million people with information designed to change attitudes towards child marriage. The UK will continue to use its development programmes and global leadership to end child marriage.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about his manifesto commitment that every child should have the best possible chance to have an education, yet development spending on primary education has been cut by more than 27% this year, which is evidence of a Government without a strategic direction who cannot be trusted to deliver on their rhetoric. Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Foreign Secretary is cancelling and postponing programmes that would enable girls to have a safe education, such as the one investing in adolescent girls in Rwanda?
Wendy Morton
The UK is a world leader in both our educational expertise and our development spend, and during the official development assistance prioritisation process difficult but necessary decisions were made to meet our 0.7% ODA commitment. However, the process has ensured continued support and commitment to ODA priorities, including girls’ education. On Rwanda, the issue was raised with the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee. A tough decision was taken, but the UK has protected schools and education spending across the world. We continue to support women and girls in Rwanda to have a decent education, and our spend in the country is expected to total approximately £13.6 million.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK is a strong supporter of Palestinian state building efforts. In 2019, we spent £81 million in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Part of that contribution is helping to build Palestinian state institutions; fostering private sector-led sustainable economic growth; and providing technical assistance to strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s financial management. However, such progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, which is why the Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in August actively to encourage Israel and the Palestinian leadership to renew co-operation and work together. I also discussed this matter with UN special co-ordinator Mladenov on 1 October.
Andy Slaughter
That is not an answer. Six years ago today, this House voted by 274 votes to 12 to recognise the state of Palestine. Three years ago, the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, said that
“you have to have a two-state solution or else you have some kind of apartheid system”.
How can there be a two-state solution without two states? The UK’s recognition of the state of Israel shows that we respect its non-negotiable rights. Why should our recognition of the state of Palestine be a matter for negotiation? Are Palestinians entitled to less respect and fewer rights than the Israelis?
James Cleverly
As I have said, the UK Government have supported the Palestinian Authority in putting in place the building blocks for a future Palestinian state, which we recognise. We have been very vocal that our preferred option is a safe, stable two-state solution, with a prosperous and peaceful Palestinian state neighbouring a prosperous and peaceful Israeli state.
Caroline Ansell
The middle east is changing before our eyes and the significance of Israel’s peace agreements with the UAE and Bahrain cannot be overstated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this new development between Israel and her Arab neighbours changes the narrative, creates a new dynamic in the region, and gives rise to new hope for a peace deal?
James Cleverly
The normalisation of relations represents a move towards peace in the region, and the UK strongly welcomes that. We encourage other states to choose the same path, but, ultimately, there is no substitute for direct talks between the Palestinians and Israel, which is the only way to reach a two-state solution and a lasting peace. We do hope that normalisation can encourage dialogue between the parties and the UK stands ready to support such efforts.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The UK is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law acting as a force for good in the world. The UK is one of the longest standing members of the Human Rights Council, and we are aiming to maintain that record at today’s election. Another good example is our recent activity at the UN on China, which shows our commitment to defending human rights in Xinjiang.
Tony Lloyd [V]
I welcome the Minister’s words, but may I refer him and his words to the situation in Colombia where, since the signing of the peace deal in 2016, we have seen hundreds of human rights defenders, civic leaders, trade unionists and former FARC—Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—members murdered, and where the fragile democratic process saw the FARC move from the armed struggle to the political process. Will the Minister commit to making Colombia a priority for this Government and will he or one of his colleagues commit to meeting a small delegation of MPs who are concerned about Colombia?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right to raise this matter. We believe that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are the absolute foundations on which open, stable and prosperous societies thrive. I am more than happy to commit on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The International Development Committee is currently holding an inquiry into sexual abuse and exploitation by aid workers of the beneficiaries, and I am ashamed to report that we are finding that it is rife. I welcome the fact that the new Department has brought forward a safeguarding document as one of its first publications. However, will the Minister please comment on why the FCDO’s terms and conditions for staff say:
“Sexual relations with beneficiaries are strongly discouraged”?
Why is this not gross misconduct when there is an obvious power imbalance, and what will the Minister do to remedy this immediately?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important issue. I do not have those terms and conditions in front of me, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss what sounds like an incredibly serious point that she has raised.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course, what the Minister forgets is that the reason we are getting a seat on the UN Human Rights Council today is that the seat is uncontested. We actually have no representatives—a historic low—on any of the main committees of the 10 United Nations human rights treaty bodies and we have already failed to get elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. Human rights barrister Amal Clooney resigned as a UK envoy, saying that it was untenable for her to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations when the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself. With so many crucial human rights abuses that we should be rightly taking leadership on, does the Minister accept that we undermine our position when his fellow Ministers undermine the rule of law and our commitment to human rights?
Nigel Adams
No, I do not accept that whatsoever. We have clearly set out our reasons for introducing the measures related to the Northern Ireland protocol. We need to create a legal safety net to protect the integrity of our internal market and ensure that we can deliver on our obligations. The UK Internal Market Bill is a defensive, precautionary and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
On 7 October, the Foreign Secretary held a strategic dialogue with his Brazilian counterpart which covered a number of topics of mutual interest, including trade, security and human rights. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of climate change and the need to protect the Amazon from further deforestation. We run major programmes on sustainable agriculture and deforestation with various stakeholders in Brazil that totalled £259 million between 2012 and 2020. Climate change is one of the most important global issues, and international co-operation is vital to tackling it. As COP26 president, the UK will continue to work in partnership with Brazil on this important issue.
Chris Elmore
Some 58.4% of the Amazon rain forest sits within Brazilian borders. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is raising the issue of climate change, but it is not one of the greatest issues facing the world; it is the biggest issue facing the world. Coronavirus is bad, but the longer-term problems of climate change could consume various countries around the world through flooding or deforestation. With COP26 now moved to next year, will the Minister make far more robust representations—not just to the Brazilian Government, but to many South American Governments—about the prioritisation of stopping illegal logging and the process of deforestation?
Wendy Morton
As I said in my previous answer, the Foreign Secretary had a strategic dialogue with his Brazilian counterpart, and both countries have affirmed that they will work to ensure that the COP delivers substantial negotiated outcomes in the fight against climate change. We believe that climate change is one of the most important global issues, and will be working not just with Brazil but with other countries to tackle this important issue.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The attacks against BBC Persian employees and their families, and threats to an entirely legitimate media organisation, are unacceptable. We raise this harassment regularly with the Iranian Government, as well as at the Human Rights Council. We will continue to defend BBC Persian’s editorial independence. We most recently raised our concerns about media freedom in Iran in an E3 Foreign Ministers’ letter to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif on 22 September.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for that reply and for sharing the concerns about this serious issue. Will he give us some information on what responses the Foreign Office has received from the Iranian authorities to such representations? The BBC journalists themselves get very little feedback on this issue.
James Cleverly
Sadly, the Iranian authorities have yet to provide any kind of justification for their actions that stand up to scrutiny. Their behaviour is indefensible, and we are confident that our Iranian contacts, including Foreign Minister Zarif, fully understand our concerns and our condemnation of such harassment.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
We remain deeply concerned about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and call on all parties to take every measure possible to protect civilians. That is why, on 29 September, the UK called for discussion at the UN Security Council. The day before that, on 28 September, I spoke to both the Azerbaijani and the Armenian Foreign Ministers to urge a return to dialogue under the OSCE Minsk group to ensure a peaceful and sustainable settlement.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that there are more Azeris living in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan—some 50 million of them, who hold great sway and influence. Russia, on the other hand, is firmly committed to supporting Armenia in this conflict, and that could see the Russian and Iranian co-operation in the Syrian war come under severe strain. What concerns does the Minister have about the potential for Iran to become embroiled in the dispute, and what steps is her Department taking to avoid that situation?
Wendy Morton
As I clearly indicated, we remain very concerned about this conflict, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. That is why we are continuing to work to urge both parties back to the table to have dialogue, and to use the Minsk process to further that.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I have two very concrete points. We are all concerned about the risk of a proxy war within this, because there are more than two sides to the conflict. What steps are the UK Government taking to make sure that no UK-made armaments, or indeed UK citizens, are finding their way into this theatre?
Wendy Morton
Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important point. On armaments, we have export licences in place and a very rigorous process to deal with applications with regard to any country, and that is always kept under careful and continual review. We are aware of many media reports that other countries are providing military support, for example, but we absolutely maintain a commitment to encouraging and urging both sides to come back to the table and have the dialogue that is needed.
Alyn Smith
I gently suggest that there is something for us to follow up in that, because there is a great deal of concern that UK armaments and people are finding their way into this theatre.
On a wider point, does the Minister share my concern about Turkey’s increasingly belligerent statements in the wider region? She will be aware of yesterday’s statement by the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, about the retaking of the Varosha settlement in northern Cyprus, which continues to be illegally occupied. What discussions is she having with Ankara in order to strongly stress our defence of international law?
Wendy Morton
In terms of Turkey, the Defence Secretary discussed the conflict during a recent visit to Ankara and again agreed that de-escalation was the best option for all. I reiterate that, as the Foreign Secretary has said on previous occasions, we urge all external parties and friends of both states to redouble their efforts in support for an end to these hostilities and to refrain from taking actions that risk deepening the crisis. As co-chair of the Minsk group, Russia has a role in working to end the conflict too.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Further to the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, obviously the ceasefire is very fragile, and with the use of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria, there is a real risk of escalation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure a return to dialogue, as ultimately only through dialogue can this dreadful conflict come to an end? Specifically on Turkey and Russia, what urgent discussions are being carried out in order to try to get them to stop their arms sales so that that does not increase the militarisation and the number of civilians who are tragically being killed in the region?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a very important point reinforcing the need for dialogue. The Foreign Secretary issued two statements with Canadian Foreign Minister Champagne, most recently on 6 October, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the OSCE group. On 28 September, the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdoğan and discussed the recent escalation. On 2 October, I spoke to Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Önal to register concerns at the military escalation. We have been engaging with the co-chairs of the Minsk group—the French, the US and Russia. I will continue to reach out to my counterparts—both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers—to reinforce the UK’s support for de-escalation and a return to dialogue.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
We continue to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.
Alan Brown
Last week the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee that no one he has met thinks that the UK is not a defender of international law. The reality is that a fellow Cabinet member has admitted that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law. The reality on the ground is that 27 EU countries have begun legal proceedings against the UK, and in the US both sides of Congress have said that they will not support a Bill that breaks the international rules-based order. When will the Foreign Secretary see reality and admit that the UK is acting like a rogue state?
Dominic Raab
No, I do not agree with that. The measures in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are a defensive, precautionary and proportionate, to safeguard the integrity of the UK. I was in Washington recently and had very constructive conversations on both sides of the aisle on the hill.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The way that the Government have used the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to allow the United Kingdom to abrogate an international treaty in recent weeks has seen the UK take a step away from being a normative power committed to an international rules-based order. As my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal now faces his third anniversary in custody without charge in India, will the Secretary of State at least tell both my constituent and the House how he and his Government seek to remind the Republic of India of its obligations under international law, given that his own Government have so flagrantly disrespected it?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid I just do not accept the assertion, and I do not accept the equivalence. We have very clear understandings in relation to the positions we take in terms of consular access and upholding human rights. We engage with the Indian Government and other Governments right across the world. I have never had the pushback the hon. Member describes.
Patricia Gibson [V]
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), can the Secretary of State specifically outline how and in what ways he believes the United Kingdom International Market Bill strengthens the international credibility of the UK, given that it is in breach of international law?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. As I have made clear, the Bill is a defensive, precautionary measure to safeguard the integrity of the UK. If the hon. Lady wants to know what people outside the United Kingdom and the EU say about the United Kingdom when it comes to upholding the international rule of law, perhaps she would like to listen to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the Belarusian opposition leader, who said on 5 October in an interview:
“I am really grateful to the United Kingdom. For them to be so vocal, for them to be so brave, for them to be so strong in their position—it was all action. The United Kingdom has really shown itself as an example to the whole world.”
That is what they say about the United Kingdom outside the EU.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is rightly addressing the rule of law in a particular negotiation. Will he recognise, however, that the negotiations we are conducting around the world, including with the Japanese Government and the beginning of the conversation with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will rely on the UK making deals that will endure the future? Those deals will only endure truly if the UK holds together and values all parts of this United Kingdom. Will he recognise, therefore, that his role is to promote the voices of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland together to make sure all those four nations achieve the best for the whole United Kingdom?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have just signed a deal with Japan, and we have signed a continuity deal with South Korea. We are looking at a second one, and we have ambitions for scoping talks in relation to that, so that we can improve in areas such as data. We are making good progress on Vietnam. That is precisely the way in trade negotiations we will represent the businesses and consumers of all four nations of the United Kingdom, and that is the way we will continue.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The Government are fully committed to independent parliamentary scrutiny in this House. The Foreign Secretary has already announced our commitment to maintaining the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. He has also announced a departmental review to make ICAI even more effective, leveraging what works and producing more practical recommendations. This will make scrutiny stronger.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What steps is he is taking to deliver the COP 26 goals when he engages with foreign Governments around the world?
James Duddridge
May I apologise to the House? In my enthusiasm sharing a joke with you, Mr Speaker, I had the wrong page on my briefing and so answered in advance the question tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I apologise to the House for my enthusiasm.
I thank my constituency near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for his question. We are committed to COP 26 through the presidency of G7 next year. We will be urging Governments to be bold in what they are hoping to achieve. Indeed, we are co-hosting events with the UN on 12 December to mark the fifth anniversary of the climate agreement.
Duncan Baker
I will not be thrown off course.
With the United Kingdom being the fastest country in the G7 to decarbonise, it is quite apparent that this Government are leading the world in tackling climate change, but our efforts will pale into insignificance if other nations around the world do not face up to their own responsibilities. What efforts is my hon. Friend making to ensure that everybody plays their part?
James Duddridge
It is important that everybody plays their part and that there is collective action. My hon. Friend may be alluding, in part, to China. I warmly received China’s commitment—in particular, its intent to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
It remains our intention and our hope to reach an agreement with the EU, but as a responsible Government, we continue to make extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios. The two Cabinet Committees focused on EU exit strategy and operations meet regularly to discuss the Government’s work, to ensure that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.
Simon Jupp
I thank the Minister for her response. The new Department will no doubt have a busy autumn, as it looks to seize the many opportunities that lay ahead. What discussions have been held with the Department for International Trade to ensure that the Government sing from the same hymn sheet in their future trade negotiations on food, animal welfare and environmental standards?
Wendy Morton
I can assure my hon. Friend that FCDO Ministers are in regular contact with DIT colleagues on a range of trade-related issues. The UK Government have been consistently clear that we will never sign a trade deal that would compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. All existing food safety provisions will be retained.
Suzanne Webb
Two thirds of my constituents in Stourbridge voted to leave the EU—“Roll on 31 December” is the message I hear loud and clear. Does the Minister agree that we must strongly back the Government’s negotiating position to deliver a trade deal that takes back control of our money, laws and borders, but that we should not be afraid to fall back on an Australian-style arrangement if necessary?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend asks an important question. We continue to work hard towards reaching an agreement with the EU. We want a deal with free trade provisions similar to those that the EU agreed with Canada, and if that is not possible, we will have a trading relationship similar to how Australia trades with the EU. Either way, we will be leaving the single market and the customs union.
Mark Eastwood
The United Kingdom has a proud history of defending human rights. Does the Minister agree that a key benefit of leaving the European Union for our foreign policy is the ability to put in place our own independent sanctions regime, allowing us to go further on human rights than the EU?
Wendy Morton
Yes, the UK will indeed pursue an independent sanctions policy driven by our foreign policy objectives. We established a global human rights sanctions regime on 6 July, which gives us new powers to fight those involved in serious human rights abuses. The sanctions we recently imposed on individuals in Belarus are a good example. Sanctions are best delivered, though, through collective action, and we will continue to work with EU and other international partners.
Simon Baynes
Does the Minister agree that the end of the transition period will herald a global Britain with more freedom to follow our own path in the world, to the benefit of my constituents in Clwyd South?
Wendy Morton
Yes. At the end of this year, the process of transition will be complete, and we will recover our economic and political independence. That is why we did not extend the transition period. We need to be able to design our own rules in our best interests, without the constraints of following the EU.
Lee Anderson
The UK now has a new role outside the EU as global Britain. Will my hon. Friend advise the people of Ashfield what the FCDO’s priorities should be in the future?
Wendy Morton
The Government’s integrated review, which is ongoing, will define the UK’s role in the world and the longer-term strategic aims for our national security and foreign policy following our departure from the European Union. We are committed to the UK being a force for good in the world, defending open societies, free trade, democracy and human rights.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
On 3 September, I reiterated our concern about reports of militarisation, coercion and intimidation in the South China sea, and I called on all parties to refrain from activity likely to raise tensions. Given the importance we attach to the UN convention on the law of the sea, I also put our comprehensive legal position on the SCS on public record for the first time.
Scott Mann
China’s brazen human rights abuses and its increasingly assertive behaviour internationally are both deeply disturbing issues. In the light of this behaviour, what consideration has the Department given to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy to safeguard British friends and interests in south-east Asia?
Nigel Adams
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. I would remind him that, on 6 October, 39 countries joined in a statement at the UN Third Committee expressing deep concern at the human rights situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. This growing caucus willing to speak out reflects the UK’s diplomatic leadership. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific is a key ambition for our integrated review. It will outline the UK’s intention to become a long-term partner to south Asian and Asia-Pacific countries. We are already working to develop closer partnerships with the region through our bid to achieve Association of Southeast Asian Nations dialogue partnership status. The Foreign Secretary visited Hanoi recently, and that was high on our agenda. We are also keen to pursue our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The UK does not accept the results of the rigged presidential election in Belarus. We have worked with our international partners to promote a peaceful resolution. We have condemned the actions of the Belarusian authorities, and we hold those responsible for human rights abuses to account.
Michael Fabricant [V]
Everybody’s favourite continental politician Guy Verhofstadt expressed his huge frustration with the European Union recently, surprisingly enough, when he said that unlike the United Kingdom and Canada, which have imposed sanctions on Belarus for the very reason that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just said, the European Union has been unable to do so because of the unanimity rules. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the EU foreign policy ability to impose things such as sanctions, and does he share my relief that the United Kingdom has now left the EU?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point about the agility and the autonomy that we have with our new Magnitsky sanctions regime, and also some of the latitude we will have now we have left the EU. Equally, I co-ordinate closely with our European partners. He is right to say that the UK, with Canada, proceeded first, on 29 September, to impose targeted sanctions on Lukashenko’s son and six other senior Belarusian officials. I can, though, reassure my hon. Friend that the EU has followed our lead and, at the latest Foreign Affairs Council, announced that it will now follow that lead and impose sanctions on Lukashenko.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I visited Vietnam last month, where we held the first UK-ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting, discussing collaboration on covid, the green economic recovery and the UK’s application for dialogue partner status with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer so far. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support new growth markets in the ASEAN region, such as Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, to ensure that the UK economy and UK businesses, especially South Derbyshire firms, feel the full benefit of global Britain?
Dominic Raab
First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment as trade envoy for Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. She will know that UK-ASEAN trade is already worth over £40 billion in 2019. There are huge opportunities to strengthen that. The International Trade Secretary was meeting ASEAN Economic and Trade Ministers last month. I have been out to ASEAN to talk about our partner dialogue status. We also have a broader ambition to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. All that, through our Indo-Pacific tilt, will increase opportunities for businesses and consumers in her constituency and across the whole United Kingdom.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The FCDO works in partnership with the Department for International Trade, the office of the Secretary of State for Wales, and the Welsh Government, to promote Wales internationally. The GREAT Britain campaign, which is actively supported by our diplomatic posts overseas, showcases the very best of the whole UK, encouraging the world to visit, study, and do business here, and generating jobs and growth for the UK economy. The GREAT challenge fund also promotes Welsh business and culture throughout the world. In the last financial year, more than 40 projects were promoting the devolved nations, including Wales.
Jonathan Edwards
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. For some bizarre reason, the Conservative party in Wales is pledging to scrap the Welsh Government’s Department for International Relations and Development, yet the Federation of Small Businesses is calling for a greater international footprint by the Welsh Government. Will the Minister support the Welsh Government to expand their independent international presence, since many in Wales have little faith that so-called global Britain will even acknowledge the existence of Wales as a nation?
Wendy Morton
I reiterate our commitment to the work that we do to promote the UK as one whole UK—we are much bigger as one UK than in our parts. The Department for International Trade promotes British trade and investment across the world, and we are engaging regularly with the Welsh Government on their international offer to businesses in the devolved nations. The Department promotes capital projects in Wales to international investors, such as Cardiff’s Central Quay, and the new Shaping Swansea regeneration project.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral questions, I have hosted my German and French counterparts at Chevening to discuss Iran and Belarus. I visited Washington where I met Vice-President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, and others, to discuss the free trade agreement and a whole range of foreign policy issues. In late September I visited South Korea and Vietnam to forge closer partnerships and discuss our application for ASEAN dialogue partner status.
Jack Brereton
With tensions increasing in the China-Pakistan-India border area, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are willing to redouble efforts to resolve the long-standing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in this issue, and he will know that India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We have encouraged, and continue to encourage, both sides to engage in the dialogue that is necessary to find a lasting diplomatic solution to the situation in Kashmir, and to maintain regional stability. It is, of course, ultimately for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, taking into account the wider issues of the people of Kashmir.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has said that the Chinese Government must accept the responsibilities that come with being a leading member of the international community, and he has rightly highlighted the egregious human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Since July, he has apparently been gathering evidence to impose targeted sanctions against the officials involved, but so far we have seen very little action. Today China is standing to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council. While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s willingness to speak out about this issue, surely, today of all days, we should take a clear moral stance and show that the UK has more than words at our disposal. Will he confirm that we will oppose China taking a seat on that council?
Dominic Raab
I suspect the hon. Lady will know that the UK has a long practice, under successive Governments, of not commenting on voting in UN elections that are conducted by secret ballot—[Interruption.] Never under a Labour Government: the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is wrong. The hon. Lady and I stand in total solidarity on the point of principle. We have unequivocally made clear to China our grave concern about Xinjiang. On 6 October, since we last met, the UK joined 38 other countries in the UN Third Committee to call on China to allow immediate and unfettered access to independent UN observers.
Lisa Nandy
May I say to the Foreign Secretary, who is a former human rights lawyer, that it is quite desperate and a sign of our diminished influence in the world that the UK is not willing to take a stance on this important issue? We are deeply concerned about our relations with the rest of the world. Whether it is the covid vaccine, climate change, the Iran deal, west bank annexation, NATO or Scotch whisky, the Government appear to have no influence at all in Washington at the moment when we most need it. We are told that they are now scrambling to repair the damage to relations with Joe Biden and his team. There is no greater indication of why that matters than the case of Harry Dunn. In July, the Foreign Secretary told the House he had reached an agreement with the US about immunity arrangements for Croughton annex. His repeated refusal to publish that agreement has fuelled the family’s anguish and underlined the widespread belief that his Department has chosen to side with the US Government over its own citizens. Why does he believe that neither Parliament nor the family of Harry Dunn should see the small print of this important agreement with the United States?
Dominic Raab
We did indeed change the arrangements, exactly as I undertook to the family and to the House. We also issued a written ministerial statement, which set out the terms. When the Labour party was in government, at two points when they reviewed the arrangements for Croughton, they did not make a WMS and they did not put into the public domain the memorandum of understanding. It has been standard practice not to do so and I think the hon. Lady knows that.
Mr Speaker
I am going to say to both Front Benchers once again that from today onwards—just a warning—I will be stopping questions that are too long. Topicals are meant to be short and punchy for the benefit of everyone. I have got to get through a list. Please, let us help to make sure that other hon. Members get on it.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I reassure my hon. Friend that the raison d’être of the merger is to bring together our aid clout and heft with our diplomatic reach and muscle. If he looks at the visit I made to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, he will see the support we provided for the Palestinians in dealing with covid alongside our diplomatic support for a two-state solution; if he looks at the situation in Yemen, he will see that we are doing the same; and he will see the same in our response to the explosion in the port of Beirut. I think he will find that we are practising what we preach, which brings together the aid—taxpayers’ money—with our diplomatic muscle to make a real difference on the ground.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Turkey is a close NATO ally, but that has never stopped us from raising human rights across the whole range. We will obviously continue to do so as a part of our partnership.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
We have a European Council this week. The scope and the prospects for a deal are there. I am hopeful that we can close the gap, but ultimately it will require the same good will, the same pragmatism and the same flexibility on the EU side that the United Kingdom and this Prime Minister have shown.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Lady’s view about the importance of scrutiny. We have made clear our commitment to not just maintain but strengthen the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Select Committees of the House are ultimately a matter for the usual channels and for the House, but we will make sure that the FCDO is willing to be scrutinised however the House decides.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in government; I know her commitment on this issue. She will know that since 2015, the UK has supported 8 million girls to gain a decent education. What is important is not just the number, but the quality of education. Our global objective is to help 40 million girls into a decent education. That is a key focus of our use of ODA—this touches on the point about merging DFID and the Foreign Office—and it is also one of our top priorities for 2021, both with the summit that she mentioned and our G7 presidency.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I absolutely agree with the concern that the hon. Lady has raised. Bringing ODA into the FCDO gives us the opportunity to raise these issues diplomatically, as well as to look very carefully at our aid budget. We are a member of the International Religious Freedom Alliance. We are looking to co-host one of the next summits, whether that is next year or the following year, depending on covid, and the issue that she raises will be very much at the top of our agenda.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
We continue to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity in the region. We currently have over 200 EU sanctions listings in place against Iran, including against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and FCDO officials take every opportunity to discuss Iran with our US counterparts. As part of this regular dialogue, the Foreign Secretary last spoke to Secretary Pompeo on 16 September.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of raising human rights. The most recent thing we did, with my French and German counterparts as E3, was démarche Tehran on the human rights situation, including not only the case that he raises but the fate and arbitrary detention of the UK dual nationals held in Iran.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the shifting economics and the shifting geopolitical centre of gravity. We have more co-operation with South America, as well as other regions, and that will be crucial if we are to shift the dial on climate change. Earlier this week I had a strategic dialogue with my Brazilian opposite number that was very much about not only the issues he raises but tackling deforestation and sustainable commodity use.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Dominic Raab
Turkey is a close partner and a strategic ally in NATO and has Council of Europe obligations. We raise the whole suite of international obligations that apply as a matter both of customary international law, and of the conventions that Turkey itself has signed up to.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
Dominic Raab
That is a good example for all the other challenges we have; it is an area where we must work with China if we are going to shift the dial on climate change. China is the largest emitter, but also the largest investor in renewables. My right hon. Friend will have seen the welcome recent commitment by China to be carbon neutral by 2060. In that and other areas—including, for example, the recent UN General Assembly leaders’ pledge for nature on biodiversity, co-led by the UK—we want to work with China. We will not persuade others to step up to the plate unless we can shift the dial with China.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
James Cleverly
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an important strategic partner, and we recognise its right to defend itself against attack from parties within Yemen. The UK has a stringent arms control regime, and it is used whenever we work with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in terms of arms trade with them.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend brings the passion for journalism that he had outside this House to the core of this issue. He is right to say that we value the role of the BBC World Service in projecting UK soft power around the world, and I will look very carefully at future funding in the context of the spending review.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Saudi Arabia has been an ally of ours against terrorism for some time. Foremost among Saudis, the erstwhile crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef was a great friend of this country. He has now disappeared from public life, with great concerns over his safety. Will the Foreign Secretary make plain the importance of Prince bin Nayef’s safety to the United Kingdom Government?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done in this area. We will of course look very carefully at the case he raises, and I understand the point that he makes.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Canada and the Netherlands have formally joined the International Court of Justice case, led by Gambia, on the genocide against the Rohingya people by the Myanmar Government. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the UK Government, despite being a penholder on the UN Security Council, for instance, in relation to Burma, have not done so, and when he plans to change that? Will he meet me and my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the rights of the Rohingya to discuss this matter further?
Dominic Raab
We have a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers’ meeting coming up, where we will be looking at the further amount of support we are providing to ease the humanitarian plight of the Rohingya. We have looked at the ICJ proceedings and will continue to keep those under close review.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make about Select Committees. On Tuesday 24 March the House passed an order allowing for virtual participation in Select Committee meetings and giving Chairs associated powers to make reports. I was given the power under the order to extend it if necessary. On Wednesday 22 July I announced an extension until Friday 30 October. I can notify the House today that I am now further extending the order until Friday 22 January.
Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support
(4 years, 1 month 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)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor set out further measures to support local authorities through the crisis. On Friday, the Chancellor set out how we will support jobs in every part of the UK through an extension of the job support scheme, and these announcements build on the Chancellor’s September statement on the winter economic plan.
Throughout the pandemic the economic policy focus has been clear—to save jobs. Last month, we set out our plans to help viable businesses that can open through the job support scheme. However, businesses that are required to close due to coronavirus restrictions will also need our help. On Friday, the Chancellor announced the expansion of the job support scheme. Where coronavirus restrictions legally require business premises to close, we will pay up to two thirds of an employee’s salary, up to £2,100 a month, if they cannot work for a week or more. The scheme is nationwide and will run for six months.
In addition, businesses in England required to close will be eligible for a non-repayable cash grant of up to £3,000 a month. This can be used for any business costs. On Friday the Chancellor and I agreed with the First Minister of Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland and the Finance Minister of Scotland on this additional package of support. We have now also guaranteed an extra £1.3 billion of funding to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations if they decide to do something similar, bringing total guaranteed Barnett funding for this year to £14 billion.
In addition, as announced yesterday, we are providing local authorities in England with around £1 billion to protect vital services, and up to £500 million for local authorities at high or very high risk.
These measures build on the Government’s economic package, one of the most generous in the world, and underline our unwavering commitment to the people of this country.
Anneliese Dodds
Just over a month ago the Conservatives passed a motion in the House stating that
“any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”
The first deviation came two weeks later when the Chancellor announced his sink-or-swim job support scheme, design faults in which are already leading to substantial and unnecessary job losses. The second deviation came as a belated response to the imposition of localised restrictions announced on television last Friday, with further measures announced yesterday—yet Leicester, for example, has been under localised restrictions for over 100 days. The Chancellor told us to learn our new limits as we go. His handling of the economic crisis is testing patience to its limits, especially the patience of those whose jobs are threatened.
The Government must answer many critical questions, but here are just three: first, why will local areas be provided with support for test, trace and isolate only once they are already in tier 3? This is indefensible. Secondly, there is £1.3 billion-worth of unspent local grants. Why will not the Government allow this money to be used to support local businesses in affected areas? Thirdly, why are workers in closed businesses expected to face poverty as a result of the businesses they work for doing the right thing?
Steve Barclay
It is slightly odd that Opposition Front Benchers talk about deviation when their position has deviated as much as it has, not least on the curfew, which they said they would support yet refused to.
On the hon. Lady’s points of substance, the package of support announced by the Chancellor and Prime Minister did support local authorities with an additional £1 billion, as I said in my opening remarks, plus a further £500 million to address trace and trace locally, reflecting the fact that the Government are listening to local leaders and bringing forward responses. We saw that with the additional funding allocated to Merseyside and to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—again reflecting our listening in conversations with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about underspends that has been made by a number of colleagues. She is right to point to the sheer extent of support that we have offered, including the grants of £10,000 and £25,000. To deliver them at pace, they were allocated on the estimations that we had. As a result, the actual spend that has been required has led to some local authorities having very big underspends and others not. If we were to say that the authorities where the estimates were incorrect should benefit disproportionately, we would be accused of treating some unfairly compared with others. We met the need that was addressed at that time through the awards.
It is right from a fiscal point of view that the underspends are returned because they are surplus to the requirement on which they were allocated. In last week’s urgent question issues were raised by Merseyside Members, and ministerial colleagues engaged, listened and the funding for Merseyside more than doubled per head.
It is a slightly odd line of attack for the Opposition to say that we should not bring back underspends where they met their need but the estimations were inaccurate, yet not use the money to respond to the legitimate needs of areas such as Merseyside and elsewhere that are being moved into tier 3.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I help the Minister? He is meant to be speaking through the Chair and not to the other end of the Chamber, and I hope that we can work together on this. Has he finished the answer to that question?
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done a great deal to support the economy, but there has to be a careful balance struck between protecting against the virus and avoiding further economic destruction. With that in mind, what scientific evidence has the Treasury received that closing pubs at 10 pm gets that balance right?
Steve Barclay
We have to balance the evidence that the Government receive from a range of quarters. My right hon. Friend will recall that when the initial advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies was put forward, the Government came forward with a range of measures, such as the rule of six and the curfew. Indeed, if we look at the projections that were made at that time, we see that we could potentially have had 49,000 or so daily cases by 14 October when in actual fact the figure on that date was 12,872. That indicates the fact that the package of measures put in place by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had an influence. However, listening to the SAGE advice, it is recognised that we need to go further and that is why the tiered approach has been set out.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is proving exactly what Tory values are with this dogged determination to return to 1980s levels of unemployment. Switching away from the rhetoric of whatever it takes to hard choices exposes the fact that protecting jobs was an empty promise even before the end of furlough. He is risking more than 60,000 jobs in Scotland alone. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear. It says:
“Despite the claim by Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week that he would ‘always balance the books’, this will not happen, and he would be most unwise to try.”
Mass unemployment is a terrible policy, so will the Minister urge his boss to change course even at this late stage and extend furlough to save jobs, to use returned moneys to help those who have been excluded and to listen to the SNP demands for an £80 billion stimulus package? Will he listen to the nearly 70% of the Scottish public who want financial powers devolved to Scotland, or are the Government going just simply to plough ahead ignoring Scotland’s needs and further proving that Scotland needs the powers of independence?
Steve Barclay
It is a slightly odd premise to say that the Conservative Government are not supporting the response when we have spent more than £200 billion as part of that response, when we are currently supporting nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, when 8.9 million people across the United Kingdom have benefited from the furlough scheme and more than half of those are back in their jobs, and when more than 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from our loan scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in one aspect of his question. This Government are true to Conservative values and those are the values of the Union. It is through the shared broad shoulders that we are able to put in place the fiscal package of support that has enabled us to protect as many jobs in Scotland and around the UK as we have.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Surely the Minister will recognise that the Welsh Government face the same task as UK Ministers in needing to manage their budget in the face of the unprecedented pressures brought about by the pandemic. That task is made harder by the lack of transparency from the UK Treasury. We know that the IFS has called on the UK Treasury to follow Wales’ example in publishing budget adjustments in full so that we know what announcements apply to Wales and how much budget is available. Will the Minister today agree to publish the information around the decisions so that we have transparency and Welsh Ministers can make decisions with confidence?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman talks about transparency for the Welsh Government. The Chancellor had a call last Friday, which I joined, with the First Minister of Wales as part of our transparency with the Welsh Government, so it is slightly odd to say that we are not being transparent. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are issues that need to be managed by the devolved Administrations and the concern he sets out is exactly why we provided the upfront guarantee on Barnett consequentials. We recognise that, in order that the Welsh Government can make decisions in advance of knowing what the Barnett consequentials are, it is important to give a forward-looking guarantee on that. That is why we gave the additional guarantee of £1.3 billion to the devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Government, as a response to the point that he raises.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
A tenth of pubs have not reopened since lockdown in March while two thirds were already trading at a loss, even before restricted opening times, mandatory table service and the new restrictions announced yesterday. Will my right hon. Friend look at the support that is available for pubs that are not yet compelled to close, but are legally prevented from operating economically, and in particular state aid limits that threaten to prevent 10,000 pubs from receiving the support they need? Without that support, many thousands of pubs will close their doors and never reopen.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is a champion of the pub sector and he speaks to the fact that it faces many challenges, but that is why we have been trying to strike a balance. Some would say the curfew is insufficient, but part of it is about recognising the very real pressures on the pub sector that he speaks to. Other colleagues in the House sometimes talk of the Sweden model but, as he will know, in Sweden the 2-metre rule is often more difficult for the hospitality sector and the pubs to adjust to. Ultimately, that is why the Chancellor set out the wider package of support, recognising the concerns he speaks of with the tax deferrals, the loans, the business rate support and the measures on VAT, which are targeted at the sector because of the very real concerns he correctly articulates.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My Aberavon constituents are increasingly concerned about the practice of firing then re-hiring, whereby unscrupulous employers are using the pandemic as a cover to sack their employees and then re-hire them on inferior terms and conditions. What steps are the Government taking to tackle this completely unacceptable practice and to exclude firms that engage in these behaviours from Government support schemes?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern that is shared across the House. It is wrong for companies to act in that way. One purpose of the furlough is to retain that link between the labour market, the person and their job. The furlough bonus is designed to strengthen that link, so people are brought back. He takes a constructive approach to these issues and I am happy to work with him in the weeks and months ahead, because this is a practice that all of us in the House would condemn. The schemes we have designed try to retain the link with the worker to prevent that sort of practice.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Stockton South has some of the best bars, pubs, restaurants and breweries in the country, and many play an important role at the heart of the community. So far, they have benefited from a fantastic package of support, but the tier 2 restrictions pose a huge challenge. What will the Government do to protect jobs and ensure that we do not hospitalise our hospitality sector?
Steve Barclay
It is about getting the right balance because, ultimately, the most damaging thing for those pubs in tier 2 would be a further escalation of the virus and a situation in which they faced further restrictions. We have sought to ensure, first, that they can continue trading through tier 2, while having alongside the package of support for jobs, which the Chancellor set out in our winter plan to back those jobs with Government support, as well as a cash flow package. Cash flow will remain a key challenge as we go through the winter crisis, which is why we have such an extensive package supporting cash flow.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am sure the Minister was as concerned as me to hear reports that those people with businesses who take out bounce back loans to help them to follow the Government rules and survive this economic crisis—not just in their interest, but in all our interests—could face action up to and including repossession of their home if they struggle to repay those loans. Will he reassure not just the House, but people across the country, including in my constituency of Edinburgh West, that this Government will not allow that misery to be heaped on the misery already being suffered?
Steve Barclay
The very favourable terms of the bounce back loans were designed to deliver with speed. This was an initial challenge of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme; we received feedback from debate in the House and elsewhere that the speed was not there, so that was part of the design for the bounce back loans. Another part of the design was the Government guarantee to get that credit to people. We have extended access to that scheme and the possible repayment period, so that issue should not be crystallising at this point. Clearly we need to look at the risk with regard to repayments. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), I am happy to work with colleagues around the House, but the hon. Lady will be well aware of the package of measures that we have put in place to protect people vis-à-vis their mortgage and to protect renters from eviction.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is there any specific evidence that swimming pools and gyms are centres for covid transmission? Has any research been done into rising obesity and unfitness levels, and has any research been done into rising unemployment caused by the closure of gyms and pools that is now happening in parts of the UK?
Steve Barclay
In some ways, that is slightly more of a Health question than a Treasury question, but I recognise that there is read-across from those businesses into the economy. In short, the opinion of the chief medical officer and the chief scientific officer is that those businesses do carry significantly more risk, which is why they have been harder hit in the guidance that has been issued. The package of support that the Chancellor set out recognises that businesses that are closed need additional support, which is why the measures announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor yesterday spoke exactly to the issue of businesses that have been closed due to the guidelines.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The wisdom and necessity of some of the restrictions introduced yesterday have been questioned by leaders of cities in the north of England, by businesses and by the workers who are going to be affected, so it is right that the Government should introduce a package of support for businesses that are forced to close. However, there are many businesses that have not been instructed to close, but which will be forced to because of the restrictions placed on them. For example, the hospitality industry faces curfews, restrictions on table numbers and on who can sit at tables, and so on. How does this package of support assure those businesses that they are not going to be killed off by the restrictions that have been placed on them? They have been put in the firing line, yet seem to have been left without any level of support at all, given the conditions attached to this economic package.
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman speaks to an important issue, which was at the heart of the job support scheme’s design: recognising businesses that are not in closure, but which have difficulty bringing people back full time. The scheme provides support. The employer pays the first third, and the remaining amount is split three ways, with the Government supporting. Additionally, there is the wider package of measures, including support to local authorities to get better compliance, which is in the interests of businesses. The £1 billion to local authorities, the £500 million for local test and trace services, the business loans and the tax deferrals are all targeted at the sector that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about: businesses that can still trade and are not closed, but which do face further pressure. The winter plan sets out that support.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Care homes across the country are struggling to survive, and the areas with greater restrictions are particularly dealing with unprecedented levels of vacancies. What are the Government doing to support those vacancies and prevent the forced closure of care homes, which would in turn lead to many thousands of vulnerable people being rehoused or moved out across the community?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a strong interplay between the workforce challenges and the financial viability of the care home sector. One of the biggest risk factors is transmission as a result of staff, particularly agency staff, moving between care homes. He will know—and I know from my time as a Health Minister—that the financial pressures of that sector are not new pressures from this covid period; they are of long standing. The first tier of the £3.7 billion package of support that was initially allocated to local authorities was particularly directed at the adult social care sector. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are now on the second tranche of infection control funding to support these sectors. He speaks to a very real issue, which we are monitoring closely, and which is at the heart of how we address staff transfers between care homes and the infection risk that such transfers pose.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Government have said that schools will be among the last to close under any covid restrictions or lockdowns. Headteachers in my constituency have told me that they are having to pay additional costs for cleaning to keep schools safe. When will the Government announce additional funding for schools, so that this money does not come out of schools’ budgets, risking deficit for them?
Steve Barclay
As the Minister responsible for Government spending on behalf of the Chancellor, I would want to look closely at why the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is saying that that very significant uplift in funding for schools last year does not appear to be reaching the frontline. The education funding settlement in the 2019 spending round should more than cover the cleaning costs. I will happily look at that, but if he looks at the funding settlement allocated in SR19, I think he will accept that it was a very generous one.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is not surprising that more and more Members are calling for more Government support, because the Government are forcing more and more businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, out of business. The Chief Secretary says that his priority is to help business. The best way to help businesses is to let them get on and do business. We are going bankrupt as a nation—there will not be the money to pay for the NHS or pensions. What is the Treasury doing to row back against other parts of the Government and insist that we must allow British business to operate? He did not answer the question from the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—what is the scientific evidence for pubs closing at 10 o’clock? Is he leading the fight to help Britain to stay in business?
Steve Barclay
With respect, I did answer it. I pointed to the projection given by the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser at that time, the SAGE guidance and the fact that the package of measures put in place by the Prime Minister has resulted in a lower infection risk. The CMO and others would recognise that this is a range of measures. My right hon. Friend says that the Government have gone too far and that there is no evidence for the curfew. The tenor of most of the questions one gets is that we have not moved far enough and should be taking more drastic actions. That speaks to the fact that this is a balanced judgment. One needs to look at the range of measures we are taking, and that is what I would refer him to.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and the Vale of Glamorgan are under a local lockdown and dealing with the economic pressures that that brings. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is deeply disappointing that major local employers such as British Gas/Centrica are engaging in the type of “fire and rehire” tactics that we have seen others try to use, such as British Airways? What message does he have for the chief executive of British Gas/Centrica about those measures, which I believe are completely unacceptable in the current climate?
Steve Barclay
I do not think it is acceptable to have a “fire and rehire” culture. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) put it very well in his question, and I echo those sentiments. This is an area of common ground across the House. The package of measures we have put in place is to retain the link between a worker and their business, and that is very much the Government’s approach.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may remember that I raised with him last week the issue of tourism businesses in north Wales, which have been severely impacted by the decision of the Welsh Government to impose movement restrictions. Many of those businesses now face the prospect of closure, but they are not being required to close by the Government, and there is little help being offered by the Welsh Government. The expansion of the job support scheme last week was welcome, but that only benefits businesses that have been required to close by the relevant Administration. What further support can Her Majesty’s Government offer to Welsh tourism businesses, which are so badly affected by the current state of affairs?
Steve Barclay
Among the range of measures that we have put in place as support, one speaks directly to my right hon. Friend’s issue, which is the rent support of up to £3,000 for businesses that are forced to close. The Welsh Government can then use Barnett consequential funding to support businesses and to design a scheme as they see fit, but it is for the Welsh Government to design those schemes, not the UK Government. That is what devolution entails. What we have done through the comprehensive package of measures that we have put in place is ensure that there is Barnett consequential funding to allow the Welsh Government to put that support in place.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Like infectious diseases of the past, covid is a disease of poverty. Various indicators, including cuts to local authority funding, show that regional inequalities have been exacerbated over the past decade. Contrary to the Minister’s earlier remarks about the generosity of the packages to local authorities, only 10% of costs associated with the pandemic have been reimbursed by the Government. What is the Minister’s assessment of the actual impact that the recent announcement of measures have had on the Government’s ambition to level up?
Steve Barclay
If the hon. Lady looks at international comparators, she will see that the Government’s package of support—more than £200 billion—is generous. I point her to the job support scheme, for example. A number of colleagues across the House question whether the 67% is sufficient, but the point is that it is dynamic in conjunction with the additional funding that has been put into welfare. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady lets me answer the question, she will hear that I am talking about the support for people in businesses that have closed, which is an issue that all colleagues across the House take very seriously. [Interruption.] Well, that applies to regional equality. Opposition Members may not like the answer, but the question was: how does the UK compare with international comparators. I am pointing to the fact that the package of measures put in place—the furlough at 80% for eight months—was much more generous than that of most other countries. The business support package, including business rents, tax deferrals, loans, such as the bounce back loans and help to grow loans—we can go through the full list—bears comparison. The question over the past 24 hours is whether the latest measures bear international comparison. The point I was making is that if one looks at the French, German, Italian and other schemes, the two thirds support for those businesses that are closed, coupled with a dynamic relationship with the support on universal credit does bear favourable comparison with those, which is why I stand by my comments that, internationally, the UK has a world-leading package.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) [V]
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the tier 2 restrictions on social mixing are cutting the legs away from the hospitality industry. Equally, even in tier 3, restaurants will not necessarily be closed, but the fact remains that people are just not going to them. May I implore my right hon. Friend to extend the £3,000 grant to all hospitality venues in tiers 2 and 3 regardless of whether they are told to close? The industry is dying, because people are trying to do the right thing and not mix. Chief Secretary, the industries are open in name only. Please look at extending the available help before the industry is destroyed.
Steve Barclay
I hear the concerns of my right hon. Friend, but there is a balance that needs to be struck between the comprehensive nature and the fiscal cost of the range of packages that we have put in place and the measures that we have taken to control the virus. The balance that we have struck, in line with the advice that we have received, is about balancing how we control the virus with the wider implications not only for the economy, but for non-covid health issues as well. That is the balance that we are striking. Of course it is attractive for him to say that we should keep spending more and more, but we have already committed more than £200 billion.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s response to the covid crisis will follow the science. Last night, on a conference call with Professor Stephen Powys, the medical director for England, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) asked about the science behind the 10 pm curfew on pubs and restaurants. Professor Powys said that there was no specific advice and in his words it was a “policy decision”. Given that thousands of jobs and businesses are at risk in tier 2 areas such as the north-east, can the Minister tell us what the logic is behind this policy decision?
Steve Barclay
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that same SAGE guidance also says that there are multiple anecdotal reports of outbreaks linked to bars, and the Public Health England case control study also identifies visits to entertainment venues as a risk factor. It comes back to the point about balance. Some in the House say that there is a risk of infection in these hospitality venues and we should close them entirely; others say that we should have no restrictions at all. We have taken our decision on the basis that compliance tends to decrease later in the evening and that there are links to outbreaks in these venues. That is the balance that we have been striking.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a high degree of public opprobrium for employers who have taken advantage of the furlough scheme and then engaged in poor employment practice. Returning to “fire and rehire”, will he consider an immediate guillotine on any employer who sacked 50% or more of their staff and then rehired some or all on reduced pay, so as to disqualify those employers from any further form of direct Government support, including the furlough retention bonus?
Steve Barclay
It is very many years since I gave legal advice as a community lawyer, but one of the things I remember is that in employment law there is often a lot of complexity around what can and cannot be done. The wider point that has been raised in the House, and which my hon. Friend’s question points to, is that there is a consensus that it is not acceptable for businesses to be doing that. Going back to the very first statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave as we started on the response to covid, he said that how people conduct themselves throughout this pandemic will be remembered. With regard those businesses that do act in this way, we will obviously need to look at that in due course.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Given the Chief Secretary’s answers on “fire and rehire”, which I am very much heartened to hear, I hope that he will back my Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill. With no aviation support package as promised, the job support scheme riddled with holes and the abolition of airside tax-free shopping, further debt or job losses are the only options for firms. It is akin to 1980’s policies of “sink or swim”. Last week’s statement was completely silent on the sector. Is it now Treasury policy to write off aviation, making tens of thousands of jobs unviable?
Steve Barclay
The reality is that the aerospace and aviation sectors have received over £8.5 billion through the covid corporate financing facility. Grants for research and development, loans and export guarantees are also expected over the next 18 months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently launched the Global Travel Taskforce, which underscores the Government’s commitment to this sector. The hon. Gentleman talks about support. The aviation sector has benefited from our comprehensive package of measures, whether it is the furlough or tax deferral schemes, or all the other measures that we have put in place. That is all part of the wider support that we have given to UK business as a result of the broad shoulders we have as a United Kingdom.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
UKHospitality reports trade down by 40% to 60% due to the ban on the indoor mixing of households. Can I therefore add my name to that of other colleagues who have called for my right hon. Friend to commit to urgently reviewing what targeted support could be provided for enterprises stuck in tier 2, who, as it stands, receive very little specific help but will still suffer huge losses of trade from additional restrictions that come with tier 2, and ultimately will really struggle to stay open?
Steve Barclay
The most important thing for businesses in tier 2 is that we are able to control the virus. That is why the Government are investing as heavily as we are in track and trace—over £12 billion so far—and enabling businesses in tier 2 to retain their staff, which, again, is what the winter plan and the job support package is doing. The Government have made targeted interventions in support of businesses in tier 2, but we need to balance that against the wider fiscal position that we face.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Minister will surely know by now that my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf has had local restrictions imposed on it for some weeks now. The Chancellor, when he can be bothered to show up, talks a good game, but it is clear that this Government do not care about people in communities across Wales. It was only earlier this year that Pontypridd was decimated by the worst flooding for many decades, and the UK Government simply sat on their hands and watched as homes and businesses were devastated. The Minister now has an opportunity to redeem himself and this Government. We need action now on the money that was promised, so what are his plans to finally assist the 3 million people who have been excluded from the Government support packages thus far?
Steve Barclay
On the issue of the excluded campaign, we have covered this pretty much every time we have come to the House, for the reasons we have set out. On support for Wales, the point the hon. Lady makes is at odds with the reality; in the urgent question last week, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the issue of some specific flood damage support, and between then and now we have addressed it, and I have written to him indicating the support available. The hon. Lady makes a point about the wider support without any mention of the guarantee on Barnett consequentials that has been given. It is unprecedented for the Government to give a guarantee up front on Barnett consequentials, yet she does not even mention it in her question.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Track and Trace nationally gets a bad press, wrongly in my view, but when we add a local tier, with local people employed, the success rate on contacts climbs. Calderdale’s local tier takes the success rate on contacts to almost 90%. How much extra support is being given to these local tiers, which are another tool in the armoury to help protect business and local residents?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of benefiting from the local knowledge on track and trace, which is why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million to address exactly the point my hon. Friend highlights about the benefit of working closely with local directors of public health. That is exactly what we are doing, and the funding announced by the Prime Minister and Chancellor yesterday will enable that work to accelerate.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, I held a roundtable with hospitality businesses facing tier 2 restrictions, at which a restaurant owner said that his business would just bleed out with the economic support that was available. They asked whether we could look at increasing the intervention rate for the job support scheme in November in order to be more generous, because otherwise they will have to let go of their staff and there is the potential for large-scale closures of hospitality businesses. What additional measures can the Government bring forward for hospitality businesses that are under tier 2 restrictions?
Steve Barclay
Again, I appreciate the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of businesses in his constituency, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) a moment ago, by international standards the package of support the Chancellor has put in place stands fair comparison. That interaction between the support for those jobs and businesses that are able to be open, and the additional £7 billion of welfare support through universal credit, provides dynamic support for the workers to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend spoke a few moments ago about the important role being played by universal credit at this time, so may I press him again on the Treasury’s intentions on the temporary uplift in universal credit? It is one thing for a Government to reduce a planned rate of increase of a benefit or even to freeze a benefit, but it is another thing altogether to give extra money to some of the poorest people in the country and then take that away. That is precisely what we are on course to do next April unless we change course, so will the Minister address that issue?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raised exactly the same issue at our urgent question last week, and I know he has a huge understanding of it from his time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He knows full well that the announcement made was a temporary one to deal with the immediate consequences of the covid pandemic, and with all these decisions we need to balance the competing pressures at a particular time with the wider fiscal position.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Fish and seafood wholesalers have been hit hard by a decline in demand from the hospitality sector. I have been contacted by My Fish Company, which is based in Fleetwood and which is concerned that the Government’s domestic seafood supply scheme appears to favour the larger national companies because of the short period of time in which to make an application and the level of resources that would require. So what reassurances can the Chief Secretary give to my constituents and companies based in Fleetwood, many of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, that the Government scheme is going to deliver for them?
Steve Barclay
When we agreed that scheme, it was very much with SMEs in mind. I would be quite keen to look at the delivery of that and to speak to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As the hon. Member knows, as part of this wider package of support, and after listening to businesses such as the ones to which she refers, we put in place a £10 million support package in England for the fishing sector. That was about recognising that the restaurant trade in particular as a market had been hit and also that exports had been hit. We recognised that there was a pressure in the fishing sector and we provided support for it. I am grateful to her for drawing the House’s attention to the support that the Government have given to the fishing sector. If there is a particular constituency issue, I will ask DEFRA colleagues to look at it.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
In Bassetlaw and north Nottinghamshire, we are now subject to tier 2 restrictions in line with Nottingham and the rest of the county, despite having significantly lower rates. Despite the tremendous support that has been offered so far, some in the hospitality sector are really struggling, as we have heard from colleagues in the Chamber, so will the Minister please tell us what can be done for those in tier 2 to help them to get through this incredibly difficult time? Will he also try to keep this under review?
Steve Barclay
In part, it is our winter plan to support those businesses in terms of the staff they are able to bring back. There is no gap between the end of the furlough scheme, which has run for eight months—by international standards, an extremely generous measure—and the start of the job support scheme. On top of that, there are the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on the extension of loans to help with cash flow, and on top of that there are the measures that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced yesterday—the extra £1 billion, the extra £500 million to local authorities, to help those businesses to control those things. That is ultimately why, collectively, we all have a responsibility to keep the virus down in order that those businesses in tier 2 are able to trade and come down into tier 1 as soon as possible.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
Local lockdowns will undoubtedly affect small businesses that have already struggled due to the initial lockdown earlier this year. In my constituency, traders at Chrisp Street market and Watney market were impacted by the lack of Government support earlier in the year. Some of those traders operate from rented lock-ups, where their goods are stored, and business rates for those properties are paid for by the leaseholder, meaning that market traders did not benefit from business rates relief and therefore suffered financial hardship. May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what further financial support can be provided for those local businesses that are not covered by business rates relief in the event of a local lockdown?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that when the Government put in place the £10,000 and £25,000 grants of support linked to premises, market traders fell outside of that scheme because it was based on property. The specific issue of market traders was raised with us, and in response we put in place a further support scheme giving discretionary grants to local authorities in order that they could tailor that additional funding to local circumstances. I think she could raise this issue with her local council and ask why it has not used the discretionary grants to support those traders to whom she refers.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I hugely welcome the expanded jobs support scheme, which is so important, but what it does not do is help those businesses that supply the events industry—for example, the sound engineers and lighting engineers and, in my constituency, Beat the Street, which provides tour buses to the music industry. It has not been forced to shut down, but it has seen its trade wiped out. I urge my right hon. Friend to think of ways in which he can help companies such as that, which employ in excess of 150 people and can see no end in sight to their current financial woes.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights an industry and a sector that have been particularly hit. Again, we have tried, through the package of measures such as the extension of the self-employed income support scheme, to help some of those within that sector. I think the business to which she is referring is more a pay-as-you-earn one, but it is often freelancers who work in, say, the lighting sector and the events sector, and they have been particularly impacted. That is why the self-employed scheme was introduced. To some extent, and given the over £200 million of support, the Chancellor has been very candid, as have I, about the fact that we were not in a position as a Government to save every single job. We are working with colleagues—I am always happy to work with my right hon. Friend—to look at what measures we can take, but it has to be balanced against the wider fiscal position.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for all the support they have given to jobs and businesses over this period. However, as we move to the next stage of our battle, to echo other colleagues, will my right hon. Friend at least agree to keep an open mind about further support for hospitality businesses in tier 2, which are not required to close, but are going to struggle with reduced capacity? I am sure none of us wants to see hollowed-out communities as pubs permanently call last orders.
Steve Barclay
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; I think the Chancellor has demonstrated throughout the health pandemic that he has both kept an open mind and consulted widely, with the TUC, business leaders and many others. That is why for hospitality specifically we had a range of measures in the summer, with eat out to help out, the targeted VAT support and cash support measures, and the job support for staff coming back, where the Government helped with some of those labour costs. Of course the Chancellor will keep these things under review, but the key issue for all of us is to get the virus down, and that is the best way of helping our hospitality sector.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Yesterday, my constituency of Wallasey, as part of the Liverpool city region, was mandated by the Government to go into tier 3 restrictions. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the £40 million of unallocated support that his Government gave to the city region at the start of the pandemic could now be used, given that we are in tier 3, to support local businesses that are in the worst form of lockdown?
Steve Barclay
We did address this issue; I recognise that many hon. Members in the House have raised it on behalf of those councils where the initial estimate was at odds with the actual number of grants issued, but for the same reasons I gave earlier I do not think that would be equitable. Where there are pressures with tier 3, as with the conversations that took place for example between the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and leaders in Merseyside, among others, over the weekend, it is right that the needs are addressed pertaining to tier 3, not that the underspend on funding that was allocated in a previous period is then used in that way. If the Government were to agree that, many hon. Members across the House would feel that that was unfair.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the package of support that was put in place yesterday, but may I raise again with him companies in the supply chain for the hospitality industry and the events and exhibition industry? He mentioned a moment ago the discretionary criterion available, but unfortunately local councils are not often using that. I ask him to look at the eligibility criteria for grants and support, which were raised yesterday. Many in the events and hospitality industry want to reopen, so will he meet me so we can arrange how it can be done safely?
Steve Barclay
First of all , I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and I welcome the constructive approach that he always takes on these issues. In terms of eligibility, part of the design of the discretionary grant was to give discretion to local authorities to apply it in different ways, and it would be slightly at odds with that for the Government to say that there must be a particular way of applying it. However, he speaks to a sector that I know has been particularly hard hit by covid; we recognise that, and it is a factor that has shaped a number of the approaches we have brought forward, particularly on things such as cash flow. I am very happy to speak with him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I be helpful to the Chief Secretary, as I have been sometimes in the past? I am the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield in west Yorkshire; we are tier 2 and, like so many parts of the country, we will be facing vast problems of youth unemployment. May I be very helpful by asking him to look at Margaret Thatcher’s history? She introduced a windfall profit tax on the banks. Why cannot he introduce a windfall profit tax year on Amazon, the gambling sector—you name it; we know who has done well in this crisis—and then use that money to fund a wonderful green revolution, with new green businesses, new green training and new green jobs for young people?
Steve Barclay
I have always found the hon. Gentleman constructive, and I welcome the fact that he is looking at the fiscal position we face as a country and how we may address that. It would be remiss of me, given my responsibilities, to stray into the terrain of the next Budget and tax-raising measures; I will leave that for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the very serious issue of youth unemployment. I think it is an issue that concerns us all in this House. The sectors that are most hit have concentrations of young people, particularly in the hospitality sector. It is really at the heart of the winter plan that my right hon. Friend brought forward in doubling the number of work coaches, in tripling the number of traineeships and with the £2,000 for apprenticeships. We have been looking at and learning from not just the Thatcher era, but actually from the previous Labour Government with some of the packages we discussed with the TUC and others. One of the great challenges we face is how we address not just the number of people who are unemployed, but the length of time they are unemployed. That is an absolutely key issue, and that is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is so focused on doubling the number of work coaches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight that issue.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent is currently in medium risk tier 1, but we all know that any area can see an increase in infection rates. With the introduction of the tier system, many workers in the highest tier will once again be unable to go to work and make a living for themselves and their families. Will my right hon. Friend please reassure me that those who are unable to attend their place of work will continue to be supported by this Government, particularly those from low-income households with rents to pay?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has sought to do that throughout this crisis. In the interests of brevity—as requested from the Chair—I would point to the example we had with the shielding programme. I think it was a very proud record, which indicates that intent.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
It is a shame the Chancellor is not here today because the Treasury needs to get a better answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and others: what is the evidence, not anecdotes, to back up the case for the curfew and lockdown for the vast hospitality sector, which is facing closures, cashflow crises and job losses across pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafés, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos, theatres and cinemas, gyms and wedding venues? Treasury Ministers either have to secure a change in direction of Government lockdown policy or they have to up the level of support. Which is it going to be?
Steve Barclay
The fact that, in the course of this urgent question, we have been criticised both for not locking down enough and for locking down too much indicates that these are balanced decisions. The right hon. Member is right to point to the SAGE advice, which I know got a lot of media commentary this morning. In an earlier reply, I addressed the fact that there are concerns about outbreaks linked to bars and whether compliance is worse later at night, but that is part of the package of measures. That is why, in September, we brought in the additional measures we did. It is why, yesterday, the Prime Minister went further with a tiered approach, but it is a balanced approach.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
In answer to an earlier question, the Chief Secretary talked about the interaction of the job support scheme and universal credit. Could he perhaps flesh out a specific example? I think I am right in saying that people getting support from both of those schemes can get up to about 90% of their income, which is obviously of huge benefit. I would reinforce the point of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). I accept that the UC extra money was temporary during the pandemic, but the Government’s own strategy document suggests that the pandemic will not be over by next April. I do not expect an answer today—[Laughter]—but it is something for the Treasury to think about.
Steve Barclay
On the wider point, my right hon Friend, as a former Government Chief Whip, knows full well that in government one balances these Budget submissions alongside the wider fiscal position that the Government face. On his first point, he is absolutely right. If we combine the 67% of support through the job support scheme with the dynamic element of universal credit, that takes us much more towards 88%. I can give specific examples, but I have been asked to be briefer—by you, Mr Speaker—in my replies. The point is that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, and I am very happy to share some examples with him.
Mr Speaker
Especially when the Member does not want an answer, Minister! [Laughter.]
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
Without additional financial support, the restrictions to which South Yorkshire will be subject will deal a hammer blow to businesses and high streets across our region. Can I ask the Chief Secretary what assessment the Treasury has done on the economic effect of the tier 2 measures, and whether he is personally satisfied that the current support available will be enough to save jobs and businesses here in South Yorkshire?
Steve Barclay
I know through his local responsibilities that the hon. Member is in conversation with my ministerial colleagues in the wider discussions on our response. The reality is, as I said earlier, that one cannot be satisfied that every job in the area will be protected. It is about having a balance of measures that enables those businesses to be open that can be and takes action on the virus to suppress the increase. The previous question from one of his own parliamentary colleagues was to say that we should not be going as far as we are. He is saying, as I understand it, that we should be going further, but with wider support. That points to the fact that even within our own parties we have these debates.
It is about getting the balance. We have brought forward what is by international standards a very supportive package that combines the additional billion pounds to local authorities and the extra £500 million to localise track and trace, which the hon. Member and other local leaders have called for. We have listened to those representations, and that is reflected. I hope he welcomes that, and I look forward to working with him constructively in the days and weeks ahead.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Oadby and Wigston in my constituency was the first place in the country to receive extra support because of our local lockdown. I pay tribute to Treasury officials and Ministers for putting it in place so quickly, but what is being done through the kickstart scheme and other schemes to create new jobs and to fight unemployment?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and it speaks to the point raised on youth unemployment a moment ago. We have invested £2 billion in the kickstart scheme. We are tripling traineeships. We have the £2,000 for firms taking on apprenticeships. That is something that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is particularly focused on, as well as the doubling of work coaches. Linked to that is our investment in green jobs through net zero and the package that was announced by the Chancellor, including the decarbonisation of public buildings and homes and the creation of green jobs. We are bringing forward the £5 billion infrastructure package that the Prime Minister announced the week before the summer economic update. We then need to link those jobs to skills through schemes such as the kickstart, so that for those who are not able to retain their jobs, we are able to get them into the new jobs of the future.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
It is important that the Government understand the reality of people’s lives as new restrictions are introduced. Figures from the Low Pay Commission show that around 1,800 people in Wirral West are paid at or around the minimum wage. Many people on low pay work in bars and restaurants, and I am very concerned about the impact that the new restrictions will have on their ability to pay their bills. What action will the Government take to ensure that working people in Wirral West do not face poverty as a result of these new measures?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that worry that many people have, particularly with the additional announcements. That is why we have taken the action we have, with the additional £7 billion into welfare to enable universal credit to top-up where there is an impact on people’s wages. That combination of the job support scheme and universal credit speaks exactly to the concerns she raises.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Government have rightly put in several billion pounds directly to support the rail industry, but that is in sharp contrast to the aviation sector, where very little direct specific support has been provided. In many parts of the country, our domestic air routes and our regional airports are just as much vital transport infrastructure as the railway is, so will my right hon. Friend please look again at what support can be given to the aviation sector, particularly our regional airports?
Steve Barclay
I know that my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the aviation sector, not least because he and I have discussed the issue. I know he has championed it within Government. It is not the case that the aviation sector has not had support. I pointed earlier to the £8.5 billion through the corporate financing facility. In terms of Government focus on the sector, he is absolutely right that it is an important sector for the UK to focus on. We have the largest aviation network in Europe, the third largest in the world. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important sector, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has launched a global travel taskforce, and is working with the travel industry as part of that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Local lockdowns affect a far wider range of businesses than just those that are forced to close. Food and drink suppliers such as Edinburgh Beer Factory in my constituency will be severely affected. Small and medium enterprises such as that are the backbone of the Scottish economy, so why has the Chancellor’s furlough replacement scheme so drastically slashed support for innovative and thriving businesses such as the Edinburgh Beer Factory?
Steve Barclay
It has not. It has provided a universal offer to all firms that are able to be open, for exactly the reason at the heart of her question. She is quite right that the displacement impact goes far beyond areas in tier 3 or tier 2. Businesses supplying them are affected. We had a question earlier about support for the fishing industry. One of the key challenges with the fishing industry was exactly the point to which she refers—they were supplying other businesses that had been affected, and that is why we put £10 million of support into that sector.
We have taken a universal approach. It is at odds, though, with the questions we often get in the House, which are very much about whether we can support this sector or that sector. We have taken a universal approach because we recognise that one cannot necessarily draw a geographical line around the suppliers of businesses that are impacted.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
On Sunday evening, Mayor Andy Street was told that Solihull would be in tier 1. The day afterwards we appeared in tier 2. Does the Minister recognise the crushing blow that that gives to the hospitality industry and that tier 2 is economically the worst of all possible worlds?
Steve Barclay
I think we all agree in this House that we want to do all we can to get the virus down and get businesses open. We do not want businesses to be in tier 2 or indeed tier 3. We want to support them so that they are able to function as much as possible.
The timing of moving between different tiers is shaped by a range of factors—the number of positive tests, the amount of testing that is being done, the views of the local director of public health and the views of local leaders such as Andy Street. We all want to ensure that as many businesses as possible remain in tier 1.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Data out today shows that over 1,700 more people in my constituency were unemployed in August 2020 than in August 2019, and that is before the existing furlough scheme ends. With unemployment in the north- east already rocketing to 6.6%, the highest of any UK region, why is the Chancellor allowing damage not seen since Thatcher in the 1980s to befall my region?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is usually one of the most constructive Members. To suggest that a pandemic that all countries are grappling with is down to some sort of ideological approach by the Government is not accurate. The Government have put in place a furlough scheme for eight months that stands very good comparison with those of other countries. We have more than £200 billion of measures to support businesses, including in her constituency, and that is not only to help retain people in jobs. From a peak of 8.9 million on furlough, more than half of those remained in employment through the job support scheme. We are ensuring that more businesses are able to bring their staff back. But at the same time we are being honest. Some businesses will not be able to survive. That is why we put £2 billion into the kickstart scheme. It is why we are tripling traineeships. It is why we put funding into apprenticeships, with a £2,000 sign-on. It is why we are bringing forward infra- structure investment. It is to create those jobs for her constituents.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
VAT cuts and business rates holidays were superb for the hospitality operators but unfortunately did not pass down to supply chains such as ceramic manufacturers. Flexibility needs to be introduced into the job support scheme to allow continuous manufacturers such as those in ceramics the ability to access the support of the scheme for their weekly workforce. What plans are being made to allow ceramic manufacturers such as Churchill China and Steelite the flexibility to access the support of this scheme?
Steve Barclay
There is always a balance between the operability of schemes, the speed at which one can deploy them and how bespoke one makes them. I know that my hon. Friend is a huge champion of the ceramics industry, and I know it is important to Stoke and to businesses in his constituency. If there are specific issues, I am happy to pick them up offline with him, but the key message we usually get from businesses is the importance of getting packages to people quickly and in particular of addressing the cash flow challenges that they face.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Last week, the Chancellor announced that workers at businesses and workplaces forced to close would be eligible for grants worth two thirds of their salary. That is clearly not enough. Will the Minister tell me whether bills, rents and mortgages will be charged at two thirds of the usual amount? If not, will the Government extend the evictions ban?
Steve Barclay
We have addressed this already in a number of questions. The point is that it is not simply two thirds; it is dynamic, aligned with universal credit, which then moves to top that up. The package of support, which is above that provided by many of our European comparators, is, if combined with universal credit, at 88% in many circumstances, not 67%.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Stevie the Sweet—not everyone’s pet name for the Chief Secretary, but Stevie who has the sweet stall on Mold market in my constituency—yelled at me as I walked past on Saturday. “Oi,” he said, “that Boris and Rishi and all the Treasury team are all right by me.” That is the story up and down my Delyn constituency, where my small business owners commend the work done by the Treasury and the support they have been given during this pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when businesses in our tourism sector are being effectively locked down by draconian travel measures put in place by the Welsh Government, perhaps we need to step in and assist them a little more —for example, Greenacres and Tree Tops caravan parks in my constituency?
Steve Barclay
One of the strongest benefits to businesses in Wales, and indeed across the United Kingdom, is the broad shoulders and ability of the UK Treasury to act on behalf of the entire United Kingdom. That is a huge strength and it has helped to enable schemes such as furlough and others to be of benefit to businesses in Wales. On the measures put in place by national Governments, the more that is done through the Joint Biosecurity Centre with consistency, the better. But obviously, that is a decision for the Welsh Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will do my best, Mr Speaker.
Outdoor education centres are a crucial part of our visitor economy. There are 60-plus of them in Cumbria, employing hundreds of talented people whose jobs are, I am afraid, now seriously at risk. Outdoor education centres provide huge benefits in personal development, education, and physical and mental health, which are particularly valuable, even essential, at this time. They are as safe to reopen as schools, yet they face imminent closure and ruin. Will the Minister meet with me and the heads of outdoor education centres so we can take urgent action to save them?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, and having lived in his constituency for a couple of years, I know how important outdoor education centres are to the economy. He is also quite right to point to their benefit to mental and physical health, often for young people, who have been particularly impacted in recent weeks. I suggest that I alert Ministers in the Department for Education to the specific concern he raises, so they can meet him so that the Department’s guidance can take his point on board.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Conservative Government have stood up to protect jobs, incomes and businesses with unprecedented measures, so will my right hon. Friend reassure me that his priority is to create, support and extend opportunity, especially for people in Stoke-on-Trent, where there is a need to grow the quality of job opportunities?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is quite right: this is about not only working together to retain as many jobs as possible, but looking to the jobs of the future. He has constructive views on how we use levelling up in terms of the future jobs that can be offered in Stoke. We need to combine that with our commitments on infrastructure, broadband, research and development investment, and net zero, then look at those future jobs and the skills training that is offered to his constituents in Stoke, so that those who move from their current jobs can quickly get into those jobs of the future.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
School Breakfast
Tuesday 13th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate School Breakfast Bill 2019-21 View all School Breakfast 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 Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide breakfast club facilities; and for connected purposes.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Across England this morning, more than 2 million children—that we know of—will have arrived at school ready to learn with a gnawing hunger in their stomach. Their day will be marked with worry about when they and others in their family might be able to eat again. That will have a significant impact on their learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are, and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are.
Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development, with hungry children suffering developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones. The physical and mental health consequences for those stuck in this hopeless situation are dire and long lasting. Research conducted prior to the pandemic found rising levels of hospital admissions for children due to malnutrition and a resurgence of Victorian diseases associated with hunger. Research last year also found that children who went without breakfast tended to be overweight and obese.
Schools in my constituency have said that, without this Bill, they may have to charge for or cease breakfast provision next year. Research by the University of Leeds found that children who eat a regular breakfast achieve an average of two GCSE grades higher than those who rarely eat breakfast. Not only is the Bill the morally right thing to do; it clearly makes no long-term economic sense to deprive children of this vital meal. Stories of children going to school with a grey pallor, under-nourished, rummaging through bins for food and wearing threadbare clothing are commonplace. Schools in South Shields have told me that children complain of persistent hunger and stomach pains. One little boy turned up for school having only had a small piece of chocolate for his breakfast. For some, the last time they had any food was their school dinner the day before, and for many children on free school meals, waiting until midday is too long. As one teacher said, it is three hours too late.
We know the statistics, facts and reality of the grinding and increasing poverty in daily life for so many children in our country, and we know that this is not the fault of their parents. There is not a single mam or dad I have spoken to who is not totally heartbroken and ashamed that their child is going without, but I remind them and their children that it is not their shame; it is the Government’s, because these levels of hunger were and are avoidable.
Last year, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights expressed so clearly how the ongoing policies of austerity introduced in 2010, welfare reform measures and inaction on low-paid and insecure work have had tragic social consequences. That view is supported by 65% of teachers, who, when surveyed by Magic Breakfast, said they felt that the Government were not doing enough to help children at risk of hunger.
Coronavirus has exacerbated poverty levels. In the first five weeks of lockdown, more than 2 million children experienced food insecurity. Over 1 million more children have become eligible for free school meals, and a staggering 4 million children are now living in poverty. Many are hungry every single day of the year, with no let-up in sight. When I was a child protection social worker, it was the children suffering from severe neglect who would be struggling in this way, but now we are faced with a generation of children for whom the hopelessness of austerity and poverty are becoming the norm.
I am acutely aware that this Bill will not address the underlying causes of hunger; nor will it be a panacea for every hungry child, but it absolutely will ensure that those who currently go without that first important meal of the school day no longer will. It will make a huge difference for families such as one family in my constituency who were visited by the local Key 2 Life Food Bank; volunteers went to a bare and desolate home, where they found three children and their mam in dire need. When a food parcel arrived for them, the children began to rip at the boxes with their hands, shaking with hunger. When we think of these children, we should all be lost for words. How, as a society, have we ever allowed this to happen?
Research has shown that the benefits of breakfast clubs go beyond food. Teachers and school staff have reported that children often make new friends at these clubs and have time to share their worries with staff, and for many, they can complete their homework using a computer and in the warmth.
The School Breakfast Bill is a simple, costed Bill which will ensure that, when the Government’s current breakfast club programme expires in 2021, there will be enshrined in legislation a commitment to a more comprehensive, evidence-based programme of school breakfast clubs. The Bill will ensure that all state-funded primary and secondary schools in England where at least 50% of pupils are in the income deprivation affecting children index receive funding from the soft drinks levy to deliver breakfasts for every single child in the school, including those children with no recourse to public funds, who are currently, shamefully, excluded from free school meals. Additionally, the Bill will allow for any school that has demonstrated a need for the provision to request funding.
I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place. The power of education should never be underestimated. The food that fuels the ability to learn and develop should never be understated. This Bill will make sure that socioeconomic status is not a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. It will make sure that where some of our children begin in life is not always where they end up.
This small, simple Bill will have a profound impact on the lives of so many. It is supported by over 30 respected national organisations, Marcus Rashford MBE, Yusuf Islam—also known to many of us as Cat Stevens—and the Children’s Commissioner. Over 30,000 people have signed a petition in support of it, and over 70 Members across the House, including the excellent Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), also support the Bill. They all support it because they know that there is no justification and no argument robust enough to deny children a breakfast.
I want to say a big thank you to Magic Breakfast and Feeding Britain, which have worked tirelessly to make this Bill a reality. But the people who have really made the Bill possible are those parents and children who have been brave enough to share their pain with me. Despite the challenges they face, they have taken the time to use their experiences to try to make a difference for others. Their daily struggle should be something that we are all determined to change.
As I present this Bill, there will be children struggling to focus because their stomachs are rumbling. The persistent worry that comes with hunger will permeate their entire day. All of us in this place owe it to every single child who woke up hungry this morning and who will go to bed hungry tonight in one of the richest countries in the world to make sure that this Bill becomes law. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Sir David Amess, Robert Halfon, Paul Maynard, Dr Daniel Poulter, Christian Wakeford, Caroline Lucas, Nadia Whittome, Ian Mearns, Siobhain McDonagh, Wera Hobhouse and Mr Kevan Jones present the Bill.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 194).
Business of the House (Today)
14:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 181 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 82 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The business of the House motion that the House has just agreed to provides for motions 3 to 9 on today’s Order Paper to be debated together, but I assure the House that the Question will be put separately on each motion at the end of the debate.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1103), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this we shall take the following motions, on public health:
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1104), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1105), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046), dated 26 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029), dated 24 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.
Matt Hancock
Two weeks ago, I pledged to the House that for significant national measures we will consult Parliament in advance of their coming into force wherever possible, and today we deliver on that commitment with votes tonight on national measures to slow the spread of coronavirus. This pandemic remains a formidable threat. Our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting the economy, education and the NHS, until a vaccine makes us safe, and I must report to the House that the number of cases of coronavirus has quadrupled in the last three weeks.
There are now more people in hospital with coronavirus than there were on 23 March, and in the last four weeks hospitals in the north-west and north-east of England have seen a sevenfold increase in the number of covid patients in intensive care. In those worst-affected areas, the virus is spreading just as quickly in older age groups, not just among younger adults.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Given that Liverpool city region, which includes my constituency of Wallasey, was placed in tier 3 yesterday, could the Secretary of State outline whether there are plans to reopen or revive the Nightingale hospitals to serve that region? I do not mean the hospital in Manchester.
Matt Hancock
Yes, as the hon. Lady will know, three Nightingale hospitals were put on alert yesterday to be reopened. The closest Nightingale is in Manchester, but we keep that under review because expanding the capacity of the NHS is one of the things that we can do. Nevertheless, no matter how big the NHS is, if the virus is not under control it will make more people need hospital treatment than there could possibly be hospital treatment available for. While we are, of course, restarting the Nightingales, which have been mothballed for months, that is only a precaution; it cannot be the full answer to the question. We had a very good discussion yesterday about the measures in Liverpool city region, which I will come on to in some detail.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
To follow on from what my right hon. Friend said about our strategy being to suppress the virus until a vaccine makes us safe—until science saves us—the Prime Minister yesterday was, very wisely, cautious in his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on the vaccine. What if it does not come, and what if it comes and the efficacy of it is not good enough, and there are challenges with roll-out and all sorts of other challenges that he and I know about—the anti-vaxxers notwithstanding? Can he give those of us who are nervous about—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. This is not a question but a very quick intervention. I have 89 people who want to speak. If there are to be interventions, they must be short.
Matt Hancock
Of course, the work on a vaccine continues. No vaccine technology is certain, but we have already bought six different vaccines and there are more than 100 in development around the world. That is what underpins the strategy, and the work on the leading vaccines, including the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, continues effectively. We have seen, both here and overseas, just how quickly the virus can take hold, and we have to act now to get it under control.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
At the beginning of August, Calderdale had just four people in hospital with covid, zero in intensive care units, and spikes in just two wards. This morning, we have 43 people in hospital with covid, six in ICUs, 12 deaths this month, and almost 800 positive cases coming through. Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS is not overwhelmed by the virus in the coming months?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have just said that we must not have long interventions. These points are for the speeches that people are waiting to make later. If a Member wants to intervene on the Secretary of State about something that he has just said, that is all very well, but if they make points about their constituencies at this stage rather than waiting until later, it is simply dishonourable; it is just not right.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend—and he is an honourable man—makes an important point that has wider context than just his constituency, which is that we must make sure that we control the virus. My heart goes out to the families of those in his constituency who have died. The only alternative to suppressing the virus is that it then expands exponentially. That is what happens with a virus when the R is above 1. I know that some people feel that we should adopt a more relaxed approach, but that will lead to more of the sort of thing that my hon. Friend has related from his constituency.
Some people have set out this more relaxed approach, including those in the so-called Great Barrington declaration. I want to take this argument head on, because on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central claims and both are emphatically false. First, it says that if enough people get covid, we will reach herd immunity. That is not true. Many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, such as measles, malaria, AIDS and flu, and with increasing evidence of reinfection, we should have no confidence that we would ever reach herd immunity to covid, even if everyone caught it. Herd immunity is a flawed goal without a vaccine, even if we could get to it, which we cannot.
The second central claim is that we can segregate the old and vulnerable on our way to herd immunity. That is simply not possible. As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable—not when so many people live in inter- generational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long covid. Whenever we have seen cases among young people rise sharply, we then see cases among the over-60s rise inevitably thereafter, and we are not the kind of country that abandons our vulnerable or just locks them up.
If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate. We know that it would put our NHS at risk, as my hon. Friends have just said. We know that both because of what happened in March and because of what is happening right now. We have already heard from the heads of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that, if we do not act fast and come together to quash the virus, we risk putting the NHS under extraordinary strain both for covid treatments and for non-covid treatments.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
How long do the scientists think we will need these lockdowns for, and what is their exit plan?
Matt Hancock
We have seen the exit plan from local lockdowns. For instance, in Leicester, where we had a firm local lockdown, the case rate came right down. We lifted that and we have sadly seen it start to rise again. The case rate is determined by the amount of social mixing, and it reduces during a lockdown. In some parts of the country where the case rate has continued to rise, there is an argument for further ensuring that we do not reach the level of contact that is at the root of the virus spreading. The challenge is how to calibrate the lockdown to get the virus under control while doing the minimum damage to the economy and to education.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge—a simple yes or no—that we should not be in this position in the first place and that the best exit strategy is having an effective system of testing, tracing and isolating that is locally led? If that were working properly—even SAGE has admitted that it is not—we would not be here.
Matt Hancock
We have one of the biggest systems of tracking and tracing in the world. The idea that I sometimes get from people in this House is that, somehow, it is not one of the biggest systems in the world or one of the most effective in the world. I get that in this House, but I do not get it when I talk to my international colleagues. They ask me, “How did you manage to build this capacity so fast?” That is the truth of it.
Of course we need to continue to build it and to make sure it is continuously more integrated into the local communities, who can often go to reach the contacts that the national system finds it hard to reach. However, to argue that the enormous system that is working so effectively, with so many brilliant people working on it, is at the root of this challenge is, unfortunately, to miss the big picture, which is that, sadly, this virus passes on—until we have a vaccine or a massive testing capacity that nobody yet has, this virus passes on through social contact and that is, unfortunately, what we need to tackle in order to get this under control.
Let me make a point about the numbers. In the first peak, about 8% of people caught covid and 42,000 people died. If we do not have the virus under control, even with the better survival rates we now have, thanks to both drug discoveries by British science and improvements in clinical practice, those figures will multiply. In addition, harder economic measures would then inevitably be needed to get it under control and they would be needed for longer. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, want our economy back on full throttle, we need to keep this virus in check.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Yesterday, in his call with Merseyside MPs, the Health Secretary was asked about a circuit breaker lockdown and he did not say that SAGE had recommended that three weeks ago. Is that the case? Will he now publish the full scientific evidence for a circuit breaker lockdown?
Matt Hancock
The SAGE advice that Ministers receive is, of course, published; we have had great debates in this House about that and it is published. We make decisions that are guided by the science, taking into account all the different considerations we need to look to.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It is worth giving credit to the NHS Test and Trace team for the growth in testing, but the evidence published yesterday said that the impact of the testing and tracing system was having only a marginal effect on reducing the virus. So can the Secretary of State look not just in high-risk areas, but in all areas to get more of the contact tracing done by our fantastic directors of public health and their teams?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. We are doing precisely that. The way it works where it works best is that the big national system makes the immediate and rapid contact with people who test positive—for more than half of people that is immediately successful—and then when contacts are harder to make the data is passed to the local teams, which do not have the scale to do the immediate, rapid contacting but do have the boots on the ground and the local knowledge. That combination of the two is what works best where it works well.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case, but will he bear in mind that in the west midlands we are concerned that yesterday’s change was made on the basis of neatness, not of medical need? Will he reassure me that he will always listen carefully to the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, as these matters all develop?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The introduction of the three-level system means that, in some areas where the local area has been working so effectively to get the curve flattened, as in the west midlands, under the leadership of Andy Street—there has been a rise in the past few days of data, but essentially a huge amount of progress has been made—changes have had to be made. However, I will absolutely recommit to working with Andy Street, who is an incredibly effective voice for the west midlands, to make sure that what we can do together can best deliver to control the virus in the west midlands. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who makes the case on this so effectively, because protecting our economy and protecting our health are not alternatives. We must act and keep the virus under control to protect lives and livelihoods. I strongly believe that every one of us, young or old, has the ability to suppress the virus through the actions we take and the best way to protect the vulnerable, support the NHS and protect the economy is to get the rate of transmission down.
I turn to the steps we are taking to do that and, therefore, the instruments before the House today. Yesterday, the Prime Minister provided an update on the measures we are taking, which centre on three local covid alert levels in England.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The rate of transmission varies significantly within the eight different districts of North Yorkshire. When we are looking at putting different areas into different tiers, can we look at that by district rather than at county level?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely, and I will go further than that: we look at this at sub-district level, if that is appropriate. In High Peak we put four wards into level 2 and the rest of the wards stayed in level 1. So we are prepared to look at the sub-district level if that is appropriate. Some districts within North Yorkshire have individual outbreaks in individual institutions that we are managing, and we should not mistake that for general community transmission and therefore put those areas into a higher level than is necessary. I am happy to go through the local epidemiology from near Thirsk that affects my hon. Friend’s constituency.
In a sense, that brings us to the point of these local covid alert levels. These are the first statutory instruments to be debated under our commitment to consult Parliament on significant national measures that have effect in the whole of England or are UK-wide and, wherever possible, to hold votes before the regulations come into force. That is what we are doing today.
Local action has proved to be one of our most important lines of defence. Where firm action has been taken—for instance in Leicester, or in Bolton, where we flattened the curve—our local approach has inevitably produced different sets of rules in different parts of the country, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out. We have already moved towards simpler national rules that are centred on the rule of six, and we are now acting to simplify and standardise the rules at a local level.
The regulations set out three levels of alert: medium, high and very high. The medium alert level, which will cover most of the country, will consist of the current national measures. This includes the rule of six and the closure of hospitality at 10 pm. The high alert level reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment and that aims to reduce household-to-household transmission by preventing social mixing between different households indoors, with the rule of six outdoors. That is super-simple: no household mixing socially indoors and the rule of six outdoors.
The very high alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS will soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions. In those areas the Government will set a baseline of prohibiting social mixing, while allowing households to mix in public outdoor spaces, because that is where the risk of transmission is lowest, as long as the rule of six is followed. That baseline is set out in the very high alert level regulations being considered today. Pubs and bars will be closed, and we will advise against travel into and out of very high-risk areas.
We also offer a package of support for individuals, businesses and councils. That includes more support for local test and trace, which many have asked for, more funding for local enforcement and the offer of help from the armed services, as well as the job support scheme announced by the Chancellor. That is best done as a team effort and, wherever possible, we want to build local support on the ground before we introduce these measures. So in each area we will work with local government leaders on the extra measures that need to be taken. We do not rule out further restrictions in the hospitality, leisure, entertainment, or personal care sectors, but retail, schools and universities will remain open.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
On buying-in the local community, would the Secretary of State consider having a Government postcode checker so that people know exactly where they should be, in having the three tiers?
Matt Hancock
My friend, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), says from a sedentary position that that was his idea, but success has many fathers and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that such a postcode checker was launched this morning. I will send him the link. It is still in beta, so it will be constantly improved, not least to ensure that, if a postcode covers an area that is in two different levels, that is clear. That is being sorted at the moment. A postcode checker is a great idea. It tells you the level of local risk. Furthermore, the NHS covid app, which has now been downloaded by over 17 million people, has a link to the local alert level as well.
To turn back to the measures before us, we will keep the measures under constant review. The overarching regulations sunset after six months, but regulation 8(1) of statutory instrument 1105 makes clear that the allocation of a particular area to local alert level 3 will automatically expire after 28 days. We will work with local areas on the level they need to be at and that work continues at pace. Decisions to move local areas between the levels will be considered by the JBC, working across Government and with local government on the normal weekly cycle. While, of course, there will be times when we need to act quickly to contain the virus, we want to give the House the opportunity to consider the measures on the medium and high local alert levels, and the baseline measures for the very high alert level. I urge the House to support the measures set out today.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentions that they will work with local authorities when moving authorities between areas. Will he also give time to measures that local authorities may already be taking, such as in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to see their effect before moving areas from one tier to another?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is a very important point. Taking into account all local considerations, and working with the local director of public health and political leadership, is important to get exactly that sort of consideration into the decisions.
I would like to set out, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, the details of where we have reached with the Liverpool city region. Liverpool will move on to level 3 tomorrow. As well as the baseline measures—that is, as well as closing pubs and bars—gyms, leisure centres, betting shops, adult gaming centres and casinos will also close. I thank all the local authorities that have been working with us to keep the virus under control, but there is more work to do.
The regulations under consideration today include measures on the obligations for businesses. Statutory instrument 1005 makes it a legal requirement for a range of premises to collect, retain and, where relevant, disclose contact details as part of NHS Test and Trace. Statutory instrument 1008 allows for fixed penalty notices to be given for breaches of covid-secure business guidance in various settings, primarily hospitality. These are amended by SI 1046, which adds the need for a range of premises to display information about the need to wear face coverings.
SI 1029 increases the fines for those flouting targeted action to close specific public places that are a threat to public health. Although SI 1029 was intended to deliver the 10 pm closing time when laid, the elements relating to the 10 pm closing time are superseded by the local alert level system. The powers in SI 1029 are therefore revoked. In practice, the effect of SI 1029 is to deliver enforcement against individual places that have been flouting the rules, which is the one of the top demands of councils in their fight against coronavirus. I know that most people and most businesses have been doing their bit. These changes are there to ensure that the vast majority of responsible businesses are not undermined by others that are not following the rules.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about a regulation on pubs closing at 10 o’clock, which has been in force for four weeks. There may be some undoubted positives for health, but we see some negatives with people amassing together on public transport and in the streets. Do the positives outweigh the negatives, as far as the science is concerned?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I believe that they do, and I will give three reasons why I think these measures are the right ones. The first is that we already now have evidence from accident and emergency departments that we have seen a reduction in alcohol-related admissions late at night, after the 10 pm curfew. That is important in its own right, but it is also a proxy, a measure of how much people are drinking late at night. Therefore, it is evidence that there is less mixing and less drinking late at night.
The second is that, while people may be coming out and mixing after 10 pm, they are doing so largely outside, when they would otherwise be mixing inside the premises; it is just easier to photograph outside.
The final point, though, and the appeal I make to the House on this, is as follows: since, sadly, in order to control this virus, we need to reduce the amount of social contact, and since we are trying to protect, as much as is possible, education and work, that essentially leaves socialising as the other part of life—of activity—where people transmit the virus. It is therefore understandable that Governments around the world and around this United Kingdom, Governments of all different stripes and political persuasions, have all come to broadly the same conclusion that it is necessary to restrict socialising, because that way we reduce the transmission with the least damage to education and the economy. While there is both direct and proximate evidence for the positive impact of this measure, there is also the strategic point that, if we wanted to control the virus and we were not to do this, we would have to do something else, and as a matter of policy choice we want to protect education and protect work.
I will now come to my concluding remarks. We know only too well the damage this lethal virus can inflict, the strain it can put on our NHS and the way it can upend our closest relationships and our freedom to do the things we love. I know that we are asking a lot of the British people, but we also know that together we can shift this curve, and we are now called upon to do it once more. The measures before the House today will help in that fight, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious to the House, both those in the Chamber and those watching around the building, that I have more than 80 people who are trying to catch my eye and that we have until 6 pm to conclude the debate. I am afraid that, in order to be fair to everybody, because I appreciate that this is not an occasion for long-thought-out speeches on matters of principle, but on matters to do with individual constituencies, and to try to give as many people from as many parts of the country as possible the chance to contribute, we will start with a time limit of three minutes.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have heard your message loud and clear; I will endeavour to be brief and not to detain the House for too long, given the points you have rightly made.
The House will understand that we are grappling with a virus that spreads with speed and severity. Throughout this crisis, we have urged the Government to adopt an approach with the strategic aim of suppressing the virus and bringing the R below 1 in order to save lives, minimise harm and keep our children in school. That has to be our priority, and no one should be surprised that, as we are in autumn and going into winter, that presents us with immense challenges.
Before the summer, the Academy of Medical Sciences, in a report commissioned by the Government, modelled that we could see 119,000 deaths between September 2020 and June 2021. The academy also warned, as did we, that without an effective test, trace and isolate regime the virus would get out of control. Sadly, we were proved correct. The Secretary of State has run through the numbers on the prevalence of the virus, but I will just underline the point that hospital admissions are rising.
Yesterday, there were 3,665 patients in hospital in England, 568 more than on 23 March when we went into lockdown. Since September, 856 patients have been admitted to critical care across England, Wales and Northern Ireland—more with every week that goes by. The largest number of critical admissions are in the north-west, north-east, Yorkshire and the midlands. More than 100 patients are on ventilation for covid across the north-east and Yorkshire. More than 130 patients are on ventilation across the north-west.
A disproportionate number of those in critical care today are from poorer backgrounds and from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. That is a reminder that covid thrives on and exaggerates inequalities, and that any long-term covid strategy cannot just rely on a vaccine but demands an all-out assault on health inequalities as well.
Just as hospital beds fill, there are more concerns about the availability of beds for the rest of winter. Last week, there were warnings that some hospitals across the north of England are set to run out of beds for covid patients within days, and NHS Providers reminded us that the sustained physical, psychological and emotional pressure on health staff is threatening to push them beyond their limits. The British Medical Association is saying that without stringent measures rapidly introduced, the NHS and its workforce will very quickly be overwhelmed. This House cannot overstate how serious the situation is.
Yes, as the Secretary of State said, our clinicians have made extraordinary strides in treatment. We know that steroid and antiviral drugs will help improve mortality, but we also know that when infections rise, as night follows day, hospitalisations rise, and, sadly and tragically, that means that more will die as well. For those who avoid hospitalisation, many can be afflicted with serious, long-term, debilitating health problems—so-called long covid. None of us knows whether those conditions—that syndrome—will last for the rest of their lives or whether they will recover in the next 12 months.
Just as we have to protect our NHS, we cannot allow the mass, industrial halt to elective surgery and delays in treatment never seen before in the history of the NHS. We have to mobilise our national health service to perform the care for non-covid patients as well. The decision in March, although entirely understandable—I do not criticise the Government for taking it—has bequeathed us waiting lists of 4 million. Today there are 111,000 people waiting beyond 12 months for treatment. In January of this year, there were just 1,600. Three million people have missed out on vital cancer screening. One in three cancer patients has said that their treatment has been impacted by the effects of covid. I make these points not to criticise the Secretary of State but to reinforce the point that we have to protect our national health service as we go into the winter months.
I know that no Member across this House is complacent about these matters. Every hon. and right hon. Member is united and determined to see infection rates reduce and care improved. I know that everyone across this House wants to see the immense backlog in non-covid care tackled. I know that none of us wants to see this virus let rip and leave the weakest and the frail to fend for themselves. So I do not come to this House to caricature the position of any hon. Member. Our differences are about how we apply the tools we have at our disposal, and how we confront this, the biggest public health crisis for 100 years.
We know, as the Secretary of State said, that the virus thrives on close human contact, especially where air is stagnant and in conditions that are poorly ventilated. We know that the virus is airborne. We know that fundamentally our best defences are hand hygiene, distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding crowds. But we also know that a full national lockdown stretching for weeks and weeks, like we had through April, with a rule, effectively, of one-household contact—a rule of one, indeed, for some people—would be disastrous for society. Again, I do not believe that anyone in the House is proposing that.
The question is what measures can be taken now to bring R below 1 without resorting to that full lockdown. We know that when 8 million children returned to school, that would have put upward pressure on infection rates. I am critical of the Government for not providing the extra testing capacity that would have been needed, as should have been obvious. Yet we must do everything we can to keep our children in school. The implications of children not being in school are devastating for their life chances and development. We know that crowded public transport puts upward pressure on infection rates, but I do not believe that any Member of this House would consider it sensible to close public transport networks—to close the underground or to close the Metrolink across Manchester. We know we have to encourage people to work from home, and many are doing that, but we also know that there are many who cannot work from home, and they should be protected with access to mass testing—particularly NHS staff. I hope that the Government get on with routine testing of frontline NHS staff. We have repeatedly called for the Government to do that.
That then therefore leaves us with few levers to pull. That brings me to hospitality, because—I am sorry to have to say it—pubs and bars do bring people together. Every Member across this House knows that after a few drinks people lose their inhibitions. It should come as no surprise to us that social distancing breaks down, and if bars and pubs are poorly ventilated—as, sadly, some are—then airborne transmission is more of a risk. I know that Members will point out to me, as they have in the past few days, that the data show that household interaction is the biggest driver of transmission. That is correct—but how does the virus get into the household in the first place? It does not come down the chimney, like Father Christmas: someone brings it into the house.
If we cannot close, schools, workplaces or shops and cannot shut public transport, the only lever that we have is hospitality, so, yes, we support the restrictions announced yesterday by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. We know from experience in Bolton and Leicester that the pub closures had an impact—the virus is still prevalent in my city and in Bolton—but without the closures the virus would have been driven up further.
We therefore support the announced measures, difficult as they are. Indeed, we support the measures aimed at constraining the time people can spend in the pub. I understand the Secretary of State’s procedural points about the instruments before us and the 10 pm curfew, and he knows that I know that many Members are deeply sceptical about that curfew. We will not stand in the way of the passing of the statutory instrument, but if the House’s procedures had allowed it, we would have proposed an amendment to implement the Welsh scenario, where there is drinking-up time, off sales are banned after 10 o’clock and there is no hard stop at 10 pm.
We have all seen the pictures that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, although I must say to many of my hon. Friends who made the point about city centres being full of revellers after leaving the pub that it is not as though we have seen such pictures only once the 10 pm curfew was introduced—we have seen them before in our city centres, sadly. I have been on public transport after 11 pm! This is a longstanding issue. The 10 pm curfew does not help it, but let us not pretend it has caused all these issues.
Steve Brine
If the hon. Gentleman could amend the instrument, would he amend it so that off licences cannot sell after 10 pm?
Jonathan Ashworth
I think I made that point, but, yes, I most certainly would. If I had proposed that amendment, I hope the hon. Gentleman would have joined us in the Division Lobby, although I know that since leaving the Government he has been very lax about going through the Lobby with the Opposition—[Interruption.] I drank my water too quickly as the hon Gentleman’s intervention was shorter than I anticipated—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon; I assure Members it is not the virus.
Many Members affected by this in recent days will know that the decisions made to put an area into restriction will be effective only if they are made in conjunction with local people. I know that extremely well as a Leicester Member, where we have had restrictions for 105 or 106 days. People in towns such as Bury or Bolton or across Greater Manchester or in boroughs such as Wolverhampton, West Bromwich or parts of Birmingham need clarity about their future and local leaders need reassurance that there is a plan. Local leaders need reassurance that if they are put into a tier there is a plan to get them out of it and moved into the lower tiers. It is not clear at the moment why particular areas are in the medium tier and not in, for example, tier 2. I do not want to pick on my near parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), but I hope he can explain when he responds to the debate why the city of Leicester is in tier 2 with restrictions yet his constituency, where the infection rate is 150 per 100,000, is not. Why is North East Derbyshire, where the rate is 164 per 100,000, not in that tier? Why is Barrow, where the rate is 277 per 100,000, not in that tier? There are many other examples across the House. People living in areas where restrictions are in place would like to be reassured that there is some consistency in these matters and that decisions are made transparently. I do not want to pick on the hon. Gentleman’s area, but he will see the point I am trying to make.
Of course, the areas where hospitality has closed need support to save jobs and protect livelihoods. At the moment, there is a financial package on offer for tier 3 —the Opposition do not think it goes far enough; we do not think it is adequate—but there is no financial support for tier 2, even though there will be a significant impact on the local economy, as we have seen in Leicester. On tiers 2 and 3, could the Minister, in responding to the debate, say a little bit about care homes? What does he say to the thousands of families who, under tier 2 and now tier 3, will not be able to visit their loved ones in care homes? The impact on a loved one in a care home of not being able to see their family is immense, especially in the winter months as we run up to Christmas. What steps will the Government take to support those areas in tiers 2 and 3 so that families can safely resume visiting their loved ones? Will he commit to a 24-hour turnaround in test results in care homes so that care homes and residents are protected?
This brings me to testing and tracing. One of the great strides we made in Leicester was door-to-door testing. Can the Minister guarantee that any areas in tier 2 and tier 3 will get capacity for door-to-door testing? Back in August, the Government promised that local areas would have more control over test and trace, with dedicated teams backed up by local authorities, but under this tiered system it was reported yesterday that only areas in tier 3 would have greater local control over contact tracing and testing. Why was this not put in place months ago, and why has it not been put in place everywhere across the country, not just for tier 3? This is the point that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made, and he made it extremely well.
I am sorry, but the testing and tracing regime has become a broken system that continues to misfire. We even have SAGE now warning that it is having a marginal impact on transmission, as the right hon. Gentleman said. To be frank, and I know Conservative Member will groan at this, if Serco has not come up with a solution by now, it never will. Scrap the contract, put public health and local NHS partnerships in control of testing, and invest in the widespread backward contact tracing we need. It is still only in its infancy, but it is absolutely vital to getting in control of the virus, and we need to expand it at a local level.
Munira Wilson
Does the hon. Member agree with me that one of the other reasons why SAGE said that test, trace and isolate is having a marginal impact is because the “isolate” part is not working, and that rather than slapping £10,000 fines on people for not self-isolating, what we actually need to do is provide incentives and support so that people isolate?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I agree entirely with her. I have been having these exchanges with the Secretary of State on almost a twice-weekly basis, and when I go over the remarks I have made at the Dispatch Box and remind myself of what he has said at the Dispatch Box in case I can catch him out, throw quotes back at him and all that kind of stuff, I have noticed that we were making this argument months and months ago. It is not good enough just to give one £500 payment; people need support to isolate. If they are poor and on a zero-hours contract, and they are forced to make a choice between not feeding their family or going to work, they will go to work. That has been one of the most significant failures in the test, trace and isolate regime, and the Government, I am afraid to say, still have not fixed it. We would argue again that they have to put testing and tracing in the hands of public health and local NHS partnerships, because unless we get testing sorted out, we will have a never-ending rollercoaster of restrictions, while deaths and damage continue.
When it comes to the overall set of restrictions announced yesterday, the fundamental question for us as an Opposition is not whether they go too far, but whether the overall package in fact goes far enough. A question was posed by the chief medical officer himself at the Downing Street press conference yesterday. He commented that the areas worst hit by covid will need extra measures on top of those announced on Monday if infection rates are to be significantly lowered. The question is: will the measures announced yesterday reverse the rising tide of hospital admissions and reverse the rising tide of critical care admissions? I obviously hope so; but I am sorry, I fear it will not. The rate of growth in the virus may at this stage be quicker in the northern regions, but the embers are burning brightly everywhere else as well, and I fear further action is going to be needed.
The Prime Minister says he follows the science. Yesterday the SAGE minutes that came out—after the press conference, frustratingly—warned of a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences, and said that the burden of a large second wave would fall disproportionately on the frailest in society, and on those on lower incomes and from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. That last point is exactly what is currently happening in our intensive care units across the country.
The same minutes reveal that the Government were advised to close all hospitality, move all university teaching online and put in place a national circuit break three weeks ago, with immediate action. The Government rejected that advice, presumably in favour of the measures that we are debating today. Of course, it is only advice to Government—Ministers are perfectly within their rights to choose what advice to take and not to take; to govern is indeed to choose—but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have come to the Dispatch Box week after week and told us that they are following the science. So at what precise moment did the Prime Minister stop following the science?
I am sorry to say that SAGE advised the Government to take action in March, but the Prime Minister was too slow. After the Prime Minister spoke yesterday, we saw that yet again he has been advised to take action and has so far refused. It is the same virus, the same delays, the same country and the same Government making the same mistakes again. Our constituents will ask, “Is history repeating itself?” If these tiers do not work, then what? Tier 4? Tier 5? What is the plan? Well, there isn’t one.
We had whack-a-mole—a fairground game—but there was never a strategy, just a soundbite from the circus ring showman. We have had exaggerated claims, complaints when challenged and a lack of transparency with the public, but further action and a clear plan are needed. Just at the time when hospital admissions are rising again, we have the Prime Minister hanging on to a rising balloon, and—to quote “Withnail and I”—not knowing whether to
“let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher”.
We have the highest deficit in Europe, the worst recession in Europe and are now not even pretending to follow the science. We will not divide the House against these restrictions, because we believe they are necessary as far as they go, but I fear that the Government now need to go further. The sooner that the Prime Minister is clear with the British public, the better.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I support these restrictions with a heavy heart. On balance, I will be supporting the Government this evening, but I want to make just a few quick points.
I would be very careful about subscribing to the Vallance/Whitty orthodoxy that informed these regulations, while not at all examining very carefully respectable bodies of medical opinion to the contrary. I would cite particularly the Heneghan/Sikora/Gupta line. It is important that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team address those things head-on and treat them with the respect that they deserve.
The Secretary of State has my utmost sympathy. When coming into office, he opened a box marked “public health” and found tools for doing all sorts of things, such as sorting out lifestyle problems—obesity, smoking, diet and all of that. I suspect that he found very few that were geared towards dealing with infectious diseases, particularly this infectious disease. He has done some good things to try to remedy that in a very short space of time. May I suggest to him, to sort out the shadow Secretary of State’s obsession with Serco, that he looks again at the Public Health Laboratory Service, which was in its second incarnation as the Health Protection Agency when it was abolished in 2012. He might find in such a thing the means to deal with infectious diseases of this sort in the future.
We need to be careful about groupthink, confirmation bias, a thin evidential basis and uncertainty masquerading as certainty. There is a huge margin of uncertainty with all this, and we all need to develop a level of humility in our attitudes towards dealing with this crisis. That is why I shall be supporting the Government this evening.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. In 2016, Operation Cygnus was very clear about what needed to happen. It was a question not of if there was going to be a pandemic; it was when. The Government failed to introduce all the recommendations from that exercise. I will not let them get away with this.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady can do what she likes. The Secretary of State is dealing with the situation that he found at the time. Developing the National Institute for Health Protection in short order from the disaster that was Public Health England was, I think, a very good effort, but there is much more to be done, as I know he appreciates.
May I sound a cautionary note for the Secretary of State? We have gone to great measures to close down schools, and I appreciate the need for that. That was informed, of course, by the Imperial College model, which was a flu model, in essence, and was inadequate for this particular virus. He will know—I hope he does—of the work published in September by the University of Edinburgh group under Ackland, which suggests that that certainly did suppress admissions to ITU. It certainly protected the NHS, but probably over time, unless we get a vaccine, it will cause more deaths directly from covid, quite apart from the incidentals for other diseases, the loss of liberty and livelihood. The Secretary of State needs to understand that and that there is an alternative view. If we do not get a vaccine, I fear, paradoxically, that we will see more deaths, not fewer, as a result of some of the interventions that we have put in place. Of course, Ackland was unsighted on this latest set, but the logic would suggest that those measures too may, over time, if we get a third and fourth wave, cause more trouble than they solve. It is a respectable piece of work and the Secretary of State needs to take account of it.
In all this, we simply do not know and we are learning all the time. We have to accept, I think, the expertise of those advising Ministers and that we have experts for a reason, but there is an alternative view. Unless we get a vaccine—goodness me, I hope we do—I think we may find that the cure is worse than the disease in terms of lives lost directly to covid, incidental lives lost to other common diseases—stroke, heart attack and particularly cancer—loss of liberty, loss of livelihood and the compete trashing of our economy. That is what is at stake. I do not envy the Secretary of State in his work.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
It does appear that anybody who questions or expresses doubts about the Government’s approach to coronavirus is accused of wanting to let the virus rip, which is patently untrue. I support a number of the rules that have been introduced. This is all about what the balance is, what is common sense, whether we are going too far the other way, the impact on civil liberties, and what will work and have a significant impact on trying to control the virus. That is where the debate is and why some of us are raising questions.
These statutory instruments come on top of as many as four previous announcements between 14 September and 3 October on additional national or local restrictions. The last was a few days ago on 3 October. There lies part of the problem: we have another raft of rules in these SIs today yet the public are bewildered and confused about the previous changes. That has resulted in many people not listening anymore. They just want to use their common sense and get on with their lives. They want more clarity. There is a minority who do not follow the rules, but why should everybody else be penalised and have their civil liberties affected as well? Of course we want more enforcement of sensible, common-sense rules, and we need resources to be able to do that locally, in addition to hand washing, social distancing and face masks, which I will return to shortly.
I have spoken to the chief executives of both my local hospitals. They tell me that they are under increasing pressure and that there is a spike in admissions above the normal expected, but I am also told that the majority who have been admitted are over 70. That is not different from the start of the pandemic, so it should have been no surprise to the Government.
The second part of the SIs sets out more restrictions on business. I am contacted every day by businesses who are in trouble and constituents who are worried about losing their jobs. Two thousand more people have become unemployed in Halton since March. Nobody understands the reasoning behind the 10 pm curfew for hospitality. I have been inundated by constituents about the closure of gyms. Many of my constituents tell me how much has been done to make them safer and about the impact it will have on their physical and mental health if they close. They want to see the evidence and reasoning for closing them.
We do not hear enough from the Government on the unintended consequences of restrictions on healthcare and the impact on diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Many of my constituents do not support the measures to put Halton into tier 3, and I share their scepticism and concern. I have not seen the evidence to give my support to them. We seem to be being used as a guinea pig.
We need to better protect our elderly and vulnerable. We need to better enforce the rules that are sensible and common sense. We need to sort out the test, trace and isolate system, which is not having the impact that it should. We need more competence from this Government and better data to be shared with the public and MPs. This Government have got many things wrong, and they continue to do so. I have no trust in this Government and the way they are working. We need to ensure that we have competent and proper reasoning behind these decisions.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I want to focus my remarks on whether there is currently any viable alternative to the lockdown measures that have been put in place in my constituency. In my view, there is not. The argument put forward by some is that we could somehow isolate or protect the vulnerable, to allow the rest of us to carry on with our lives as normal, but how realistic is that? We have to be clear about the number of people that we are talking about. This is not just about people in their 80s. Our current understanding is that approximately one in every 200 people in their 50s and 60s affected by coronavirus will die. For people in their 70s and above, that figure is more like one in 10. Taken together, those age groups add up to something like 25 million people. How viable is it to keep them safe?
In answering that question, we must not compare it with how successfully we have been able to do that so far, because if we abandon lockdown measures for everyone else, there will be one key difference. Right now, as we are all involved in the national effort to stop the spread of the virus, we all play a part in keeping the levels of the virus low. That means that when a grandparent meets up with their grandchildren, their grandchildren probably do not have the virus. It means that when a plumber turns up to fix a pensioner’s boiler, they probably do not have the virus. It means that when a carer arrives to help get an infirm person out of bed, they probably do not have the virus. Most importantly, it means that when an older person managing their chronic illnesses turns up to their next GP or hospital appointment, the receptionist, the nurses, the doctors and the people in the waiting room probably do not have the virus. That is because we are all playing our part in trying to stop the spread.
If we were to let the virus spread among the rest of the population, we can forget all of that. We would reach a point where, in every single one of those examples, the vulnerable person would stand a very real chance of catching the virus because it would be rampant. That is the reality of the strategy that some are proposing. We would effectively be telling 25 million people to play Russian roulette every time they step outside their door—they can hug their grandchildren, but they run a real risk of catching a deadly disease if they do that. They can go to work, but they run a very real risk of catching a deadly disease if they do that. Most importantly, if they go to their cancer screening, their radiotherapy or their chemotherapy, again, they run a very real risk of catching a deadly disease. That is no choice at all.
But we do have a choice, and that is to persevere. It is not easy, and I have no doubt that we are paying a terrible price in terms of the economy, our wellbeing and our health, but I simply cannot see how that price would be outweighed by the loss of life on the scale we would see and the restrictions we would have to put in place on 25 million people if we were to give up. I do not think we can justify abandoning the older members of our society to their fate—not when, if we buy them more time, I believe we will find other ways forward. Whether it is a vaccine or mass daily testing, science will provide us with the solutions. I could be wrong. We could lose that battle in the long run, but we have not lost it yet, and I do not think the British people are ready to surrender; I know I am not. We must push on with these measures.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The coronavirus situation on Merseyside is such that I accept that something serious needs to be done. Yesterday in Aintree University Hospital and the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, there were 279 coronavirus-positive patients—the highest number in any English hospital. There is substantial and widespread community transmission, with 600 cases per 100,000, and not only in student areas. There is a worryingly high incidence of spread to vulnerable groups, particularly people over 65 years old, and 31 are in critical care, so something definitely needs to be done.
However, I worry that the way in which the Government have handled the pandemic and its manifestations so far, and the impact that this has had on the situation in the north-west, is not helping. There is a widespread feeling that lockdown was lifted in Liverpool city region before cases had fallen far enough. The failings and increasingly poor performance of the nationally arranged test and trace system are making control of the virus much harder. People are waiting many days to get results. Many contacts of those testing positive are going untraced until it is too late for isolation to make a big difference.
The lack of discussion and candour until recently and even engagement with local leaders, Mayors and MPs means that there is a trust issue. That was worsened by yesterday’s briefing, at which the CMO suggested he was not confident that the tier 3 base measures would stop the epidemic growing, which the Prime Minister told the House they would. We then learned from the SAGE minutes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, about widespread scientific advice not being followed three weeks ago. We need—I urge the Minister—more transparency and more openness from Government. We do not have enough of that. Let us have the information in real time and let us work on it together.
Most of all, we need proper financial support for the people on Merseyside affected by these serious restrictions. Tier 3 measures are going to devastate some of our lowest-paid workers. We cannot defeat the virus on the cheap and we should not do it on the basis of the living standards of the poorest. The assistance proposed so far is inadequate to the task.
According to the TUC, there are 41,000 people in the city region area who might benefit from the local furlough scheme, but there are many, many thousands more whose businesses will not be forced to close but who will not benefit by one penny from these proposals or from this support. It is not enough. More is going to have to be done to support local people in tier 3 areas and to prevent penury from following the pandemic.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Government are desperately trying to find that balance point between protecting livelihoods and protecting lives, and I am grateful to them for all they are doing to try to bring that off, but the only way forward is to get maximum buy-in from the public. There is no perfect set of rules or laws that can be enforced. We do not have enough police and that would require a mighty explanation task, so the more they can do by means of persuasion, the better. Sharing with the public the dangers and showing them how hand washing, distancing and not mingling in enclosed spaces are going to work are the way forward. I am apprehensive about how much of this is enforceable.
Test and trace can work only if people who are traced are willing to co-operate. Quite a lot of people leave funny names, apparently, or they are not available when people are trying to contact them, or when they are told that they are a contact, they decide they are too busy to follow the procedures. They might genuinely be too busy and have real conflicts in their lives about looking after relatives, sorting out children, cooking meals at home or whatever it is, and it is very difficult suddenly to isolate if they do not have the property and the means to do all that, so we need to carry them with us. There needs to be a more energetic reliance on persuasion and less on formal rules.
My other worry about this strategy is that we need a plan B for the possibility that there is no early and successful vaccine. We all hope that the Secretary of State is right and we all hope that, by spring, there is a vaccine that works that can be produced at scale and that enough people want to take it so the problem goes away, but there might not be and this might fall down on one or more of those requirements. I urge the Government to think through what is plan B, because we do not want this continuous cycle where the virus pops up, we impose controls, the virus goes down a bit, we relax the controls and the virus pops up again.
That is deeply destructive to social life and community life. It is going to destroy many more businesses and many more livelihoods. Many more jobs are going to be lost. Businesses need some greater certainty that they will be able to trade, so I urge the Government to be more open with us about what is plan B for no vaccine and more open with everyone about how long these controls have to last and what their purposes are.
The 10 o’clock rule has become the iconic one that is opposed by some and supported by others. The problem with it is that people find easy ways round it. They comply with leaving the pub, but then congregate in each other’s homes and use off-licence booze. They might be breaking the rule of six, but feel that is a tolerable thing to do. The police cannot go to everybody’s home to find out whether they are breaking the rule of six, but they can enforce turning out the pubs. It might be worse for people to drink at home than to drink in the pub, so rules have their limitations. Let us get more buy-in by persuasion. That is our job as politicians.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I would like to make the following points based on my 20 years’ experience as a former public health consultant.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the new tier system and measures that were introduced yesterday are sufficient to contain the virus. The localised approach will not work because of seeding. The virus travels where people come from. I came down on the train yesterday—I talked to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) about this point—and there might have been people who were asymptomatic who unknowingly have spread the virus, unfortunately. There may also have been people who wanted to exercise their personal choice, who have the virus and knowingly exposed people to that risk. Unless the Government are prepared to set up roadblocks across the M1, M6, M62 and all other routes to and from the north, I am afraid that, just as happened in the first wave in Italy, the virus will spread.
To understand what we need to do now, we must understand how we got to this position. It is abundantly clear, as has already been said, that the national test and trace programme is not fit for purpose. In spite of clear WHO guidance, it was not fully operational in June when the first lockdown measures were eased, and as a consequence it has failed to cope with the predicted rise in infections ever since. On top of that there were, unfortunately, significant specific failures.
I support the calls of the CMO, SAGE and others for a short circuit break to help drive down infection rates, but that should be at the national level. Any circuit break period should be used to undertake the transfer of test and trace to local public health departments. That must be accompanied by full resource transfer. Currently, less than 10% of the money used by local authorities at a local level has been reimbursed by the Government. That is unjustifiable and unsustainable, and it must be resolved.
In addition, the circuit break should be used first to ensure that the NHS and social care are fully prepared. They must have adequate PPE. They must have flu vaccines. They must have regular testing regimes. We should identify vulnerable people for supportive shielding, and not via some algorithm. We need to define exactly how we are going to support people in a way that does not mean they will be detrimentally isolated. We must also make sure we have simple, coherent messaging with local community engagement, and I support what the Government are trying to do with the simplification. We must also make sure that we have monitoring and enforcement capacity.
All workers and businesses need to be fully supported during any circuit break. We are at war with the virus. The Treasury needs to recognise that and respond adequately. Finally, the Government must recognise that covid is a disease of poverty.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I take this opportunity to thank all those in my constituency who followed the rules when Leicestershire was being threatened with a lockdown. Through their dedication and their following of the rules, we have managed to avoid it for now.
During that threat of lockdown, one of the key messages I brought to this House was the importance of making sure that two key messages get through: where the affected area is and the measures that come into place. I am therefore pleased to hear today that we have a simplification and a tier-based system that will allow our constituents to understand the measures in place. With a postcode checker as well, it is even better. That was built, and I fed into the review led by Dame Mary Ney. She has produced a document on good practice for areas going into lockdown. I suggest that Members have a look at that document, because they can hold the Government to account by the very nature of what is written in it.
I was pleased to hear yesterday—it was repeated again today—that the Government acknowledge the difficulties of balancing health and the economy. It is a simple temptation to say, “Let’s just do it by generations and protect the shielded”, but the evidence shows that we cannot do that. Generational spread does happen, and that is when the threat comes to our elderly and our shielded.
What has happened this time is that we have a more nuanced response from the Government, and I welcome that. It is good medicine to change as things progress, but I want to focus on the future. I have some short-term suggestions for the Government, such as making sure we are clear with our signage about indicative dates, changes and accountability. We need to be clear about the principles behind the decisions we take, so that when someone asks, “Why can’t I sing?”, they can be told, “Well, singing transmits the virus four times further.” When those principles are clear, it becomes obvious how to interpret the guidelines.
We want certainty for sectors, whether that is the wedding industry, events, the aerospace industry or the travel industry. They need certainty on exactly what will happen for them with guided points. They welcome timetables and they understand if things move, but a clear direction at least is important.
I welcome the aim for a vaccine, but until we get there I agree that a plan B would be useful. We have talked about near patient testing, and I have raised those questions in this House. Could it be that, in the future, before we come to speak in the Chamber, we have 20-minute saliva test—it is bound to be negative—and then come in and carry on with our day-to-day life? Until we get there, I urge the Government to read the Health and Social Care Committee’s recommendations on dealing with non-covid sites. At the end of the day, experience teaches us to help those who cannot and to empower those who can. That should be the message that the Government take forward.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“I am not confident, and nor is anybody confident, that the tier 3 proposals for the highest rates…would be enough to get on top of it.”
Those were the words last night of the chief medical officer, but sadly the Government knew this in September, when SAGE scientists advised the immediate introduction of a list of measures including a circuit breaker. In the following days, the Prime Minister went ahead with only the work-from-home U-turn and the 10 pm curfew. Now we know the truth. Last night, we saw that the SAGE minutes clearly stated that the curfew measure was likely to have a marginal impact, as it also seems the Government’s tiered approach will do.
Further, after the initial lockdown, any semblance of economic normality that would have kept the public safe was predicated on a comprehensive test, track and trace system, but with people still making vast round trips to get a test and risking their details being lost in an Excel spreadsheet never to be seen again, it is clear that we do not have a comprehensive testing system. And how can we forget Operation Moonshot? Salford was to be one of the pilot areas testing the Moonshot programme. However, my local council confirmed to me this morning that, some time ago now, it asked the Department of Health and Social Care to share the clinical validity data behind this new technology. To date, that query remains unanswered, and until this morning Salford City Council had been told to pause the programme. So can the Secretary confirm his current plans for the development of mass testing?
We all know what needs to be done. Any resumption of normal life depends on bringing the infection rate down, followed by robust test, trace and isolate systems, but for this to happen, we need clear direction from Government, and our businesses and workers need economic support to do what is required of them. So far, the Chancellor’s support still does not extend to the more than 3 million people who are excluded, and the watering down of economic support means that, even under tier 2, many businesses and workers across Greater Manchester will see a significant drop in income that they will not be able to sustain. So it seems we have a choice here: either we do not follow the science and instead impose the misery of prolonged tier 2 and tier 3 restrictions in many areas with little economic support, and cases and deaths will rise; or we follow the science and bring down transmission with a short national circuit breaker and a reform to test, track, trace and isolate. Frankly, the pandemic strategy so far has been akin to throwing a glass of water on a chip pan fire, and the Government need to change course today.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I have three quick points. First, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcements on the tier system and, in particular, the granularity that has been allowed. In my neighbouring borough of High Peak, we are seeing ward-based restrictions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for his work on ensuring that that happens. I urge that there should be more granularity in what we do, led by local health professionals.
On the matter of hospitality, this is where I have to declare an interest. My family has run a pub for 53 years, from my grandfather to my father and now my brother, and they have never faced anything like this in all that time. I recognise why my right hon. Friend is doing what he is doing, and I agree with him that schools and workplaces have to be our priority, but we also have to think about the businesses that have spent thousands on making themselves covid-ready and now face a very uncertain future. Shift workers and those who work in hospitality are now completely excluded from any socialising with their friends, because the bars are simply not open at the time when they can go and enjoy themselves.
Also, people do not understand why there are differences around the country. Why is Wales allowing a drinking-up time? Why does Northern Ireland have an 11 o’clock closing time? I say to my right hon. Friend that I will support the Government’s measures today, but please can we look at having some more flexibility? I would be very happy to talk to him about some of the suggestions that my brothers have put to me during this debate, including on off-licence sales, drinking-up time and perhaps more flexibility on Friday and Saturday nights, which are the lifeblood of hospitality industries around the country, particularly in areas outside the big cities.
My final point is about this place, which is leading the way. We are sitting here in a socially distanced way. We are the most visible workplace in the country and we are abiding fully by the rules. However, if we have a Division this evening, we are putting ourselves at risk, and we are putting the staff of the House at risk. As the Clerk said in evidence to the Procedure Committee yesterday, if we do not have enough security staff able to come into this place, we cannot open. I want to see this place open. I want to see us scrutinising what the Government are doing and to be able to have these debates. We will be able to do that a lot better and a lot more safely if we vote in a safe way, and that means allowing the House to make a decision about whether we return to remote voting.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
There is a huge principle to be debated here. At the heart of it is the false dichotomy posed again by the Secretary of State today between hospitality and the economy and jobs, as though hospitality were not part of the real economy and millions of jobs did not depend on it. Tell that to the workers and businesses owners in pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafes, hotels and wedding venues, theatres and cinemas, betting shops, bingo halls and casinos and gyms, all of which are facing really hard times and challenges. They are facing closures, ruin and job losses on a massive scale. At the same time, as we heard earlier, Treasury support is weakening and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only losing the cost of support but suffering a major loss of revenue.
Unfortunately, the approach seems to be driven less by deep analysis and more by the dreaded doctrine of “something must be done”. This is something; therefore we must do this irrespective of proportionality, outcome or impact. But this time it is even worse. It seems to be “something needs to be seen to be done” without any cost-benefit analysis or considering the impact on a beleaguered industry and a workforce facing mass redundancies. Accordingly, I and many other Members are unclear about the basis, either at a local or national level, of these proposals. The Chief Secretary talked earlier of anecdotes. I want a bit more than anecdotes.
Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council, rightly said on Radio 4 today that a far better way than closures and curfews is to give powers to local councils to take rapid action to shut down non-compliant venues. In my authority of Sandwell, which has an enviable contact rate of 85% led by the excellent public health director Dr McNally, we have had one case linked to a hospitality venue, and that was early on in the pandemic in a pub in Smethwick. The Express & Star, our evening newspaper, investigated and found that across the Black Country, which is home to 1.25 million people, there have been just 10 such incidences of covid, again all early in the pandemic.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State did not give an indication of how long he thinks this can go on. It could last almost indefinitely unless we develop a vaccine, an event that, as the Prime Minister candidly admitted yesterday, is uncertain and would not be 100% effective. One of the tests of an exit strategy is considering how we contain the virus if we are not able to eliminate it, as we have had to do with major diseases throughout history and as many of parts of the world still have to do today.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) who closed on a critical point.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the good faith that is being shown today in fulfilling the promises given before about bringing these matters to the House. I hope that the same will be done in future if there are to be any measures to move areas between tiers in the three-tier system.
We all recognise that the Government have a difficult and unenviable balance to strike. We want to ensure the most effective response to the virus, while preserving vital treatment for other illnesses, such as cancer, and maintaining as far as possible normal family and social life as well as jobs and livelihoods.
In this context, I would argue that we need to work with the public, encouraging people to take sensible precautions for themselves. We all know the principal steps that need to be taken. We know that hand hygiene and distancing are key to protecting ourselves and others. We should encourage people to take that responsibility on themselves more and more. There should always be a presumption in doing so that we should protect as much of people’s freedom as possible. There are some simple steps that can mitigate some of the worst effects of these measures. Exempting young children from the rule of six is one that has been taken in other parts of the United Kingdom. Getting rid of the 10 pm curfew, or softening it, as others have suggested, is another. Introducing testing at airports to mitigate the hugely damaging quarantine arrangements is another, and I hope that we will see some movement on that in the next few weeks.
I make no bones about it: I would go further. As I said last week in the House, in my view, it is wrong to use public health legislation designed to control infected people to direct the lives of an entire population. But most immediately, I am concerned for my constituents in Greater Manchester, who have been in extra restrictions since late July. They were lifted for 12 hours, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remembers very well, and I remember the tears that I heard cried by constituents when those restrictions were restored. In tier 2, we can at least meet friends and family outdoors, but after two and a half months of controls, we must be told how and when the restrictions will be lifted. This half-alive state that we have come to inhabit cannot be allowed to become permanent.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I begin, I am afraid, by declaring my registered interest in Glint Pay, for reasons which will become apparent.
The problem with today’s statutory instruments is that they implement a strategy to suppress the virus until a vaccine has been found. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tweeted:
“Our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS until a vaccine can keep us safe.”
That runs into three problems. The first is that a vaccine may not come. The second is that a vaccine may not be effective. The third is that all this is propped up on quantitative easing and ultra-cheap credit. Indeed, now we are reading in the newspapers about negative interest rates, and this is why I declared the interest. I think you have to have a peculiarly high level of economic education to believe that we can head towards £745 billion of QE and ultra-low or negative interest rates and that all this will not be a problem. I will not say any more about it. I think it will be a problem, and it is precarious indeed that the Government’s strategy is propped up on such a monetary policy.
Only yesterday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by when he expected to have vaccinated the vulnerable population. Of course he was good enough to reply that he could not give me a date and made reference to SARS, which took place 18 years ago and for which we still do not have a vaccine. I was grateful to him for his honesty.
Personally, I think that privately the Government are a little more optimistic about the AstraZeneca vaccine, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned, but here is the thing: even suppose the Government had vaccinated the public with a successful, safe vaccine by Easter or possibly the summer, that still leaves our economy and Government spending propped up on ultra-cheap credit. The problem with that is that the Bank of England has told us on the Treasury Committee that if inflation comes in it will have to, under its mandate, fight inflation. That would effectively mean pulling the plug on Government spending. This is precarious indeed.
I turn in the last few seconds to the Great Barrington declaration. No one can deny that it is well motivated. Indeed, it says:
“Keeping these measures”—
lockdown policies around the world—
“in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
I have been looking closely at the critiques of the declaration. Professor James Naismith of the University of Oxford wrote:
“Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.”
For the reasons that I have given, I am convinced that the Government must find an alternative strategic plan between the Great Barrington declaration and where we are today.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have heard one or two people say that the Government do not have a plan, but I do not agree with that. I think the Government have a good plan, which they set out in May. I read it at the time and thought it was very sound. My problem is that the Government often do not seem to remember that they have a plan and do not always follow through on some of the things in it, for example, the risks of a vaccine, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) reminded us about. The Prime Minister said in the foreword to the plan:
“It is clear that the only feasible long-term solution lies with a vaccine or drug-based treatment.”
But he was frank enough to say that
“while we hope for a breakthrough, hope is not a plan. A mass vaccine or treatment may be more than a year away.”
The best evidence, even now, is that that year, which would take us to next May or so, is about the best-case scenario for being able to vaccinate older members of the community if all goes well, so it is clear that we have to do other things.
The first phase of the Government’s plan was the lockdown, to drive down the virus to a very low level. The second phase was to introduce smarter controls, for example, covid-safe workplaces in hospitality venues, combined with an effective testing and tracing system. I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, looking at the evidence at the moment, that the second most important piece of that, according to the Government’s plan, was the following:
“local authority public health services to bring a valuable local dimension to testing, contact tracing and support to people who need to self-isolate”.
I welcome the extra support given to the local public health teams in the high-risk areas that the Government have set out, but I would argue that it should go further and extend across the country. The importance of that is seen if we look at the data, which shows we are reaching only about 74% of those who test positive to get their contact information. We are reaching only 68.6% of those contacts in total, according to the latest data, which is the lowest percentage. That means that overall we are reaching only about half of the contacts of people who test positive.
Munira Wilson
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the data also shows that the tracing rates for local authority or regional public health teams are somewhere between 90% and 100%, whereas the central contact tracing percentage is only somewhere in the 60s? That is more evidence that we should be running this locally.
Mr Harper
I do think there is some evidence to show that local teams are better. I work closely with my local director of public health in Gloucestershire—I am sure every Member of the House does with theirs—the fantastic Sarah Scott, who has recently been promoted to a wider brief, and her team. I would have real confidence that if she were given the resources, she and her team would do a fantastic job of tracing contacts quickly, getting to them, working with them to explain why isolating was important and perhaps being able to work with them to identify some of the barriers that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, might stop them isolating. If we were to do that and be much more effective, that would enable us not only to live with this virus, but to live meaningful lives where people could have more social contact; they could have more ability to have those important contacts—the Secretary of State acknowledged they were important. That was in the Government’s original plan and they should lean into it. The Government have a strategy and they need to go back to that original strategy to look at the areas that are not being executed as well as they could be. I said in my intervention that I give credit to the Test and Trace team for massively expanding testing, but the testing is not an end; it is a means to an end: to identify the virus, isolate areas where we need to put in further measures and encourage people to isolate. If we do that, we will be successful and the country will thank us for it.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
If we are to have any hope of getting a grip on this virus, reopening our economy and restoring our freedoms, it all depends on fixing test, trace and isolate, and on giving control of that system to directors of public health. As I understand it, local directors of public health can make proposals on how to tackle the virus in their area only under tier 3. Can the Government confirm today that, if local authorities make proposals on how to use extra delegated powers and their local knowledge to keep the virus under control in their areas, they will work with them to enable this to happen, even when those areas are just in tiers 1 and 2?
We also need to see proper financial support for those businesses that are being asked to close, so that they can both survive and recover. This is no small threat. Almost 25% of hospitality businesses think they will fail in the next three months. We understand the need for public health measures, but they must come with a proper package of support. Many in hospitality are worried that the restrictions on households mixing in tiers 2 and 3, and on alcohol to be served only with a meal, might make businesses commercially unviable, and they will need to close even if they have not explicitly been told to do so. In those circumstances, will the Government make the extended job support scheme available to those companies? If local authorities decide to close all pubs in addition to tier 3 measures, do those who are forced to close have access to the Government’s central extended support scheme, and do suppliers to those businesses that have had to close, but are not technically forced to close themselves, have recourse to the extended job support scheme as well?
Then there is the curfew. We have seen crowds of people in close contact turfed out onto streets, onto public transport, into off-licences and into homes where they cannot be policed. The facts are well rehearsed. SAGE members were not consulted. The Government did no assessment of the cost to business. The Campaign for Real Ale and UKHospitality asked for the evidence, but got nothing. The curfew is now subject to a judicial review, because the Government have failed to provide any evidence. Yesterday evening, at a briefing for MPs, the Government’s medical advisers admitted that the curfew was a policy decision, not a scientific one. Overnight, SAGE’s minutes observed that the curfew would have a marginal impact.
Craig Whittaker
On that point, I used to be a landlord many years ago, in the days when we kicked people out at 10 o’clock on a Sunday and 11 o’clock the rest of the week. Is the reality not that it is up to people to take responsibility for their own safety and that this is not just about a policy?
Daisy Cooper
The idea that a Government can change a policy without having implications for public behaviour is absurd. That is why the behavioural science group exists to advise SAGE and has advised the Government on this point. What is worse is that we knew that the Government were advised to close everything down for two weeks and they did not, suggesting that the curfew was just a feeble attempt to look as though they were trying to do something. The Government are so desperate not to accept that they got it wrong, or to suffer a defeat, that even if the House votes down the curfew in the seventh vote tonight, it has already been incorporated into the package of measures in the first three votes, which will introduce the three tiers from tomorrow. The Government have provided no opportunity for Opposition MPs to amend them so that we can improve public health and outcomes for businesses. The Government had the opportunity to persuade the public and Opposition MPs with clear evidence, but they have squandered that, choosing instead coercion and control. It is outrageous that local government leaders, business leaders and Members of this House have had to fight tooth and nail for weeks to see the evidence behind Government measures that are threatening lives and livelihoods in our communities. It is an outrageous abuse of power and it must stop. There is a sickness of secrecy at the heart of this Government, and it can be cured only by some radical transparency.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I will say at the start that, as a Conservative, imposing state control over people’s lives makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable and puts me well outside my personal comfort zone.
Back in August, when the whole of Calderdale was put under local restrictions, we got additional support from the Government in several forms. One form of support was an additional tier on the national track and trace system. That has been a valuable tool to give the local authority real evidence of where the spikes are coming from. As a result of that, we traced around 90% of contacts.
As I said, I have a problem with state control over people’s lives, but—and there is a “but”—what we have seen locally during local restrictions is that, although the majority of people adhere to the law and guidance, which is worth repeating, sadly, a significant number do not. Unfortunately, the actions of a significant few are putting everybody else at risk, and the current spike is staggering. It is the result of a significant minority who are taking the liberty of living their daily lives as they choose, and they are putting everybody else at risk. These are some of the things that are happening locally, some of which are evident from our track and trace system: people not self-isolating when they are unwell; people not self-isolating when they return from holiday; and people not self-isolating when they have been in contact with someone else who has tested positive. It is not advised to mix households in pubs and restaurants; however, because that has been guidance only, our local pubs and restaurants have been full of mixed households seated together. That is not evidence from track and trace, but from the local MP, in the pub for most of the weekend. Finally, households are still mixing, despite it being law that they cannot.
There are many reasons why people have not adhered to the law or guidance, but the reality is that when a significant few ignore Government advice and take decisions about the pandemic into their own hands, they put the majority at huge risk. This is by no means a criticism of our local police and local authority, but they have taken the decision to have a light-touch approach to enforcement of local restrictions. I have supported that, but we are again at a cliff edge with the virus locally, and that light-touch approach, where people are not penalised for taking their own decisions, is being abused by a significant number of people.
I have lots of stats about what is happening locally, but basically we have had 800 positive cases in the last two weeks. We now have 43 people in hospital and six people in ICUs, and we have had 12 deaths since 1 October. It is for that reason—that is, the evidence—that I support the Government 100% on implementing the tiered system, because we really need to get the virus back under control.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
A week ago, Nottingham showed for the first time a dramatic increase in our covid-19 infection rate. We needed immediate action from the Government, but instead all we got was confusion and delay. We were left in the dark for a week, with no action and no communication from the Government, and during that time the infection rate doubled to be the highest in the country. The saddest thing about that is that it was avoidable.
The Government have failed us time and again during this crisis. They failed to protect elderly people and vulnerable people, who died at an alarming rate in care homes and nursing homes. They failed to implement a test and trace system and they failed to listen to the OECD’s advice that the best way to protect the economy was to prevent a second wave, instead telling people one minute to go out to pubs, to eat out to help out, and then blaming them for doing so the next. The Government prioritised the interests of the economy over saving lives, yet failed to do both, and we are now faced with the worst recession in the developed world.
Last week, MPs, councillors and members of the public were left to find out in the press that we were due to go under a local lockdown, without any details of what that would look like for residents and for businesses. People in Nottingham have made enormous sacrifices during this pandemic, but frankly people are fed up. People want the Government to do their part. That means a serious economic package to protect jobs and businesses, and fixing the privatised Serco test and trace system. Are the Government so wedded to privatisation that even when it is utterly failing and public health is at risk they just plough on? We also need to extend the eviction ban so that no one loses their home during this time.
We know that lockdowns work only if people can afford to self-isolate, so why is it that, eight months into this virus, statutory sick pay is still £95 a week? The Secretary of State said that he could not live on that, so why are my constituents expected to? My final question to the Minister, in the last few seconds, is why have the Government not even followed their own scientific advice, which was to ban households mixing, close pubs and bring all university teaching online? How many people have to die before the Government get a grip of this virus?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If hon. Members are on the call list between number 25 and 35, they really should be in the Chamber now, please.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to make a short number of points to the Government about these statutory instruments. First, I welcome the fact that they have set out with clarity and granularity how the system will work, and that we have the chance to debate these measures today. As the Prime Minister said last night, the evidence behind some of the statutory instruments is, at best, imperfect, and I am particularly concerned about the evidence for the 10 o’clock curfew. That curfew may or may not be necessary, but in my constituency, many people are leaving the hospitality sector at 10 o’clock and going to local shops to buy alcohol. They are moving from a covid-secure environment, usually to a less covid-secure environment. If the Minister wants to make the case that SI 2020 No. 1029 is necessary, I suggest that he introduces a statutory instrument that allows for local restrictions on the purchase time for alcohol.
I welcome the fact that the restrictions are time limited in a number of cases, and I accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will need to make quick decisions. Why is the proposed expiry date for a number of these statutory instruments not three months but six months? If there is any indication that we need to increase that period, will the House get to debate that? Will there be a 28-day review in the House of all the statutory instruments?
The Prime Minister was absolutely right last night when he said that we need to build consensus, and the Minister will not be surprised to hear that, as a south London MP, I am particularly concerned about a London-wide lockdown, which would impact 9 million people. All restrictions must be applied proportionately. Merton, which includes Wimbledon, has one of the lowest infection rates in London, but many boroughs in different parts of London are affected. At what level would a London restriction be applied, and will it be agreed by borough leaders and not just the Mayor? Will the Minister confirm that for London, like the rest of the country, restrictions will be on a borough-by-borough, ward-by-ward basis? It is difficult to see the rationale for a London-wide imposition of new restrictions.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I believe that the Government should have brought all these measures to Parliament from the beginning, and it should not have taken a revolt on the Tory Back Benches for us to debate these statutory instruments. Why? Because through debates in Parliament we can persuade the public that the Government are making the right decisions, and we can challenge the Government and make them explain why they are making certain decisions.
From the beginning of the pandemic there was widespread support for what the Government were doing, but since Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham, where his rule breaking was met with impunity by the Prime Minister, we have seen an increase in confusion and the rules get more complex. We have also seen people’s good will turn into cynicism. The advice over the summer about eating out to help out, or people being told to go back to work, then to work from home and not go out or even go to the pub, caused confusion and ill will. That is making it much harder to persuade our constituents that this is what they should be doing, and that the Government have a plan. We need transparency and honesty, and to be able to trust what the Government are doing.
Yesterday, my local authority was put into tier 3. We know that the Government have decided to keep universities and workplaces open, against the advice of SAGE. That leaves them with only socialising to try to press down on the virus. All they can do is restrict socialising in private or public. Given that there were 41 deaths in the past week in the north-west, I understand the need to do it, but we cannot just have local lockdowns on the cheap. The current furlough-lite is just not a good enough system to ensure that hospitality and jobs are properly protected, and 67% of wages is just not enough. We are abandoning many hundreds of thousands of jobs and many fantastic businesses in hospitality and entertainment to go to the wall without support.
I want to support the Government, but the Government also need to share their thinking and be much more transparent and open about the scientific advice and what works. They also need to be far more generous, especially in tier 3 areas, with the support they are willing to put in to keep local economies, local jobs and local businesses alive, so that we can all fight to get this virus down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am very happy to speak in this debate. This pandemic is devastating to so many: those who have lost loved ones, those who live in fear of leaving the house, those serving in the NHS, frontline workers, those worried that their jobs are to be lost, those worried that they will not get medical treatment quickly enough or those who do not seek it for fear they may have to go to the hospital, parents of children who should be doing exams this year and are beyond stressed, teachers who know the need to educate children but are concerned for safety—I cannot think of any group of people in the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are not affected by this in some way.
I think of a lady I know, who attends and looks after children and babies at the Ards Elim Church, and who has had devastating news. As we know, the hospitals and so on closed down to testing in Ards, particularly for those with cancer; the papers today referred to 3 million people waiting for appointments and assessments. This lady, unfortunately, has had devastating news of advanced cancer, so I am conscious that it is for that generation of hard-working, straight-talking, Queen-and-country-loving, God-honouring prayer women that I support the Prime Minister, the Minister and the Government in what they are trying to do and in their attempts to keep as many things running as possible.
I am conscious of those waiting for a CAT scan or MRI scan and of those with normal—if normal is the right word—health issues who are waiting for treatment. I also think of those with Alzheimer’s; the Alzheimer’s Society has sent me some figures showing that one in four of all coronavirus deaths between March and June were people with dementia. It also referred to the 92 million extra hours spent by family and friends, and the diagnosis rates in August 2020 that fell below the 66.7% target—it was nowhere near reached.
Perhaps when the Minister sums up the debate he can give me some succour in relation to cancer rates and Alzheimer’s. The Alzheimer’s Society has also said it would like to see nominated visitors to care homes classified as key workers, so that they can get help with PPE and infection control. Those may seem like difficult tasks, but the fact is that it is not enough just to keep people alive. The quality of that life must also be essential.
Turning very quickly to Northern Ireland, we have one of the highest rates in Europe in Strabane, but we also have some incredibly low rates of community transition in my own area of Strangford. That shows the difference there can be in a small region such as Northern Ireland, and it shows how we must be localised in how we respond to these things. I conclude by saying this: we must press on in education, press on with hospital appointments and press on with business. We must press on in a new way—the safest way possible for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with space and respect for all—but we must still press on.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Almost 43,000 people have died through covid in the UK since the start of the pandemic. Those are not just numbers not grounded in reality; each number, each curve and each graph represents real people. Many have fallen ill and many have died due to the virus. They are our neighbours, our friends, our colleagues and our families. They died, in many cases, without seeing their children, saying goodbye for the last time in an ambulance. Our Prime Minister too was in hospital, while his partner was pregnant, and suffered a great deal because of the virus. Thankfully he pulled through and is fighting fit and doing his utmost to protect our people, but no one is immune to this virus.
The Government have the incredibly complex task of saving lives without compromising livelihoods. The economic measures put in place by the Chancellor to that extent have been among the most generous in Europe. These regulations are consistent with the Government’s strategy to defeat covid-19 and manage the demands on the NHS. I believe the Government are working hard to take that balanced approach, taking into account public health issues, broader health and wellbeing, and the economic and social considerations. Unfortunately, we have seen infection cases rising rapidly across the country, and the number of patients admitted into intensive care units in hospitals has increased. This is exactly the situation we must avoid. The Government’s job is to do what is best for the people, and to save lives while protecting the economy. One thing is for sure, however: no one wants to see the number of deaths and hospitalisations that we saw earlier this year.
My own area of Morley and Outwood, along with the rest of West Yorkshire, has been placed on high alert level at this stage. Such is the great variation of infections between the regions, there have been different rules in different parts of the country. This is the best way to keep our economy going without shutting down our entire nation. Today’s three-tier system ensures a collaborative approach between central Government and local communities. The Government are not simply introducing restrictions without the necessary support. I welcome the Chancellor’s further actions to protect jobs and to support businesses whose premises have been legally required to shut. The Government are taking the necessary responsibility to support the economy through this public health crisis.
As Conservatives, we suffer by instinct from the imposition of restrictions—I personally do—but we would not do it unless it was extremely necessary to safeguard lives. During lockdown, I had many conversations with care homes, businesses and constituents in Morley and Outwood. They all agreed that it was possible to keep the virus under control while keeping the economy going. I believe there is broad consensus in this House and in my constituency that the health of our fellow citizens is paramount. It is time for us, across the House, to pull together, across the country with local leaders, to put the health crisis first and avoid all party politics.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). She makes a valid point that this is a public health crisis.
Over a week ago, my constituency of Hartlepool was placed under lockdown. It is currently in tier 2 of the new measures. Yes, it was requested by the local authority that such action be taken, but not in the guise in which it formed itself in the current measures. Lockdown was imposed on Hartlepool via a Government press release. Yesterday morning at 9 am, there was a hastily arranged conference call, hosted by a Minister, with all north-east leaders, yet Hartlepool, together with other authorities in the Tees valley, was left off the phone call. On behalf of my council, I would like the Minister to answer why they were not included in a phone call on the new measures in the north-east of England. If that was a mistake, has it been rectified or when will it be rectified? Consultation with my local authority has so far been woeful.
Turning to the public health issues, now that the whole of the Tees valley is under tier 2 we can hopefully work together and set party politics aside for the public good. Collectively, our local authorities face important challenges and they deserve to have appropriate resources allocated to them. In my council, it is estimated that £4.5 million is needed to provide extra support during lockdown. We desperately need to see a strategy developed by the Government for ending lockdown. Test and trace needs to be devolved, so that local environmental health teams, who know the patch and have the knowledge, can provide a more effective service. We need much more to assist us to get through tier 2. It is a public health crisis. I urge the Government to improve their communications and to answer the question I put earlier.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If you are on the call list between No. 40 and No. 70 and you no longer want to participate in the debate, please make sure that the message comes through to the Chair.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I believe that the measures proposed by the Government are reasonable and proportionate to slow the spread of the virus while balancing this against civil liberties. In particular, I believe that the 10 pm closing time is appropriate as part of the package of measures designed to strike that balance, and that the data and evidence, as outlined by the Secretary of State, show that it is actually proving effective in curbing the spread of the virus. It is of course a compromise, but one that allows the hospitality industry to remain open for business while including restrictions to curb the virus in the areas of greatest risk. It is also important to remember that all these measures are kept under constant review and seek to respond to the latest data about which steps are most effective in curbing the spread of the virus. I am much encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent announcements of increased financial support for sectors such as the hospitality industry that are most affected by the restrictions.
I speak in this debate as the MP for a Welsh constituency, Clwyd South, which borders England, and therefore the decisions taken in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. I strongly support the Westminster Government’s introduction of a new three-tier system that is much more targeted than the Welsh Government’s current local lockdown by county. Currently, 80% of Wales is under local lockdown. I very much hope that the Welsh Government will follow the Secretary of State’s more targeted approach, as outlined in this debate, particularly with regard to the district-by-district approach in areas such as High Peak. That is what we need in Wales. Having witnessed the blanket approach in Wales, which in my constituency does not distinguish between different areas of infection within counties, nor between different levels of infection, I strongly support the Secretary of State’s graduated and sustainable three-tier approach.
I fully support the Government’s measures before the House today, which are proportionate, balanced and represent a collective approach to ensuring that we do our very best to protect others in the fight against coronavirus.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
My constituency has been under what are now known as tier 2 restrictions for 75 days. Yesterday evening, public health authorities and the local authority were told that we should now enter into talks to consider going into the highest tier. That quite shocked me, because it was not what I was told in the calls with the Secretary of State yesterday or in any other calls. It has also come as a surprise to people in Bradford.
Just as other Members have made cases for their constituencies, I will be no different in making the case for mine. Bradford West is a special case in that in 2017-18 child poverty was at 50.9% when we take into account children’s deprivation and housing costs. We have the seventh highest rates of unemployment in the country. Under the current support package, minimum wage workers on £8.72 will have to pay rent and live off £5.84 if the businesses they work for are forced to close. Those excluded from any financial support from the Government during the pandemic face another £20 cut in their universal credit claims as the Government drive on with their roll-back of vital support.
I ask the Minister directly: how does he expect people to survive in a constituency such as Bradford West, which has rising rates of child deprivation and is currently under additional restrictions, if their places of work were to close? Do not he and the Government see how the lack of adequate support alongside these restrictions will, rather than preventing a rise in child poverty, lead to an increase in child poverty in constituencies such as mine? If these measures are to be effective, the support needs to be adequate. I therefore ask him to speak to the Chancellor and consider additional funding support for constituencies such as mine. I know this Government may not have the political will to try to reduce child deprivation in constituencies such as mine, but I sincerely hope that they have the moral will to do so.
When history judges how we responded to this pandemic, social media has plenty of memes that give really good outlines of what the Government’s U-turns have been—from “whack-a-mole” to “world-beating” and all these “moonshot” theories. But actually the real test will be: how will our next generation make their way? Will their education be right? Will they be the next generation of poverty, even after 10 years of austerity and 10 years of this Government? What will life look like for my children and the children beyond? That will be the real test, so that is the responsibility the Government need to step up to today.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Lockdowns do work if the desire is merely to flatten the curve, flatten the sombrero, reduce the R number, and covid is the only thing in town. But of course it is not the only thing in town. That ignores the corollary effects on other health issues, wellbeing and, of course, the economy.
The benefit of what the Government are proposing today, with tiers 1, 2 and 3—medium, high and very high—has the benefit of clarity, which I think has been lacking thus far. But I do have concerns and I would like clarity from the Minister before the end of today’s debate as to how he proposes to move areas in the future, as necessary, between the different tiers. My reading of the SIs is that that can be done without recourse back to Parliament. Areas can be moved between 2 and 3 or vice versa with no negative or affirmative procedure in this House. The worry has to be that there is an ability to recreate a national lockdown in piecemeal fashion, so I certainly hope the Minister will be able to answer that.
I have the same concerns this week as I did last week—raised by many hon. and right hon. Members—about the rule of six, and I was a Teller last week against that SI. There seems to be very little rationale today and there was none last week. If six is the magic golden number, surely four has got to be better and, if not, why not 10? Let us discuss that. I was particularly taken by the speech—he is not in his place—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who made the very reasonable point that a mother and a newborn, never detached from each other, under these counting units count as a two. That has to be patently absurd when, under any reasonable measure, they have to be counted as a one, and that absurdity would continue into any close living family unit.
My real concern is, of course, about the 10 pm curfew. Just considering this great city of London, the restaurants close, the pubs close, there is no takeaway available at 10 o’clock, and guess what? The first train out of London or the next tube at 10.10 is going to be rocker-chocker solid—mixing and mingling with people at close proximity. For great clarity of any Whips listening to this debate, I will be voting against the, albeit superseded, negative procedure SI on the 10 pm curfew, which is in motion 9. I remain very concerned about the SI in motion 3 on the Order Paper about the lower level tier 1 —medium. Again, the 10 pm curfew has crept into all of these SIs and I see no rationale for it to be relevant for the lower level—the safer level. So I remain to be convinced, but I am currently concerned and may vote against.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Increasingly, it feels like the north is being treated as an afterthought, with decisions taken by people in Whitehall who could not even point to Warrington on a map. We had absolutely none of the promised engagement over the weekend with our local authority and there was a concerted push to make us subject to the tier 3 restrictions of the Liverpool city region, despite not being a part of those conversations or, indeed, of the Liverpool city region. It has been insulting to be invited to a meeting for a totally different county by the Department for Health, and to be told what restrictions we would be subject to only minutes before the Prime Minister made his announcement, when the details had all been leaked to The Times days earlier, causing huge anxiety locally.
The real irony, however, is that many of our local businesses would be better off if we had gone into tier 3, as the financial support for tier 2 is totally inadequate. Between the 10 pm curfew and the introduction of the ban on households mixing indoors, hospitality venues in Warrington lost up to 90% of their business in a single week. No business could be expected to survive that indefinitely and the job support scheme does little to help, pushing families into poverty. Far from the Government’s stated aspiration of levelling up, we are being levelled down in the north-west by coronavirus and a Government who seem to think we should be grateful for the limited support we have had.
The worst part is hearing from constituents who have lost hope. The mental health impacts of all they have had to endure will be lasting and significant. As well as getting serious about financial support for our region to deal with the virus, we urgently need to see increased support to deal with the mental health crisis that we face. To give people hope, we need to have it explained what thresholds Warrington needs to meet to be moved out of tier 2 and into tier 1, with the rest of the country. With something to work towards, compliance will naturally increase, and it will give us back some of the control that we feel we have lost. We all want to do our bit, but the Government must do theirs. That means greater engagement, transparency and accountability and not a lockdown for the north on the cheap.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to the debate. Many of us on the Back Benches fought for this opportunity to contribute, although I was hoping that we would have longer than three minutes. I do not doubt that Ministers are grappling with the most difficult trade-offs in managing the spread of the virus. In particular, I know that the Minister for Health bears a huge responsibility in trying to ensure the lowest possible number of covid fatalities.
I support the Government in their efforts to manage the virus and their three-tier system, but I have concerns similar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), and I want to raise three of them. First, the Prime Minister was brutally honest yesterday in telling my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that a vaccine may or may not be available, depending on what science delivers. If that is the case, we need a long-term covid strategy that does not involve areas being put in and out of restrictive measure for many years to come, which will not only damage local economies but have a tragic impact on the diagnosis and treatment of other potentially fatal health conditions among my constituents in Wealden.
In particular, cancer comes to mind. The national health service has been called the national covid service by many of my constituents. I received an email from a local resident, Mike, who is trying to get a neurosurgery consultation appointment. He has been told that, for his condition, he has to wait 48 weeks, not the 26 weeks that it would have been in February. Amusingly—even though my residents in Wealden are struggling, they still have a sense of humour—he says that patients are asked to use their “fastest finger first” when ringing to try to get a same-day hospital appointment:
“Anyone without a swish redialling telephone and the persistence of Miss Marple has little chance of getting an appointment.”
That is the problem we face. Our efforts to protect the NHS and protect our constituents from getting covid are unfortunately leading to people being unable to manage their other health conditions.
Secondly, testing and tracing continues to be an issue in my care homes and schools, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the turnaround time for tests is much swifter than it is at the moment. The final point I wish to raise is about hospitality. It is clear that there is no scientific basis for the 10 pm curfew. The SAGE scientists say:
“Curfews likely to have a marginal impact. Low confidence.”
We are repeatedly told that this virus spreads indoors. A story in today’s Telegraph says that spending on alcohol is £261 million more than it was in September. That is no doubt because people are spending money on booze to drink at home, where the virus spreads much more. We need to be clear about the unintended consequences of the decisions we take.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
In March, we adhered to lockdown measures to protect one another’s lives and prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. Evidence indicates that the virus is on the increase across the nation. The analysis of what that means, however, is contested, and I remain to be convinced that the imposition of further measures in Wakefield at this time is the right thing to do. The measures before the House, which seek to arrest the spread of covid-19, will cripple Wakefield’s economic recovery and sound the death knell for many businesses. There is no silver bullet, and without one, although it is difficult, we must learn to live with the virus. The continued peaks and troughs are unsustainable and offer false hope.
Last week I visited Ossett brewery, which employs close to 400 people in my constituency. Having spent tens of thousands of pounds on becoming a covid-secure business, the incomprehensible 10 pm curfew—at best grounded in questionable science—has left the business in jeopardy. This afternoon I received an email from the managing director, who said that the imposition of tier 2 measures would merit the brewery’s closure.
I have similar stories to tell from restaurateurs and businesses from across my constituency. My inbox is swamped with people asking me—imploring me—to help the Government to realise that their businesses will be damned. I have not received one letter or email asking me to commend the Government on their proposals.
Throughout the pandemic, the people of Wakefield behaved responsibly, adhering to the Government’s guidelines. When my constituency was marked as an area of concern, my constituents diligently followed social distancing advice and were rewarded. Wakefield now has a lower number of covid cases than neighbouring Kirklees and Calderdale—indeed, lower than the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond, which has been categorised as tier 1. As a consequence of this new tier system, Wakefield will be unfairly characterised as tier 2, along with the rest of West Yorkshire. As Wakefield is placed in stricter measures—
Naz Shah
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should thank local health officials, particularly the directors of public health such as in Bradford West, and that they have the real answers? That expertise is very local and this needs to be led locally, as opposed to nationally with “one size fits all” in cases such as his?
Imran Ahmad Khan
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. Certainly, if we used a model such as Germany, that would be the case, but Germany has a strong federal system with the Länder while the United Kingdom is far more centralised, so I do not think there is a fair comparison. It would be best if all our citizens co-operated entirely with test, track and trace, downloaded the app and used it, and behaved responsibly. In the end, with the covid virus, the human variable is key to limiting and controlling the disease. We have to get individuals to understand their responsibility and their key use in sorting this problem out themselves.
As I was saying, under this new tier system, Wakefield will be placed under stricter measures while other areas in West Yorkshire with a far higher incidence, such as the hon. Lady’s, will enjoy eased measures. Wakefield’s infection rate merits the disaggregation of the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council area from West Yorkshire and its placement in tier 1. The Secretary of State has already said that this is possible in High Peak and parts of North Yorkshire, so, if he would commit to so doing for Wakefield, I would reconsider and vote with the Government. Without such assurances, I fear these measures would, for Wakefield, be death by a thousand cuts. I could not look my constituents in the eye if I had voted for measures that broke them.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Bristol, in tier 1, has fortunately been able to maintain low transmissions, and hence admissions to hospital and, so far, deaths. We want it to stay that way. My experience of working in the local health system is that this is in large part due to good relationships that have been hard developed over many years, particularly through local resilience forums. There are good relationships with Public Health England and directors of public health. Working together is sustaining some very good work locally, but there is no room for complacency. We recognise that the economy—wealth creation—is crucial to good local health, and we need support from the Government for both those things.
In the short time available, I want to highlight issues around isolating, shielding, and test and trace. As well as reducing social contact, which the Secretary of State talked a lot about, the key to transmission reduction is isolating, but isolation support is woeful and for communities with little money, which face higher unemployment, the situation is worsened. We have to be much more honest about the incentives and the way they work to support people who are isolating. It is hard and the knock-on effects on families are substantial and disruptive. Again, we need local public health people who know their communities to help support those who are isolating. We need much more support for people who are shielding. People do not understand why it is now different from how it was back in March.
Across the House, we all know that the test and trace system is not working. It is causing chaos for the frontline, particularly care home managers and school leaders. There is a balancing act to be done here. Again, we need local support to inform those school leaders and care home managers about how to interpret the guidance. That cannot just be done through the algorithm. It is a disgrace that the test and trace system is not led by a civil servant whom we can hold to account. I do not know how we can hold the Baroness—I do not know whether the courtesies of the House allow me to name her—to account for the system. That must be changed. It is crucial that we can hold people to account.
I accept that the legislation was rushed through in March, and perhaps there was a reason for not using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the public health legislation we are debating today. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has scrutinised this, produced our report and we now need to move to a better way forward. We cannot keep dragging the Government here week after week to do our job, which is to agree to disagree, to scrutinise and to hold to account, based on our experience, the work we do in Committees and our work locally. It would improve the legislation. It would improve local trust, and ultimately that supports the front line and saves lives.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Government must be under no illusion: the country’s patience and goodwill are wearing thin. People were promised that the lockdown pain would be worth it as they experienced friends, colleagues and family members lose businesses and be made redundant, separation from loved ones, the cancellation of hospital appointments, and children missing out on education. They were promised a world-beating track and trace system. They were promised that the Prime Minister had taken personal control. They were told that it would be all over by Christmas. After 204 days, we are back to square one: the fourth worst in the world for Covid cases.
I spoke last week to a pub landlord, who did not mince his words and had reached the end of his tether. He had three pubs: now he has only two. He has seen his costs increase and income fall. He says he did everything the Government asked of him: he shut for 13 weeks; he moved tables; he turned off music; he turned off sports commentaries; he moved drinks outside; he opened doors and windows; he asked people to sit down; he stopped more than six being in a group; he split up families and support bubbles; he told people not to shout; he banned singing; he banned dancing; he banned live music; he started wearing masks; he completed track and trace; he got sanitary stations; he had additional cleaning; he had table service; and now he has been told he must shut at 10 pm, which means last orders at 9.15 pm, because having been a barmaid I know that people need drinking-up time before they can be cleared out. That therefore means that business is being lost from 9.15 pm.
He does not understand it. The science is telling him that it does not have significant reasons for following it, and what we need from Government are evidence and clarity. He has been let down. He needs support for businesses, and not just for those in tier 3 but those right across the country. We need a commitment that there will be adequate notice for any of these changes.
It is ludicrous that people in tier 3 can order alcohol only if they have a “substantial meal”. What is a substantial meal? If they order a salad they cannot have a glass of wine, but anything with a pastry lid means they can have a pint. This is nonsense. We are treating the public like fools.
We need to improve communication. The Government must not underestimate how angry people are. People are losing faith in the Government, and that is dangerous. Hull West and Hessle was already suffering because of a decade of austerity and of cuts—a decade of cuts that the Prime Minister seems to forget he voted for.
Our hospitality trade brings colour to our lives—those social moments that we enjoy; the times we are with friends and family and celebrate weddings, anniversaries and birthdays. Pubs help to bring the community together. This Government’s incompetence is killing them off, and they will not be forgiven.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I speak amid concerning news for our constituency: our borough, Redbridge, has the highest infection rate in London alongside Richmond upon Thames. Infection rates in the London borough of Redbridge have risen to more than 100 per 100,000, and in some of my Ilford South wards it is significantly higher.
I welcome the Government’s latest three-tier guidelines, but I feel that they need to go significantly further. Hundreds of my constituents have written over the past few days expressing concern that we have such a high rate. I have visited shops and businesses, speaking to people face to face in the appropriate socially distanced way. They are extremely concerned about the direction of travel.
The London director of Public Health England, Professor Fenton, has warned that coronavirus cases in London continue to rise, and we are seeing undeniable evidence of that trend. In fact, infection rates are rising across the country despite the partial and tight lockdown measures in many parts of the country. It is clear that the Government must now act more decisively than they have so far to stop any further escalation of infection rates in London. We must learn the lessons of other regions across the country that have had partial lockdowns and are still seeing rising infection rates. I am speaking to councillors in Oldham, which has witnessed soaring infection rates—above 205 to 327 per 100,000 in the space of just a week—despite being under tight lockdown measures since the end of August. The partial lockdown measures in regions such as Greater Manchester have clearly failed to curb infection rates, with Manchester’s infection rate rising by more than 100 to 543 per 100,000 just last week.
The current overall London lockdown infection rate remains at 100 per 100,000. That is why I believe it is now time for the Government to act urgently across London by implementing a circuit-breaker lockdown for at least two weeks to prevent London from suffering the fate of other major cities across the country and to halt the trend of rising infection rates across the city. I recognise that this needs to be hand in hand with further economic measures, because it is a more radical measure, but it must be done. I will not be able to look my constituents in Ilford South in the eye when their friends and family are dying because of the utter chaos and ineptitude of this Government.
That initial financial support must urgently be provided to the workers and businesses in Ilford South and across London. The cost would be far smaller than that which would be required if the infection and death rates soared, and London was forced into a far longer and more serious lockdown over a protracted period of many months. Similar calls have been echoed by the Mayor of London, who just today stated the need for tighter restrictions across the city. In my constituency, all the data shows that it is our black and majority Asian communities that are suffering so badly as a result of the virus. We cannot afford for them to continue to be on the frontline.
I implore the Government, who have the lives of my constituents in their hands, to act now and bring in a circuit-breaker lockdown across London immediately.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Just yesterday the Prime Minister and the Government unleashed a new package of restrictions and tiers in order to tackle the transmission of the coronavirus. Yesterday afternoon, in a meeting with west midlands MPs, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the MPs present that all bar two areas—Dudley and Coventry—will be placed on tier 2 restrictions. When I asked him whether he could let me know the scientific basis for Coventry and Dudley being on tier 1 restrictions, and what could trigger a move to tier 2, my question was ignored and unanswered. When I asked how soon after a governmental decision has been made to move a constituency from one tier to another Members and community leaders would be alerted, I received no answer.
This is utterly unacceptable. My constituents in Coventry North West deserve better. They are doing everything they can to hold up their end of the bargain to ensure that transmission is low and stays that way. They deserve more clarity on the evidence behind the Government’s decisions. Clarity ensures adherence. Without it we are flailing in the wind, and people are suffering. Right now, the Government risk losing confidence in their ability to see us through this crisis. They have wasted months of precious time and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and are still not getting it right. Will the Minister let us know just how much notice each local area will be given if a change in its restriction level occurs, and how local communities and local leaders will be told of these decisions?
To borrow a phrase that we are all too familiar with, winter is coming. It is imperative for the Government to be better prepared to tackle the virus, and equip our hospitals and care sectors with the resources they need to handle the second wave. I fear that the Government have not learnt lessons from spring, and that our care sector will be under-protected. I fear that our hospitals will be ill prepared to cope, and that non-covid patients will once again be relegated to the back burner, because the right precautions and planning are not in place to deal with what may come.
Will the Minister let the House know what the Government are doing to prepare for the pressures on our NHS that winter will bring, in particular for cancer patients? What plans will be in place clearly to address sprawling waiting lists for cancer services, and what additional support have the Government given to the many thousands of people who have had their cancer treatment disrupted over the course of the pandemic? These are pertinent question that we have asked the Government time and again, but yet again they are providing us with little clarity and no answer—on the back foot, as usual.
This is an opportunity for the Government to do better, and, in the interests of the country, I really hope they do.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), and I share very much her frustration at the impossibility of getting clear answers from the Government on so many of these important questions.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”—
those words from William Pitt were included in an email from one of my constituents complaining about the way in which this Government are treating the constituents in Christchurch and so many other people in this country. What is the necessity for what the Government are bringing forward today? I asked on 8 October whether the Government would publish the evidence in support of the Secretary of State’s statement on 1 October that
“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]—
if the Government just let the virus rip. There has been no answer to that question—no attempt to answer it—nor has there been any justification for the arbitrary introduction of a 10 o’clock curfew.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend trust the prognosis of Professor Ferguson, whose estimates have been proved wrong again and again and are wildly exaggerated?
Sir Christopher Chope
I do not trust them at all. I shall refer to the evidence from Sweden, because the Prime Minister’s challenge to his critics was to put forward an alternative. The Swedish approach is clear and simple—it is to trust the people and make them responsible for their own health and welfare. I looked at the figures for Sweden for the first week of October. Only seven deaths were recorded in Sweden in the whole of that period and today, not a single death was recorded in Sweden. The Swedish Public Health Agency recommends that household isolation and quarantine should exclude those who have provisionally tested positive for covid-19 or have been confirmed to have antibodies in the last six months. I tabled a question asking why that category of people cannot be exempt from these regulations. Again, I have not had an answer, although the time when it should have been answered has long passed. This is intolerable—the arrogance with which the Government are treating us as elected Members of this place.
Swedish common sense is to the fore. They have restricted gatherings not to six, but to 50. They allow nursing homes to decide their own visiting policies. They regard the rules about face coverings as simplistic and irrelevant. Again, on face coverings, I tabled a parliamentary question on 25 September asking the Secretary of State
“whether the introduction of regulations requiring the use of face coverings was linked to an increase in infection rates of covid-19”.
It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that since those regulations were brought in, there has been an exponential increase in the infection rate in this country. Have I had an answer to that question? Of course not, which suggests that the Government do not even want to face up to the evidence that face coverings are counterproductive and are leading to a false sense of security.
In Sweden, two thirds of all deaths from covid-19 have been in the over-80 age group. That is similar to the situation here, and all the United Kingdom restrictions have so far given the average member of this country—the UK citizen—an extra half-day of life. These new restrictions that are coming in will not even give that, because the collateral damage that is being caused will actually reduce life expectancy further.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Clearly, if we are going to live with this virus, which we obviously will at least until—if ever—a vaccine is found, we need to influence individuals to behave in a way that not only keeps them safe, but makes them discharge their responsibility to keep safe other people in society and in their families. There are many tools that Governments can use to do this. They include rules, regulations and restrictions on activity. They also include messaging. We must give positive incentives to do these things, as well as negative consequences if the rules are not followed. However, I have to say to the Government that more rules will just mean that the compliant, who are not engaging in risky behaviour, will continue to comply, but that those who are reckless will find ways round the rules.
There is no better example of that than the curfew. We know that there is no scientific basis for doing it to protect people’s wellbeing. We have penalised restaurants, which now have to close at 10 pm and cannot do two sittings in an evening, although they have made massive investments to make their premises covid-secure. We are punishing the compliant. Meanwhile, publicans in the high street can comply with the rules and close at 10, but they are offering take-outs at 9.45 to the massive crowds of people spilling out of the pubs. That is reckless behaviour, and I really think the Government need to take stock. It is clear that this is not a good measure to influence behaviour in any positive way. There are much better ways of doing it. Considering the powers that the Government have already taken, I think we should look at more enforcement of fewer rules and regulations, rather than creating new ones when there are issues.
In the time I have left, I want to pay tribute to my community and to the local authority officials and health officials in Thurrock for the fantastic effort they have made in tackling this virus. We are currently 134th out of 149 local authorities in terms of cases. We have a local contact tracing capability that has kept rates down, and we have had no deaths since July, so it has come as some surprise that Public Health England has been lobbying my local authority to move from tier 1 to tier 2. That makes an absolute nonsense of this tiering policy, because we should be asking for additional restrictions only where there will be a material benefit to public health. My director of public health advises me that further restrictions will actually jeopardise public health, and that there will be no benefits from them. We must not be complacent, given the current rise in cases, but please will the Minister resist any attempt to put Thurrock into tier 2?
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
With time short, I want to highlight just a few issues relating to the measures being debated today. I have always said that I will support any measures required that will successfully contain and minimise the devastating impact of this virus, but I hope it has become clear to the Government, after a weekend of discontent, that this country will not accept measures determined by stealth and communicated through press leaks in the night. Those affected by these measures are owed much greater respect than that. The leaks last Thursday evening caused widespread anxiety across Newcastle. People are fearing for their jobs, businesses are cancelling orders and preparing to batten down, suppliers are finding themselves left with goods that are no longer wanted and families are fearing that this might be their last chance to meet. This is no way to treat people who have already suffered so much as a result of the virus.
Everyone accepts that sacrifice is needed. The resolve that people have needed to make those sacrifices to protect the most vulnerable and support the NHS has been unwavering, but they must have confidence that their sacrifices are worth the pain and will actually bring the right results. That is why the Government’s approach has been so damaging. We cannot afford to lose the confidence of those we rely on to make this work. The Government need to be open, honest and transparent, and respectful to those who need to live with these restrictions. We saw a much better approach yesterday, and I hope the Government have learned and will not put people through that anxiety again.
I want to put on record my concern about whether these restrictions are necessary at all. There is a sense of inevitability about this, but the fact is that the UK is far from world-leading when it comes to handling this virus, despite its regular over-inflated claims. We need a functioning test, track and trace system, and we need support for those who are isolating. Also, we are not on top of asymptomatic transmission, and that is a major problem. It was needed last time and it is still needed now.
I have one more specific issue to raise. With no financial support being provided to hospitality businesses in tier 2, we have to know that these measures will work. By allowing restaurants to remain open in the tier 3 areas, despite closing the bars, the Government seem to have acknowledged that restaurants carry a lower level of risk. The effects of alcohol consumption on social distancing are well documented, but the situation where alcohol is served alongside a meal is clearly different. We are not talking nuts and crisps, but a meal, yet the blanket 10 pm curfew for all hospitality in tiers 1 and 2 does not account for the different transmission risk. It does not look after restaurants which, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) pointed out, can offer two sittings. There is no time for dessert or coffee. That sounds trivial, but it can be make or break for a restaurant business. The Government need to look again at lumping all hospitality businesses into the same restrictions. It does not work.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well think that over 37 years, you have heard enough from me, so let me read out a letter that happened to arrive this morning from a constituent. It says:
“I am 67 years old and for the first time in a long time I am scared. Not of the virus, which, let’s be honest, is proving to be no more deadly than the flu”—
that is his opinion; I do not necessarily share it.
“I am scared of the damage being deliberately caused to the economy and our freedoms by this Government in the name of covid-19. It isn’t the virus closing businesses and causing job losses, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus stopping people getting treatment and operations, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus preventing pupils and students getting the education they are entitled to, it’s the actions of the Government.”
So speaks my constituent in a letter that arrived this morning.
Another letter arrived this morning from a constituent telling me that they were having doorstep services very successfully over recent months attended by six to 16 people in place of going to church if that was not possible. That, of course, now breaks the rule of six, so they have had to stop.
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) in posing some serious questions to Government that have to be answered. On positive test results—I ask the Government to write back to me if they cannot answer in the winding-up speech—what percentage do they estimate are false positives? Of covid hospitalisations, what is the breakdown between those in hospital who happen to have tested positive and those who are in hospital because of their covid symptoms? Given the disparity between the number of cases and the number of deaths, are we not wrong to react to the rate of infection, rather than hospitalisations and deaths? There are many, many other questions that need answering.
Following my hon. Friend, what is the evidence that we are saving lives by throwing people out of pubs at 10 o’clock into the street? They can go and buy lager in the shops. They can go back to their student digs.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of bringing the Government to account would be to withhold our support until these important questions are answered?
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend makes his point. We are a Parliament and we are entitled to express our opinion and hold the Government to account, and that is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
The trouble with the Health Secretary’s arguments is that he is always raising up Aunt Sallies and pretending that some of us want to let this thing rip. We are simply trying to ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. No Member of Parliament wants to let this thing rip, but what we do say is that the real danger of the disease is to people over 80. The average age of death is 82, and the vast number of them are over 80. It is up to the older population and those who care for them to take self-responsibility—masked by all means, taking great care and shielding even in places of multiple occupation. We have to shield elderly people—they are the people at risk—but we have to get the country back to work. We simply cannot go on bailing out businesses. We are going bankrupt, as I said to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this afternoon.
With the economy, we are hoping to pull ourselves up by the hair. We cannot do it. We have to allow people to work, and therefore the whole approach needs to change. We need to emphasise the need to shield the elderly population and those who care for them and we need people to take back control of their own lives. I repeat—I will say it again and again—that if we go on cancelling cancer operations and heart operations, if we drive people into mental health difficulties and if we close down businesses, we are paying a terrible price, and there has to be a balance.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. I do not always agree with him, but he does always make me think. I hope to be able, on behalf of my constituents, to articulate their anxiety, their confusion and their frustration with today having been placed, along with the rest of the Liverpool city region, under tier 3 restrictions. The imposition of such stringent measures has come as a surprise to us. I want to make it clear that this decision, including the specificity on the businesses that are closing and the restrictions on movement and on people, has been made by the Government. There was an ad hoc process of discussion with local leaders, but there was no proper mechanism for consulting them about these measures which will have such a huge impact on the 1.6 million people across our city region. So for the Government to say that this was agreed is like me saying to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have agreed that I will have only three minutes to speak in this debate.
That is important because it speaks to the heart of the lack of trust and public confidence in the Government, and I say that with a heavy heart. Businesses have played their part in my community: pubs, gyms, leisure centres, betting shops and casinos have all expended huge amounts of money and resources in getting themselves ready to reopen, only to have been let down by systemic failures on the part of the Government on test, trace and isolate. I am not opposed to restrictions where they are required and necessary, and let me say clearly that I am worried about the rising rate of infection in Merseyside and in St Helens, and about the increased incidence of hospitalisations, but if these restrictions are to be imposed, we need to see evidence for them and a measure of financial support. It speaks volumes that not only have the Government failed to provide that in a bespoke way for St Helens and Merseyside, but they have stopped local leaders using the £40 million unallocated from the first round of business support to help businesses that are now having to shut their doors, and they have asked for that money back. That is shameful and it is not a way for the Government to bring the public along with them.
This is fundamentally about the people who live in my constituency. We are a resilient people in St Helens and we have been through a lot, but resilience is not enough to get us through this. We need help from the Government. Our businesses need the resources to survive, and our NHS needs the tools and staff to get through a difficult number of months. I fail to see how imposing a tier 3 lockdown on one part of the country with diverse rates contained within its entity will do very much to mitigate this—the SAGE report said the same yesterday. It is time that everybody shared in the pain in a short break—a national lockdown for two weeks—to get this under control and for the Government to develop an exit strategy to get the whole country out of this mess.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I will start by disagreeing with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), because another lockdown would be the wrong thing to do. I rise to speak to statutory instruments 1103, 1104 and 1105, on the tiered approach, and to SI 1029, although I believe it has now been superseded by the tiered approach. Although I rise to speak about those items, I do not support them. I am a friend of the Government, and sometimes the best thing a friend can do is be a critical friend. I hope that the Government will take my comments in that light, seeing them as critical but constructive.
Although I welcome the premise of a three-tiered approach, in simplifying what was a patchwork of restrictions across the country, I am unfortunately unable to support it in its current format. While the 10 pm curfew is involved, I see this doing nothing but harm to a sector that has done everything asked of it by the Government. Obviously, we have limited the number of clients these businesses can have and now we have limited the number of hours they can open for, which is causing them real harm, not only in my constituency but across the north and the country. SAGE has said that the curfew was likely to have only a marginal impact and looking at the data we see that that is evidently the case, with a small percentage of transmission taking place in this environment. As such, I urge Ministers to follow the science in this regard and remove the curfew as early as possible.
Although I appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve with the tiered system, it falls far short. We are very much doomed to going down the “Hotel California” approach whereby we are having restrictions imposed on us that we may never leave. Thresholds whereby we can go up or down a tier have not been made clear. My constituency is at the peak of tier 2 and so is at risk of being in tier 3 soon, but we have no idea where the threshold is to go into tier 3 or what we would need to meet to come back out of it should we go into it. Further support needs to go to tier 2—not only to businesses that are struggling already but in order to prevent a need to go into tier 3, which should ultimately be a last resort. Hopefully with earlier intervention we can mitigate the need for any further places to go into tier 3.
There needs to be far more support for those sectors that, under Government edict, are being closed, whether that be the events industry or the wedding industry, which are having severely limited numbers imposed upon them. It is the Government who are saying that they cannot operate; therefore, the Government should step forward and support them. I think the Government are going down the right avenue; I just do not think that they have got it quite right. That would be my constructive comment to the Government. I give them a C for the marking, but a “must try harder”.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is hard to follow such optimism. I would begin by saying that the Government have lost control of the coronavirus, but that would not be entirely accurate, because at every step of this crisis, from a nonsensical herd immunity strategy to the initial lockdown delay, equipment shortages, care home neglect, contradictory messaging, a privatised testing crisis and much more, the Government have failed to adequately protect our communities.
My constituency of Leicester East has been in lockdown, or under significant restrictive measures, whether we call it tier 3, as it was then, or tier 2, as it is now, for over 100 days—to be precise, 106—at great cost to livelihoods, our businesses, our collective wellbeing and our mental and physical health. The Government are failing on lives and livelihoods. I therefore do not believe that they have ever had this virus under control, and I fear that the measures introduced this week will not be enough.
This catastrophe was not inevitable. Across the world, countries from New Zealand to China are returning to normality. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for saying that no city has borne a greater brunt of the Government’s failed approach than Leicester. Sadly, the Government have wasted the sacrifices of the British people, as we are now in a similar position to where we were in March. They spent £12 billion on a failed test and trace programme, which prioritises the enrichment of private corporations over the protection of our communities.
Rather than trust local health experts and the public sector, the Government have outsourced responsibility to corporate giants, which have consistently failed, with unacceptable contract rates as low as 50% or lower. My home city of Leicester is a prime example of the contrasting success of an underfunded local public health-led trace system. The success rate for our contact system is over 85%. The wasteful experiment of the private sector in our test and trace system must end.
It should be simple: if someone is contacted by NHS Test and Trace they must be provided with the material means to isolate. It does not matter what rules are set if no one in government is taking these matters seriously and if they are interpreting the rules to suit their own interests. The Government are not even following the advice of their own scientists, who make it clear what needs to be done to put the health of the nation first and protect lives.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. When I put in to speak at the end of last week, it was on the basis that we would be discussing the nationwide 10 o’clock curfew, but of course events have intervened and we now find ourselves in a situation of a tiered approach towards lockdown. Many of us on the Conservative Benches will know that if, as I expect, no votes are held on the tiered approach, by the time we get to the actual vote on the 10 pm nationwide curfew it will be somewhat futile. Even if that, to great surprise, did not pass, it would not have any effect because those in the medium level would still have that 10 pm curfew. None the less, I want to touch on it.
I want to pick up some of the themes in the regulations, and the concerns that many Conservative Members have. Sometimes I have heard it suggested that Members who raise concerns wish to let the virus rip. On the contrary, we have great concerns that, if we are not careful, we will rip out the heart of our economy and see jobs lost, livelihoods destroyed, and the impact on health that all that can bring. We have already seen hospital treatment times ripped up so that those who have something seriously wrong with them that could have been treated will now have a terminal illness. Households and friendships have had their social cohesion ripped out by the fact that they are isolated and cannot share their precious time. For some people at the end of their life, this is the only time that they have remaining to see their family and loved ones.
I want the Government to consider that those of who speak on this side of the argument do so because we are concerned that we will lose more than the benefits that the covid protections they want to introduce could bring. I want the Government to take this side of the argument with us; I want to see more evidence that the restrictions will work; that a vaccine is in sight; that we are having temporary additional lockdowns because there is a vaccine in place. If there is not, we must be honest. We cannot shut down this country and all the people within it for years to come because it would not be sustainable or accepted.
My message to the Government is, “Please take us with you. In the event that there is no long-term solution, we will have to live with this virus as we live with the other menu of risks that we face daily.”
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
We hear from Minister after Minister the mantra that we should follow the science or the medical advice to tackle the spread of covid-19. It seems common sense, really. We now have the highest excess death rate in Europe, and the worst recession in the G7. That is not an act of God; it is because of serial incompetence by the Government. I do not want the Government to be in that place. Opposition Members sincerely do not want the Government to be in that place. We all have loved ones and constituents with families and caring responsibilities, and this is a matter of life and death.
Yet it was revealed today in the media that SAGE gave advice about a reset—a short period of time; it could have been over the school holidays—and that advice was not followed. Now we have more of the same—the whack-a-mole strategy that the Prime Minister referred to. The only problem is, certainly in parts of my constituency, that the mole hills are appearing rapidly by the day. One part of the constituency—Halton—is now in tier 3. We can have arguments about that, when we compare Halton with other places across the region. The other part of my constituency is in tier 2, just to complicate matters slightly when we communicate messages to residents.
Just an hour or an hour and a half ago, we saw the national figure for deaths—145 people have lost their life today. It is very serious in my constituency when we look at hospital admissions and people in ICU. It is a big issue and a big problem, which requires an approach based on evidence. That evidence states clearly and it has consistently been argued for six months, certainly by local leaders, that local authorities should be resourced up and down the land. The Government should link public health professionals with a national system to create an effective test, track and isolate system. That is the major problem here. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right that we need a vaccine and we are probably going to have to live with this virus for some time. We need effective systems in place.
Follow the evidence. Look at hospitality, look at the pub trade, look at restaurants. We have all seen the evidence presented by the Government—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I must start with some moments of sadness, which is that, although we have heard much praise of the vaccines in development, the reality is that we do not know whether one is coming. If it does come, how effective will it be? If it is effective, which groups will it benefit? Even if it is effective in wide groups, how easily will it be made and distributed? We have so many variables and so many unknowns here.
I appreciate enormously the position that the Minister and the Government find themselves in, but it is because of this uncertainty that we need to look really hard at the decisions we are making tonight. These decisions are not just about the spread of coronavirus, or indeed its prevention, but about the health, the mental health and the wellbeing of our entire community. Fundamentally, they are not just about health today, but about health tomorrow. The impact on the economy is not simply something for the Treasury to be interested in; it is of fundamental interest to the Department of Health and Social Care and to the welfare of every person in this country. That is why I ask the Government to think very hard as they make these decisions.
The purpose of government is quite simple: it is to provide a stable platform on which people can build free and independent lives—not controlled lives, not ordered lives, but lives that are free and independent. Today, we are taking decisions that are interrupting that and making that harder. I see the position that the Government find themselves in, but I ask them to think very hard about the powers that they are asking to take.
At the moment, we are not getting the predictability and the consistency that we need. When we talk to ambassadors or high commissioners of the United Kingdom around the world, there are some countries that have easy access to the UK without quarantine and others that do not. The rules that govern which do and which do not are not immediately consistent. It is not immediately obvious which will benefit and which will not. When we look at the different areas in the United Kingdom, we see the same problem. This level of consistency, of predictability, that is so essential for a free people to know and to invest in—
Sir Edward Leigh
All we want from the Government is consistency. They spent all summer telling us to go into pubs and restaurants, and paying us to do so. They told us all summer to go back to our offices, and now they are telling us the opposite. Members might not agree with what they are doing in Sweden, but at least there is a consistent message. That is all I am asking of the Government.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. What we are looking for is the consistency to know that, over the next two, three, or perhaps five years, we will have to live with this virus and perhaps without a fully effective vaccine. We need a system that people can rely on, can know what they are doing and can be able to plan their lives, because, at the moment, it is off the bus, on the bus, off the bus, on the bus. For those of us who have served in uniform, we know how much time that wastes, we know how much time that takes, and it makes it so much harder not just to plan for weddings and, sadly, for funerals, but to make even simple investment decisions. Even those areas of the economy that are not closed down suffer because of the lack of predictability.
I ask the Government to think very hard about the decisions that they are taking, to devolve as much as possible locally so that those who are in closest touch with the populations that they are elected to govern can make the decisions, to follow the track and trace and to understand the effects of the virus locally, and, on a much wider scale, to come up with rules that can actually be relied on not just for a few weeks, not just for a few months, but, sadly, possibly for several years.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). As he pointed out, there is some significant uncertainty about when we might have a vaccine, so there are two critical levers to tackling this virus: one is public trust, which the Government can achieve by taking people with them on the measures that they seek to implement; the other is a functioning, locally led, test, trace and isolate system.
On public trust, the Government have made much of following the science. Yesterday, we found out that there were plenty of recommendations from SAGE that the Government chose not to follow. The legislation that we are considering is before us today. That may be so, but it is up to politicians to make policy decisions and advisers to advise. To build public trust, the Government need to explain their thinking. What are their trade-offs? They need to show their working. When they have considered these measures, what are the wider health impacts of not taking them? What are the economic impacts of taking these measures? People need to see for themselves, and there must be trust from the public in following the new measures. I strongly agree that clarity of message is important for public trust.
Many Members have mentioned following the science, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) made a passionate argument about the curfew, which we know is resulting in other behaviours that frankly put public health and those businesses at risk. A publican in my constituency said, “We will just have to make up for the lost income by encouraging people to drink earlier in the day,” with bottomless brunches and so on. That binge drinking will happen earlier, or in people’s homes after the pubs have shut.
The Minister will have heard my earlier interventions on test, trace and isolate, and I believe that the 90 pages of complex rules and regulations would not be necessary if we had a properly functioning system. We got the R rate below one in the national lockdown, and on 23 April the Secretary of State said:
“Test, track and trace will be vital to stop a second peak of the virus.”
I know he likes to talk about his very large testing system, but we have had all sorts of issues with data, and sadly he was making jokes about that in the Smoking Room last week, apparently.
Munira Wilson
Okay, but he has not denied it. [Hon. Members: “Yes, he has!] Fair enough. I withdraw that remark. This is not a party political point. I care for my country, and lives and jobs are at risk. Please can we sort out test, trace and isolate, because none of the measures will work if the system is not operating properly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It was a very decent thing to do to withdraw that remark.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Government’s responsibilities, for both lives and livelihoods, require an almost impossible balancing act that is unlikely to satisfy anyone, least of all natural Conservative job creators, who ask only to be allowed to get on with their business with as little interference as possible. The uncomfortable reality, however, is that our country would not accept those struck by the pandemic dying without dignity if hospitals and mortuaries are full, and that means doing things that none of us imagined in our wildest nightmares.
In constituencies such as mine—Gloucester is in tier 1 —the message must be for all to take the restrictions seriously to avoid becoming a higher risk area with yet more severe restrictions. We must enable Gloucestershire Royal Hospital to have capacity to help those with covid and treat cancer and other patients. I urge the Government to promise less and deliver more and to provide a faster testing service so that those at our universities, colleges and schools can function well. They should expedite the go-ahead for Heathrow’s 20-minute test for travellers and reconsider the details of the 10 pm closure when supermarkets are still selling booze later.
The Government should increase delegation to local authorities, such as the responsible public health team at Gloucestershire County Council, and let us all share as much information as possible. As these restrictions continue, they should carefully consider ways to allow young mother and baby groups to meet, for example, or allow some fans at outdoor sport. We will need those small moments of joy to help us through an otherwise difficult winter. I will support the Government tonight, but those questions need answering. The cost of lost livelihoods will only grow while we wait to see whether these restrictions work and science provides longer-term solutions.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the discussions that have just taken place, because I have yet to hear from a west midlands council leader or a mayor who supports the decisions that were arrived at, and there seems to be little evidence to support the tier 2 decision. I am told that contact tracing shows that hospitality is probably responsible for about 2% of contacts in Birmingham, and I do not quite get it. Giving pubs 48 hours’ notice of the plan shows indifference to the pressure that those people are under and the jobs that are at risk.
I want to mention two things on testing. One of my constituents told me she had developed symptoms and got a test at the local walk-in centre on 1 October. Seven days later, no results, so she ordered a home test and sent it off. Then someone at 119 advised that, because she was tested more than seven days ago, they could not give her the results, and 12 days later, no test results at all. Her husband is ill in hospital and she cannot visit until she has a negative test. Why are we doing this to her?
Another constituent received a text at 6 am on Sunday morning with the name, date of birth and covid test result for someone they have never met or heard of. The test results were negative, but I have no idea whether the person who actually took the test knows that. I have raised this matter urgently with NHS Track and Trace, but frankly, I am sceptical about getting any kind of suitable reply. My constituent has never had a covid test. How on earth has this happened, and how many other people’s results have been sent to the wrong person? World-beating—we would settle for something that simply worked.
I have two final observations. First, why are Ministers continuing to tell people that it will be okay by Christmas? What kind of signal are they sending people at this time? Do they mean it will be okay by Christmas and then terrible in the new year? Is that what they are planning to do? Finally, I would really like to know why we did not give council leaders the option of a two-week circuit break, as was suggested by the officials. Would that not have been a much better deal for many of the people in my constituency and in many other constituencies around the country than the ridiculous proposals that have now been imposed on them?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the Ministers for the work they have been doing. I recognise that they are in an incredibly difficult time and doing their best, so I pay tribute to them personally. They are trying to strike a balance between clarity and giving, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has said, a consistent message to the public, and trying to achieve flexibility in recognising that the infection works in different ways in different places. They need to strike a balance between the national and the local, which is not easy, and I recognise the challenge in striking that balance.
I do not want to talk about the risk to the economy that we face, because other hon. Members have made that point very powerfully. I simply want to raise the tragedy that this pandemic represents for our communities. The tragedy is that, as a virus, it works through human relationships, through families and households, through communities and the gathering places of our neighbourhoods —the pubs, churches and sports fields, the institutions that give our lives not only pleasure but identity and meaning. I know that the Government share that sense of tragedy and want us out of this situation as soon as possible.
I accept the advice the Government are getting on the transmission and the value of all the different lockdown measures. I simply want to make an appeal for a response to the virus that is less about big business and big government. I accept why big business and big government —Deloitte and Public Health England—were called in at the outset, but surely we can say that we have tested that approach sufficiently to suggest that there might be a better way to deal with this, a response that is less about big government and big business, and more about local communities and trusting the people and the professionals in our local places.
I know that the Government share a belief in the important of civil society, local government and trusting public health professionals locally. I hope that, as we move through this terrible winter, we can adopt a different model, relying less on the undoubted intelligence, goodwill and good intentions of people in this postcode and more on the people in the places we represent.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
This global pandemic has had a horrific impact—not only a huge human cost but a tremendous economic and social cost, caused by the measures that have had to be taken to contain the spread of the virus. None of us would want to be in the position of having to take these decisions, and I certainly do not envy the Minister for Health and other members of the Government who have to balance the need to safeguard both lives and livelihoods. It demands a combination of the judgment of Solomon and the navigational skills of Thetis to reach what is often the least bad outcome, in a situation where there are no right decisions and no good outcomes.
If we are to reassure not only the residents but the businesses in our constituencies, many of which provide the jobs, livelihoods and prosperity on which they rely, we need to be clear about the basis on which decisions are taken. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the openness with which he has approached this, making himself, his ministerial colleagues, scientific and medical advisers and officials available for a wide range of briefings on that evidence.
In the minute I have left, I want to speak briefly about the obligations on the hospitality sector. Clearly these measures have a hugely detrimental impact on pubs, bars, restaurants and the many small businesses that rely on them, whether in the brewing, events or wedding industries. We need to be clear about the evidence on the extent of transmission in hospitality and similar settings and what has led officials’ and advisers’ clear confidence that the measures being taken will make a meaningful difference. At the briefing last Friday, the chief medical officer said it was too early to be sure about the extent to which the restricted opening times in the last three weeks had made a difference, but he was sure that it had made a difference. As that data becomes available, it needs to be shared with Members of Parliament and with our constituents.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
First, I want to highlight how amazing the community of Hyndburn and Haslingden has been throughout this pandemic. The sacrifices they have made have been unbelievably difficult, and we have faced higher levels of restrictions than most across the country. All through this, I have tried my best, as have local leaders in our community, to bring people with us, and one of the difficulties we have faced is the varying restrictions. Many have said that the new tiered system and the simplification of messaging is the best approach to take. I understand how difficult the balancing act is between getting the numbers down, protecting those who are vulnerable and protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods, and so do most of my residents across Hyndburn and Haslingden, who are doing everything they can to get our rates down.
The reality we face is that, in Hyndburn and Haslingden, the rate of infection is now over 300 per 100,000 people. As of today, 40% of our ICU beds in the Royal Blackburn Hospital are now occupied by covid patients. Hospitalisations are increasing, people are losing their lives and the virus is taking hold across Lancashire. We are seeing this virus move from young adults to those who are most vulnerable. Nobody wants that, and we cannot let this virus go unchecked. These are people’s friends, loved ones and family members. The Royal Blackburn Hospital is not cancelling elective surgery, but I echo the concerns of Lancashire chiefs about what will happen if covid cases continue to rise. I urge Health Ministers and officials to continue their engagement with local leaders across Lancashire.
I also want to comment on how the announcement will affect the hospitality industry. Many pubs across Hyndburn and Haslingden have contacted me about the financial struggles they fear they will face due to the rule on only households and bubbles being allowed to meet in their premises. My local pubs, such as the Albion in Clayton, the Tinker and Budget, and the Hare and Hounds, have expressed their worries that it may have been better for them to be forced to shut their doors rather than to operate under tier 2 restrictions. It would be beneficial for the Treasury to look at a tiered approach to the financial support available to the hospitality sector, as those who have to close will receive financial support while those who fall under tier 2 still face tighter restrictions and could be operating at a loss of about 60%. I ask Ministers to work across Departments to find a financial strategy that matches the tiered approach, as we urgently need to support the beating heart of our communities. Nobody wants to shut their doors and most are doing all that they can to keep people safe in their establishments.
Finally, I want to highlight how critical road maps are. If we need to move between tiers, then we need to do so with clear messaging and to bring our community with us. We need to explain why certain measures are being brought in, backed up by the data. Let us do what is necessary now to protect the vulnerable and save lives while supporting jobs and livelihoods.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe).
I welcome the tiered system because it increases the simplicity of the messaging. That is very welcome, because it is what our constituents need more than anything else at the minute. The vast majority want to comply; they want to do the right thing. But for the past couple of weeks—I speak as the Member for Burnley, where we have had a higher case rate than most places in the country—the complexity of the messaging has been difficult. The next thing that they want is light at the end of the tunnel. They want to know that there is something to look forward to. Will Ministers look at the four-week review period to see if there is a way to bring that down? The worry is that at four weeks, if we are placed into extra restrictions—into tier 3—at some point next month, we are looking at Christmas before there is even a review of when those measures could be lifted.
As many Members have said, where this virus spreads, it spreads in the one thing we hold very close to each other—our relationships. We live together, we grieve together, we celebrate together, and we compete together. I get the sense from some that they think that the only option is to lock down completely. I do not think that is the right thing to do. We absolutely need to limit interactions, but it needs to be targeted in the right place, at the right time, for the right length of time. Sacrifice is important and it is sacrifice that will get us through this, but it cannot be without hope.
That brings me to test and trace, which is the best tool we have to make sure that our sacrifices are time-limited. We have an enormous testing capacity, and Ministers should be congratulated on that. We have done more than many other countries. But the capacity in itself does not protect us; what protects us is how we use it. I ask Ministers, either today or in the future, to update us on the rapid testing that will be delivered in five minutes or 20 minutes, because that is how we will get those human relationships back. That is how we will get football fans back into stadiums, children into schools when there is an outbreak, and all the other things that we want to do. If Ministers could do that, the hope that I spoke of that gives people a light at the end of the tunnel will come back.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for all the hard work they are doing at this time.
I fully understand, as the Member for West Dorset, a very rural seat, that many colleagues in the House represent constituencies that have far more difficult situations with coronavirus than I and my neighbours in Dorset. I know full well that Ministers in the Cabinet will be treading the difficult line between public health and safety and the economy. However, in my constituency, I have 100,000 residents, 400 geographical square miles, 132 parishes, 117 pubs, and two people who are poorly in hospital with coronavirus symptoms. We are faced this evening with a motion that will in effect close our village pubs at 10 o’clock. That is deeply, deeply damaging to our community. It is putting hundreds and hundreds of jobs at risk. I have to ask the Minister and his colleagues to consider that this one-size-fits-all approach to the 10 pm curfew really is not right for rural parts of Britain such as mine, where it will be deeply damaging to the economy. Can I just ask the Minister and his colleagues to take this away? I shall have real difficulty supporting the Government on that this evening—real difficulty—and I very much ask him to see what can be done.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I would like to talk briefly about the need for a plan, the use of language and the use of science. I am delighted that the Minister is here, because he is a very diligent Minister and I know he listens closely to his colleagues.
First, we need a longer-term plan than the one that I think is on offer. We need a sense of strategy and a sense of clarity. We may be living with this virus for months or, in the worst case scenario, for years. Waiting for the cavalry in the shape of a vaccine is taking longer than we hoped, and there is a chance—a small chance—that it may never happen, but even if we get that vaccine in the weeks and months ahead, it may only be a mitigation, not a cure-all.
The promised return to normality by December clearly has not happened, so we need to articulate what is paramount to protect people as much as possible, while ensuring that the cure is not worse than the disease. I think that, at times, our posture has been reactive. That does not mitigate the fact that lots of good stuff has been done: our economic response has been powerful; Test and Trace, even imperfect, is an extraordinary achievement; and likewise, the Nightingale hospitals.
We are getting there, but I do not think we are there yet, and I think the answer needs to be more of a plan and perhaps more of a decentralised approach. Many of us have had concerns about this. We have said these things to the Whips, and I have been very careful about saying so publicly, but I think we are now at a juncture where it is beneficial that I and other colleagues are saying this.
Secondly, on language, I do not think the language of battle helps. Does the Minister agree with Professor Sikora, who has said:
“If you try to scare people with worst case scenarios, it doesn’t work”?
Talk of battle should be replaced by talk of “Keep calm and carry on”, because that is the language that I think we need.
Thirdly, and perhaps most critically, the Government talk about following the science, but actually it depends what question we ask the science. If we say, “Defeat the virus: suppress it in any way you can”, we get one course of action, and potentially a very destructive one. We must accept that the virus cannot be defeated, but be determined to mitigate it to protect as much as possible the elderly and the vulnerable, while trying to limit the damage to other people’s lives through increased cancer deaths, heart disease and strokes and—God knows—what must be happening to mental health in this country with people cooped up so much. We need a sense of balance.
To me, on the pubs issue, and on gyms and swimming pools, there is absolutely no evidence that shutting a pub or the restaurant in Yarmouth I was in on Saturday at 10 o’clock, or shutting a swimming pool or shutting a gym, actually helps prevent the transmission of this virus.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but also my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who spoke earlier, and I will pick up his theme.
I represent constituents in Cornwall, and we are the only part of the country that is a different colour to the rest, because actually we have reducing coronavirus numbers, which is why the 10 o’clock curfew makes no sense. We have talked again this afternoon—I do not want to rehearse everything that has been said, or anything—about consistency, yet we have told pubs they need to close at 10 o’clock but we have done absolutely nothing to curtail the sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. Once again, we are seeing the supermarkets doing everything they can to maximise their take on the back of the coronavirus. Those in the pubs that have been told to close are looking out of their window and seeing large groups of people, after curfew, drinking alcohol they have bought in the Co-op, dare I say, or other high street stores and supermarkets.
We know that poor health leads to greater risk of severe covid outcomes and we are concerned with the risk to health because of coronavirus, and the Government are not known to dither or delay, but one area—it is completely relevant—where the Government have dithered and delayed is the introduction of the minimum unit price for alcohol. What the Government could do right now to reassure pubs, which are not affected by that piece of legislation or that tax, is to curtail cheap alcohol sales in supermarkets, which would not only improve people’s health but give the pubs a chance to recover. If the Government are not prepared to change the curfew, they must be prepared to give pubs a fair chance.
The Government are already considering that; they could bring this forward. It would reduce the drinking culture, which is not helping, and improve health outcomes, which would improve people’s chances of surviving coronavirus and increase the Treasury’s income, which has to be something it is very concerned about.
The Government had no restraint in imposing the 10 pm curfew. They have shown that they can move quickly and aggressively when that is needed to protect people’s health. Why do they not do exactly the same and introduce the minimum unit price for alcohol?
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I completely support the Government’s efforts to help bring coronavirus under control, to keep us safe and to protect the NHS and our economy. The easy clinical solution would have been a total lockdown, so the new tiered system is a mark of the effort going into providing responses that are tailored to localities.
Everyone understands that social contact poses a risk of contagion, so managing those contacts in pubs, cafes and suchlike is absolutely key. We want to keep those pubs open where we can—not just because of the jobs they provide directly and through the supply chain, but because pubs are often the only place of contact for many isolated people. I think of the Chapel House wet-only community pub in Gornal in my constituency, and James, the landlord, who is still making things work with about half the normal clientele. However, James has told me that if his pub is to retain table-only service, he will have double the staff as well. That is an equation he can balance for the next month or so only by dipping into reserves.
My appeal is for us to revisit the risk profile of table-only service in wet-only pubs, and to consider perhaps more creative suggestions that might be even better. At the moment, new, young staff might be covid- asymptomatic and moving from table to table taking orders, and then coming back serving that table. Can we not look, perhaps, at more creative ideas, such as a table calling system on rotation, so that an individual from each table, wearing a mask, is called to the bar systematically?
All I am asking is that we revisit the science around this specific issue. Whatever the outcome, I feel certain that Dudley people, and people in Gornal, will play their part in defeating this virus.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I have no choice but to be brief, so I shall make three short points.
First, lockdowns hit poorer people—those on shifts, those in insecure work, those who work in retail or hospitality, those who work alone and those who live in flats or smaller houses. Poorer people suffer when the economy suffers, so it is deeply regrettable that Labour Members have called for a second full national lockdown. That again reaffirms their position as the party for economic destruction. I urge the Government to resist calls for a full second national lockdown. That would be harsh and destructive, and it would condemn people on low incomes to much more difficult lives.
Secondly, what happened in Peterborough during the last lockdown was remarkable. Stevie Wiley, Ishfaq Hussain and Zillur Hussain, as well as countless others, inspired a city. We looked after the vulnerable. We delivered food to those who were shielding. We fed our rough sleepers. We come in different shapes and sizes, and from different ethnic groups. We even speak different languages, but we came through this as one city—perhaps more than any other city—although I do not want to do this again. Couples remain unmarried. Serious medical conditions remain undiagnosed and, in the case of my father, who died during lockdown, we are still unable to say goodbye in the way I would like. To be honest, I still grieve over this.
Peterborough has a rate of 56.4 cases per 100,000 people. For a big city with intergenerational households, dense housing and economic challenges, that really is a remarkable achievement. We have done the right thing and we do not want to be in tier 2. I want the Minister to hear this very clearly: we do not want to be in tier 2 and we will do everything we can to prevent this.
That brings me on to my final point. So many pubs and restaurants in Peterborough feel as though they are being punished for doing the right thing. They have gone to considerable expense to prepare themselves for these restrictions, and the 10 pm curfew in my city is having a devastating impact. Pubs and restaurants have closed—it is not that they might be closing—as a result of this. Why? When I look my local pub landlords and bar managers in the eye, I struggle to answer that. So I urge the Minister to review that 10 pm curfew, communicate why he feels it is a good idea, listen to the industry and reflect on what I have said today.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to see the Minister for Health on the Front Bench—I have huge respect for him. This issue is one of national interest, is it not? This is not about party politics; it is about what we as individual MPs think is best for our country. MPs such as me, who disagree with the Government to a large extent, are not heretics. We do not want to “let it rip” and we do not want to see the elderly die; we are just trying to gauge as best as we can what is best for our country. Just because one or two, or a few, of us disagree with the Government, it does not mean to say that we are violently opposed to what they are doing. We have huge sympathy for them, as we have never been here before. But I ask myself every morning, and I have asked doctors and professionals this: if we locked down the whole country again for two, three or four months and covid almost disappeared, what would happen when the door opened and we all came out again? That little virus would be there, saying, “Hello, I’m back” and it would infect us all again, because it is a pandemic.
This virus is not going to go away. Two days ago, I spoke to a professor who is working hard on a vaccine at a Southampton hospital and he was optimistic that a vaccine could be found. That is great news, but all vaccines come with a health warning—they do not necessarily do the job, as we have seen in the past. Flu is still here. People who get the vaccine still get the flu. Flu mutates and new vaccines have to be produced. So even if we get a covid vaccine—it would be good news and I would, of course, welcome it—the pandemic will still be here.
Is all this worth shutting down the country for? My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) does not want to be in tier 2, but all tiers are, in effect, shutting down the economy in local areas, to a lesser or greater extent. As a country, we are paying a terrible, terrible price, economically, socially, mentally, financially and in health terms. Millions of our constituents are suffering in unimaginable ways. I will end by talking about my parents, who, sadly, have passed away. I know for certain that were they alive now, they would say, “Richard, get out there. Get the country going again. Protect those like us as best as you can, but for God’s sake get the country back on its feet.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With one minute, I call Dehenna Davison.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I know time is short, so I will keep it brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. The key point I want to get across is that, obviously, public health must be a priority but we must not forget the real human stories behind every one of the statistics. So we should look at not only the number of covid deaths but the economic impacts that lockdown measures are having right across our country. I have been banging the drum for our hospitality sector, pushing for additional support for it to protect those people who have spent their entire lives building up strong businesses that are integral to their local communities, right in the heart of those communities. I think of people such as Christian Burns and Cheryl Jeffrey. We must do all we can to try to protect them as best as we can as we move through this pandemic.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As hon. Members will see, I have less than six minutes to respond. I regret that I may slightly disappoint the House in that—untypically for me—I will not be able to take interventions, having agreed with the Chair to enable the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions.
We have heard many different views and perspectives today, and although I may not personally fully share all of them, each represents an important and sincerely held point of view. Whatever the differences of approach among hon. Members, it is clear that all Members passionately share the common objectives of protecting lives and livelihoods. No one should doubt the underlying unity of purpose in this House.
As the Secretary of State set out, we have seen rapidly rising levels of transmission and infection, followed—with a time lag—by rising hospitalisations, particularly in the north-east and the north-west, and, sadly, increasing levels of deaths. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) who pointed out that this disease is sadly now moving from younger people into older, more vulnerable age groups. We therefore need to take further measures to protect the public and the NHS—as we have done throughout the pandemic—as we enter winter.
At the same time, we seek to ensure that individuals and businesses are not subject to restrictions that are disproportionate to the risk in their area or to the risk that this disease poses. We need to continue to suppress infection rates and transmission. This is not just about protecting health; it is also about protecting our economy. As hon. and right hon. Members have said, regrettably there are no easy choices here. That is why the Government are recognising reasonable calls for a simplified and clearer set of regulations, by putting in place a simplified, tiered framework so that individuals and businesses can clearly understand the rules in their local area, the restrictions in place and what they will need to do to comply with them. This helps to build on the consent and compliance that many colleagues have mentioned that comes with taking people with us and clarity of messaging.
The Government are acutely sensitive to the impact that these restrictions will have on local areas, and hon. Members have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies today, including a large number who have made points about the 10 pm curfew, as the House and others will have heard. We have worked and continue to work closely with local leaders to seek a consensus on the actions that we are taking at each level. In the time preceding these announcements, we increased engagement with local authorities at official level, and had meetings with local leaders and directors of public health. Their valuable insights have helped to shape the new system set out in three of these sets of regulations today. I have to say that I know of no Minister who has done more to engage directly with colleagues, councils and communities than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Local authorities and local leaders will be involved in any further actions and decisions about what level each area falls into. Having previously spent almost 10 years as a local councillor, I pay tribute to the dedication of council officers and councillors. I am clear about their vital role, working in partnership as part of a national approach. We recognise that there are elements of the restrictions that are difficult for individuals and businesses. I pay tribute to the British people and recognise the huge sacrifices that they have already made. That is why it is right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced further support measures, alongside the very extensive support package that he set out to the House earlier in the year.
The measures in these regulations are reasonable and proportionate, given the increased rates of transmission that we are seeing and in the context of our clear commitment to keep education settings open, and businesses open as much as possible. I reassure the House that throughout, as evidence and the science—I use that term in the plural—develop and evolve all the time, we continue to keep that under review, and I approach emerging scientific evidence with an open mind.
I urge hon. Members to join me today in supporting these regulations relating to the covid alert levels and enforcement action, tracing and businesses, recognising the very challenging infection point that this country sits at today, with rising infection and hospitalisation rates. The fight against this virus is certainly not over and we must all continue to play our part in tackling it. These measures seek to do that in a proportionate and clearly understandable way. This House and its collective wisdom are vital to getting it right, and I hope that this evening the House will demonstrate that wisdom and vote for these measures.
Fisheries Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 13th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 October 2020 - (13 Oct 2020)
21:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 331 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clauses 9 and 10.
New clause 1—Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—
(a) after the third “of”, insert “(amongst other things)”,
(b) delete the words “as a whole”.
(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—
“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.
The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—
(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It inserts a new clause into subsection 3, which will enable the Authority to do this.
New clause 2—Sea Fish Industry Authority: delegation of functions—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3A (exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.), insert—
“3B Delegation of functions
(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.
(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—
(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),
(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.”
(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—
(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or
(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which will allow the Authority to authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf any of its functions to the extent determined by the Authority. It will also allow the Authority to give any such person financial and other assistance to do so.
New clause 3—Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.’
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
New clause 4—Sea Fish Industry Authority: plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 11 (accounts and reports), insert—
“11A Plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies
(1) Before the start of each financial year, the Authority must—
(a) prepare a plan setting out—
(i) an estimate of the total amount of income that the Authority expects to receive during the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone (“Scottish levies”), and
(ii) a description of how the Authority proposes to apply that income in the course of exercising its functions, and
(b) refer the plan to the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1 (“the Scottish committee”) for approval of the Authority’s proposal mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2) If, as a result of relevant regulations, the Authority estimates that the total amount of income that it expects to receive from Scottish levies during a financial year is greater than the total amount of income that it received from Scottish levies during the previous financial year, the Authority’s plan prepared under subsection (1) for the financial year must include a statement describing how the Authority proposes in particular to apply the additional income from Scottish levies in the course of exercising its functions.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) “relevant regulations”, in relation to a financial year, means—
(i) regulations made by the Authority under section 4(2) during the previous financial year, and
(ii) regulations which the Authority expects to make, and to be confirmed by the Scottish Ministers, under section 4(2) during the financial year,
(b) the total amount of income received by the Authority from Scottish levies during a previous financial year is the total amount of such income as recorded in the Authority’s accounts kept under section 11(1) in respect of that year.
(4) The Authority—
(a) must publish a plan prepared under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the Scottish committee’s approval as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and
(b) may publish the plan in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(5) The Authority must, as soon as reasonably practicable after publishing a plan under subsection (4)—
(a) send a copy of the plan to the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) lay the plan before the Scottish Parliament.
(6) The Authority must have regard to each relevant plan—
(a) in the exercise of its functions, and
(b) in particular, in authorising any other person under section 3B to exercise any of its functions on its behalf.
(7) A person who is authorised by the Authority under section 3B to exercise any of the Authority’s functions must have regard to each relevant plan in the exercise of those functions.
(8) In subsections (6) and (7), “relevant plan”, in relation to the exercise of a function, means—
(a) the latest plan published under subsection (4), and
(b) any earlier plan published under that subsection in so far as it contains a proposal mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) (or, as the case may be, in subsection (2)) to apply income during the financial year in which the function is being exercised.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to ensure the Authority sets out an annual plan that outlines how it intends to apply the levy income it expects to receive. This plan must make comparison to the levy income of the previous year and where the levy income is expected to be higher detail how the Authority proposes to apply the additional income from Scottish levies.
New clause 5—Sea Fish Industry Authority: committee for Scotland—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—
(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.
(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.’
This new clause’s new provisions require the Authority to appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland. They additionally require the consultation of this committee on the exercise of the Authority’s functions in relations to Scotland.
New clause 6—Sea Fish Industry Levies: powers in relation to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (levies)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) in subsection (7), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(c) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) In this section, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ means—
(a) in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone, the Scottish Ministers,
(b) in any other case, the Ministers.”,
(d) in subsection (9), after “order” in both places where it occurs insert “of the Ministers”,
(e) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Any order of the Scottish Ministers—
(a) under subsection (2) is subject to the negative procedure,
(b) under subsection (7) is subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9B) Before laying a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers must consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.”.
(3) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “the Ministers”, in paragraph (c), after “with” insert “(except in the case of an order under section 4(2) or (7))”.
(4) In schedule 2 (Sea Fish Industry Levies)—
(a) for “Ministers” in each place where it occurs substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) after paragraph 3 insert—
“4 The Scottish Ministers must, before making an order confirming any regulations, consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.
5 In this schedule, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ has the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to devolve, to the Scottish Ministers, the control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by the Authority. Currently, levies imposed by the Authority require confirmation by the relevant Ministers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The new clause intends to ensure that levies imposed in relation to Scotland require confirmation by Scottish Ministers.
New clause 7—Sea Fish Industry Levies: definitions relating to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), after the definition of “the Ministers” insert—
“‘Scotland’ and ‘the Scottish zone’ have the same meanings as in the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126(1) and (2) of that Act);”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which makes consequential new clause to section 14 (interpretation of Part 1) of the 1981 Act by inserting definitions of “Scotland” and “the Scottish zone”.
New clause 11—Safety Regulation Within the Exclusive Economic Zone—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation, develop a regulatory regime for fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone with regard to—
(a) adherence to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1993 and Cape Town Agreement of 2012
(b) regulation of safety of navigation by fishing vessels within the EEZ
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the regulatory regime shall be agreed with devolved administrations, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall come into force no later than 31 December 2022.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “regulation of safety of navigation” shall include, but not be limited to, regulation of acts by a person in charge of a fishing boat which causes or attempts to cause a collision or risk of collision with another vessel within the EEZ
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under regulations made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,
(b) a fine, or
(c) both.’
The purpose of this new clause is to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the safety of fishing vessels working within the EEZ in accordance with existing treaty obligations.
New clause 12—Safety of Fishing Vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone—
‘(1) A person in charge of a fishing boat commits an offence if that person uses the vessel to—
(a) harass or impede another vessel within the EEZ, or
(b) endanger the safety of another vessel and/or those crewing it within the EEZ.
(2) For the purposes of this section (1), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) shall be responsible for—
(a) monitoring the conduct of vessels within the EEZ, and
(b) passing information to a prosecuting authority.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(c) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,
(d) a fine, or
(e) both.
(5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may award compensation for loss of earnings or damage to property caused as a consequence of the offence.
(6) Where a fisheries protection officer, an official of the Maritime Coastguard Agency or a Police Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under this section, he shall have power to detain in port any vessel or equipment used in the commission of that offence.
(7) Any property detained under subsection (6) shall not be held for longer than seven days unless authority to extend that period is granted by
(f) a Sheriff in the Sheriff Court in Scotland; or
(g) a judge in the Crown Court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
(8) Any property held under subsections (6) or (7) shall be liable to forfeiture at the conclusion of any criminal proceedings brought under this section.’
The purpose of this new clause is to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) appropriate powers to enforce safety within the limits of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable to criminal prosecution and civil proceedings for damage, loss of earnings and injury.
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—
(a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental sustainability in either the short or the long term, and
(a) subject to subsection (a) fishing fleets must—
(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and
(ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable and does not overexploit marine stocks.
(2A) The sustainability objective is the prime objective.’
This amendment makes the sustainability objective the prime fisheries objective and alters the definition of the “sustainability objective” to make other objectives subject to environmental sustainability in the short and long term.
Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “the” insert “short and”.
This amendment would change the ‘sustainability objective’ to require that fish and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in both the short and long term.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
‘(b) seafood landings into United Kingdom ports are increased and maximised; and
(c) that an average of not less than 65% of seafood caught in English waters, across all relevant species, should be landed in English ports.’
This amendment would amend the “national benefit objective” to include a commitment to increase seafood landings into the United Kingdom and create a specific target for English ports.
Government amendments 4 to 11, 36 and 12 to 24.
Amendment 3, in schedule 3, page 53, line 24, at end insert—
‘Prohibition on fishing boats greater than 100 metres in length in English waters
1A (1) Any sea fishing licence issued by the sea fish licensing authority for England must include a condition prohibiting the use of a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (2).
(2) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (1) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to the list of protected areas in subsection (2).’
This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas in English waters.
Government amendments 25 to 35 and 37 to 56.
Victoria Prentis
This Bill marks a really important step forward as we leave the inflexibilities of the common fisheries policy. It puts in place the framework necessary for the UK to operate as a responsible, independent coastal state. It allows us to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries to provide benefits for future generations.
The Bill’s fisheries objectives place sustainability front and centre. Six out of the eight objectives relate to protecting the environment. It is critical that we are able to balance those objectives as we need to. Additional quota we receive following the negotiations will be allocated in a new way, and I am pleased that two consultations on quota distribution were published today. That makes good our commitment in the 2018 White Paper, of which my Secretary of State is particularly proud, having put a lot of work into it himself.
This Bill is the product of collaborative and constructive working across all four Administrations of our nation and I am pleased that all the devolved legislatures have consented to the Bill. It was, unfortunately, however, important to wait until we had that consent before we brought forward further amendments on their behalf and that is why I am slightly embarrassed to say that the Order Paper is full of very technical Government amendments. Many are amendments that the devolved Administrations could have made themselves, but given the pressures on all the parliamentary timetables in the run-up to the end of the transition period, we felt that in a spirit of co-operation we should, if possible, make these changes for them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I understand the position with regard to the devolved Administrations, but I do not understand the position with regard to Government amendment 36 and the Channel islands. Why has that been brought to the House at this stage in proceedings?
Victoria Prentis
I will, if I may, come to that very shortly. It is an important point and one that I personally am very interested in, having been on the Select Committee on Justice and written a report on that very subject.
The most substantive changes in the amendments cover provisions that make clear the ability of the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to delegate functions between each other, the extension of schedule 10 marine conservation powers to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and amendments to Northern Irish and Scottish statutory instruments to bring them in line with UK and Welsh SIs under schedule 2. The final amendments are needed to implement the international treaty with the Faroe islands.
Government amendment 36 includes a permissive extent clause that will allow the UK Government to legislate for the Crown dependencies to ensure compliance with our international obligations. That follows a great deal of discussion with the Crown dependencies and I recognise that they take their international obligations seriously. This is a subject I personally have long been very interested in and I have discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as well as other Members across the House.
I reassure Members and, indeed, the Crown dependencies, that activation of the permissive extent clause would only ever be used as a last resort and I am looking forward to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on that in the next few days and weeks.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend does know this, because she was a great servant of the Justice Committee when she was a member: it is not just a question of continuing discussions. As things stand, the Governments and legislatures of both Jersey and Guernsey object. It is not just that they do not think a permissive extent clause is necessary; they object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is truly unprecedented for the Government to insist upon a permissive extent clause without the agreement of the relevant Crown dependencies. Why, even in an emergency, go down this rather provocative step? Why not wait until such time as an emergency arises and let them legislate, as they have indicated they would?
Victoria Prentis
I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Justice Committee, on which I was very proud to serve for so many years. He and I have discussed this very issue before. The Government feel that it is important, given that these are significant matters of international law, that we retain the ability to legislate for the Crown dependencies if they do not show the inclination to do so when needed. We very much doubt that this will be necessary. I am sorry that they are upset by this stand, but I do feel that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances at the moment.
Government amendment 55 repeals provisions of retained EU law concerned with the catching of cod in the North sea, which, as drafted, do not achieve what they were put in place to do.
Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK seafood industry.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Many fishermen, including those in Hastings and Rye who manage the under-10 metre fishing fleet, voted to leave the EU to regain total control over our territorial waters. They are seeking clarity and reassurance on clause 12, and that no foreign vessels will be permitted to fish or be granted licences to fish in the 12 nautical miles off the UK coast. Can the Minister give that reassurance and clarity?
Victoria Prentis
I would be delighted to. The Government have been clear throughout that access to the UK’s territorial seas is out of scope for any fisheries framework agreement with the EU. Any access negotiated with the EU will cover only the UK’s exclusive economic zone, and not the 0 to 12-mile zone. That remains the case.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I have had a fair bit of correspondence with the Minister’s Department and I wonder if she will look again at funding for the enforcement vessel. The reply I had from her states was that no funding is available for the enforcement vessel, but surely if she wants to support her hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in taking back control of our waters, we must ensure that that is enforced.
Victoria Prentis
Enforcement is very important and I will look out for the hon. Lady’s correspondence and ensure she gets a full reply. In our view we have sufficient vessels to control our waters. We cannot reduce risk levels to zero. The size of our EEZ, the potential number of EU and third-country vessels that fish in our waters, and the potential lack of electronic data, mean that this is not feasible. However, we are confident that sufficient capacity is in place to prevent illegal fishing. We take this matter extremely seriously and I would be delighted to work further with her on that.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Victoria Prentis
If I may I will make a little progress because I know my hon. Friend is speaking later.
Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK’s seafood industry, and neither I nor—importantly—my counterparts in Wales or Northern Ireland support the amendments on Seafish. Seafish has provided excellent support and information to all the Administrations regarding the impact of the covid pandemic on the seafood supply chain. Seafish delivers the hugely popular national fish and chip shop of the year awards, which this year was won by The Cod’s Scallops—what a name—in Wollaton in Nottinghamshire.
Seafish is able to tailor its work to different priorities. For example, it works to trial new types of sustainable fishing gear for the Scottish fishing industry. It has established and run the well-respected Northern Ireland fishing industry safety group and supported the industries to establish the Aquaculture Industry Wales group. Seafish supports the fishing industry across the UK, regardless of how much each Administration contributes. However much the Scottish Government may protest and dispute it, the Scottish industry receives far more than its fair share in monetary terms of support from Seafish. The amendments pre-empt the findings of a review of Seafish and do not address the impact there would be on the valuable services that it provides for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I remain unconvinced of the need for these amendments.
Amendment 2 seeks to make environmental sustainability the Bill’s prime objective. This version of the Bill has significantly more focus on sustainability than its predecessor, and its objectives are unquestionably much stronger than those of the common fisheries policy. Unlike the CFP, and importantly, those objectives are legally binding on the fisheries administrations through the joint fisheries statement. We have also added the vital and world-leading climate change objective, which has been well received by non-governmental organisations. The bycatch objective addresses the root cause of discarding, rather than just focusing on the symptoms, as the CFP’s discard objective did.
The Government have a proud record on the marine environment. The global target is to protect 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020; we have exceeded that. Some 25% of UK waters are currently protected, and we are pushing internationally for new global targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030. It is no accident that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is present listening to the debate. Her side of the Department and mine work extremely closely to ensure that environmental sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of our fears, which perhaps the Minister can allay, relates to amendment 42. Wales and Scotland have complete control of those decisions through their devolved Administrations; Northern Ireland does not. Northern Ireland will be guided by the Secretary of State, who will make those decisions. I understand that the Government may consider making the Northern Ireland Assembly at some stage accountable for that issue, which means that they will have control. Is that the intention of the Government, and of the Minister?
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid it is too early to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I look forward to future discussions with him about that. Some of tonight’s amendments do relate to Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he will be surprised by any of them.
I am concerned that those who support the sustainability amendment are losing sight of the importance of the precautionary objective, which will ensure that we maintain and rebuild healthy fish stocks, and indeed the ecosystem objective, which is critical to allow us to take a joined-up approach to protecting our precious marine environment. Those objectives will together help to deliver for sustainable fishing much more than were we to have only the sustainability objective. I am concerned that those who support the amendment would see the other objectives deprioritised.
I am keen to be able to balance environmental, social and economic needs. I am worried that if the amendment is passed, it would mean that, for example, infra- structure projects in ports that might cause a short-term environmental detriment could not be built, which would in turn deprive coastal communities of future economic benefits. Another example is the issue of choke—when one fish quota is set so low that all other fishing in a mixed fishery is effectively prohibited. Over the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, for example, the choke issue would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west that aim at other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.
With coastal communities in mind, let us move to amendment 1. As we have said, we must have the flexibility to support the social and economic wellbeing of our coastal communities. Again delivering on a commitment in our White Paper, I am really pleased to announce that the Government have launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen the economic link licence condition for English-registered vessels.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
A Labour party policy.
Victoria Prentis
It may well be a Labour party policy now, but it was in our 2018 White Paper. The economic link is the route through which we ensure that there is a benefit to the UK from quota fished by UK boats. I am glad to see consensus across the House on this issue; it is clearly a sensible policy. Our consultation proposes a more sophisticated approach than amendment 1 would deliver, and one that I believe will bring higher value benefits to the UK and its coastal communities.
The consultation proposes increasing the landing requirement to 70% for quota species, strengthening the quota donation requirement, or using a combination of the two to meet the economic link requirement. Quota donation directly benefits the under-10-metre fleet, and that brings great benefits to their local ports and communities. Under amendment 1, our vessels would lose the flexibility to land where it is most suitable for their business. That might not always been an English port. Fishermen want to land where they can get the best prices, where it is most convenient or where there is the most appropriate port infrastructure. For example, the Voyager, which is registered in Northern Ireland, is too big to land in any Northern Irish ports and must instead land into Ireland.
Turning to amendment 3, I know that my colleagues and their constituents—indeed, all our constituents—feel strongly about supertrawlers. There is only one UK- registered vessel in the category of over 100 metres in length, but I recognise that there are considerable concerns, for example, about the Lithuanian registered vessel, the Margiris. The Fisheries Bill provides powers to attach conditions, such as the areas that can be fished and the type of fishing gear that can be used, to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels permitted to fish in UK waters will have to follow UK rules—including, of course, our conditions. When vessels do not comply with the conditions of their licences, action can be taken to restrict or prohibit their future activities.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was under the impression that supertrawlers were registered and agreed by our own Ministry at the moment; I did not realise that they were not. The Minister implies that they are not.
Victoria Prentis
Part of the problem is that there is no officially agreed definition of a supertrawler, but it is fair to say that we have one UK-registered vessel that is over 100 metres in length.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Is it not the reality that many of the issues that the Minister is talking about now will ultimately be decided during the trade negotiations with the European Union?
Victoria Prentis
No, I do not think that is the case. When we pass the Fisheries Bill, as I very much hope we will do shortly, there will be no question but that we will be able to impose licence conditions at the end of the transition period.
Pelagic fishing is the main method used by vessels that are over 100 metres in length. This takes place within a water column, and so is unlikely to affect the seabed features, such as reefs and sediment habitats, that most marine protected areas are set up to conserve. Prohibiting these vessels will not protect MPAs from fishing activities such as bottom-trawling, which we know damage them. As such, I am concerned that this amendment would not deal with the most important issues concerning MPAs. Instead, we should focus on preventing damage from the types of fishing that we know effect MPAs, which involve the trawling of nets on the seabed. More than 90 inshore MPAs are now protected from destructive fishing methods.
To date, the common fisheries policy has restricted our ability to implement fisheries management measures in offshore MPAs. To do that, we have required the consent of all the EU member states who fish there. Once we get to the end of this year, we will be free of that restriction and we plan to use the powers in the Bill to put measures in place very quickly. The House will welcome the fact that the Marine Management Organisation will shortly be launching a call for evidence on its assessment of the management measures needed in one inshore and four offshore MPAs. This is the start of engagement in advance of our new policies being put in place early next year. It is important that we develop these policies in conjunction with the industry. Fishermen want to work in partnership with us on this, as was demonstrated by the fishermen who raised concerns about the scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank, which we were then able to close.
Turning to new clauses 11 and 12, on safety, we all recognise that fishing remains a dangerous occupation. We are agreed that it is important that all fishermen have a fair and safe working environment. I would like once again to pay tribute to all those who work at sea and who are at sea now, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important matter again today. And of course I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has worked so hard in this area, and to the other Members who have, too.
The Government strongly condemn any aggressive actions taken at sea that make safety worse, particularly when this is done deliberately. We have had appalling instances off Shetland, which I think we may be hearing about later, with German-Spanish gillnetters, and in the Baie de Seine with French vessels very recently, over the weekend. Videos of those incidents are truly horrifying, and the fact that there have not been real injuries recently is, quite frankly, a miracle.
I know this is a probing amendment, but I would say that the UK already has the powers to prevent unacceptable or dangerous practices within our territorial waters that cover all UK vessels anywhere in the world. We, like other coastal states, rely on flag states being responsible for the conduct of their vessels in our EEZ. We will explore what further action can be taken with the Marine and Coastguard Agency, the Department for Transport and other interested parties. We will continue to raise issues with the flag state of any vessels concerned, as the MCA did with the German Government in June after the incident in the Shetlands.
Mr Carmichael
The question is not about territorial waters; it is about operation within the exclusive economic zone, from 12 miles to 200 miles. The incidents off Shetland demonstrate beyond peradventure that there is no meaningful protection for our fishermen in those areas. Yes, the Minister is right that fishing is a dangerous industry, but it should not be made more dangerous by the sort of recklessness that we keep seeing, and if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has no powers to enforce that, it is only going to get worse. And by the way, it is not a probing amendment.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I look forward to working further with him on the important issue of safety. The MCA raised the particular issue that affected his constituency in June with the German Government and will continue to do so as hard as possible. We have also raised concerns with the French Government following the incidents in the Baie de Seine—perfectly lawful fishing activity by, I think, Scottish vessels—that took place on Sunday night.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill that learns the lessons of the common fisheries policy, and I know that that is recognised across this House. It puts in place a framework to develop sustainable fisheries, which will benefit the nation as a whole as we become an independent coastal state.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I begin by paying tribute to the six fishers who went to work last year and tragically did not return home.
For the Opposition, today’s debate is focused on two simple questions. First, how committed are this Conservative Government to sustainable fishing, and secondly, do this Government really care about jobs in coastal communities? I believe Labour’s amendments to this Bill make it stronger. Amendment 1 increases seafood landings into UK ports and calls for the majority of fish caught in English waters to be landed in English ports. Amendment 2 makes the sustainability objective the prime objective of the Bill and means that environmental sustainability will be considered in the short and the long term. Amendment 3 bans supertrawlers from vulnerable marine habitats and conservation zones.
Our amendments close the gap between what the Conservatives have promised to do and this Bill, because right now the Fisheries Bill does not make good on the Government’s commitments to fishers, coastal communities or voters concerned about the environment. Today, the Government have announced three consultations into how to split additional quota from EU negotiations, the allocation of quotas for new entrants to the sector and attaching licensing additions to vessels so that British fish is landed in British ports. Those are matters that have been repeatedly voted against in the Bill Committee. We do, of course, welcome their apparent adoption of Labour policy today, but consulting on something is not the same as taking action. We want the Government to make good on their promises to voters, not simply to pay lip service by announcing consultations on the day this Bill is considered on Report.
Mrs Murray
The hon. Lady is talking about that economic link, but does she not recognise that it was a Conservative Government in 1988 that passed the Merchant Shipping Act and the European Court of Justice that overturned it? It is not Labour party policy; it was originally a Conservative policy many decades ago.
Stephanie Peacock
I know that the hon. Lady speaks with great experience as chair of the all-party fisheries group, and I am sure that, like me, she will be aware that for every one job created at sea another 10 are created on land—
Stephanie Peacock
Eight—I stand corrected. Eight jobs are created on land to every one job at sea. The hon. Lady will see that there is a clear benefit. That is what amendment 1 speaks to.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech and say that, like me, she probably doesn’t recall 1988 that well. At one time Hull was one of the world-leading areas for fishing ports and industry, so does she agree that Labour’s amendment could bring some much needed jobs to areas such as Hull?
Stephanie Peacock
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she is a hard-working campaigner for the fishing industry that benefits her community in Hull. That is why we believe that landing seafood caught in British waters in British ports will help to level up our coastal community. It will support jobs not just on boats, but in landing, processing and onward transportation.
With the sustainability objective, there is still time to seize the chance offered by amendment 2 to put in place fisheries legislation that begins to reverse biodiversity decline. In the Conservative election manifesto, voters were promised
“a legal commitment to fish sustainably”.
By the Government’s own admission, we will not be able to achieve the 2020 target for the good environmental status for many years
“unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the important things we must do to sustain our fishing communities is to ensure that our ports and landing areas are improved? There should be additional support for those areas so that we really can benefit from an increase in our seafaring catch.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important point. I am sure he will be interested to know that the British Ports Association does indeed support Labour’s amendments this evening. That is because Labour’s amendments would ensure that fisheries management decisions are made through the lens of environmental sustainability, which will result in long and short-term benefits. It will result in a more resilient and productive marine ecosystem and lead to increased long-term catches, industry profits and benefits for coastal communities. Will the Minister give an assurance tonight, on the Floor of the House, that decisions made in relation to fisheries management will not compromise environmental sustainability in the short and long term, which, as she knows, is set out in the Bill?
Let me move on to amendment 3, which prohibits vessels greater than 100 metres in length from marine conservation zones and protected areas in English waters. These were defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A Greenpeace investigation has revealed that, last year, supertrawlers, industrial vessels longer than 100 metres that hoover up hundreds of tonnes of fish a day, spent nearly 3,000 hours fishing in parts of UK waters that are supposed to be protected. These areas were created with the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable marine habitats and iconic species such as dolphins, yet in the first six months of 2020, supertrawler activity in marine protected areas was almost double that of the whole of last year.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister why the UK Government have called for the global community to increase protection of world oceans by up to 30% by 2030 when they have shown a reluctance to follow through with their commitments by supporting a ban on supertrawlers fishing in marine protected areas?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. She is right: the Government like to call themselves a global ocean champion, but we want that same commitment back home, because at present our MPA network is nothing more than lines on a map. Our amendment 3 does just that.
Jonathan Edwards
I strongly support amendment 3, but I am sure the hon. Lady will understand why, as a Welsh MP, I cannot vote for an England-only amendment, although I understand why it is England-only. May I implore her to ask her colleagues in Cardiff to bring forward similar measures for Wales, to protect Welsh waters?
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have tried to make our amendments devolution-friendly, but we hope that our colleagues in the devolved Administrations will see merit in them.
Labour’s amendments are backed by Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society, Greener UK and the British Ports Association, to name but a few. I urge every Member of the House to think very carefully before they vote today about whether they will be voting to support more jobs in coastal communities, to protect marine habitats and to ensure the longevity of our fishing industry, because that is what the Labour party will be voting for.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this historic debate. After 40 years, we can now look at a fishing policy for the United Kingdom, and it is a great moment. I sat in the European Parliament for 10 years, and I do not think many in this House, whether they liked the common agricultural policy or not, would stand up and support the common fisheries policy, because it was not a great success. This is the moment to rectify many of the wrongs that happened. As I have said before in the Chamber, there is no doubt that when we went into what was the Common Market back in the 1970s, the fishing industry paid a heavy price, and it is time to put that right. Not only was the share of fish wrong for United Kingdom fishermen, but the policy also saw millions of tonnes of healthy fish being discarded over the years. We now have the opportunity to put that right.
I very much welcome the Bill. The Government will probably be delighted that I am fully supporting them tonight; I will make no further comment on that. I support Government new clause 8, because we need to bring back control of our waters, so that we can catch more fish and manage it more sustainably. We also need to remember that many fish stocks move between national waters, and because there is common access to them, they are at risk of being over-exploited. We can do much more to manage this as an independent coastal state than we could when we were part of the common fisheries policy.
I think we can all agree that the common fisheries policy was not ideal. It was cumbersome and slow, and getting 26 member states to agree to any changes in policy was almost impossible. Outside the common fisheries policy, we can shut down places that are being overfished more quickly, like Norway, and open up other fishing grounds that can be exploited. I am glad that Ministers have been closely following the way that Norway approaches its agreements. We have signed an agreement with the Norwegians, which shows that this can be done; there is only the mere detail of signing the agreement with the EU, but that is proving a little difficult at the moment. Each year, our UK fishing fleet lands £32 million-worth of fish from Norwegian waters, so this is an excellent start.
We eat a great deal of cod in this country, some of which we catch and much of which we import. We have to ensure that we keep our export markets, because we export much of the fish we catch. In coastal communities like mine—we have a little coastline in Seaton, Branscombe and Beer; it is not massive, but it is there—people expect to see great benefits from leaving the common fisheries policy, and we need to see that turned into a physical reality. The Government are right to drive a hard bargain on fishing in these negotiations, because it is something that people really care about. We said in our manifesto that we would bring back our sovereign waters and the fish that come with it. It is socially and economically important to see the regeneration of our coastal communities after Brexit.
Our fishing sector employs over 25,000 people. Around 18,000 work in the fish-processing industry, which is important. It is important to enhance the fish processing industry and we have a great need to market this great fish that we catch. We have the opportunity to improve our dietary habits and eat a little more different fish. Many of those can be caught in Cornwall, and even those of us who live in Devon would be very happy to buy some Cornish fish.
Most of our fisheries are small family businesses. Over 80% of them employ fewer than five people. We can grow the sector with access to more fish and good reciprocal deals. Lots of people say that the fishing industry is not important, but I believe that it is very important to this country because we are a coastal nation. It is interesting that we can and will eat more fish. The more we have control over our fishing waters, the more interest there will be in eating fish. People are becoming more and more interested in the food they eat, and fish will be very much part of that.
The UK has a large fishing zone compared with many of our continental neighbours. Under the common fisheries policy, EU fishermen benefit hugely from reciprocal access to UK waters. In 2015, for example, EU vessels caught some 383,000 tonnes in UK waters, raising some £484 million in revenue. In the same year, UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes in EU member states’ waters, raising £114 million, so there is a great benefit to leaving the common fisheries policy. EU vessels benefited by a ratio of 6:1 under the CFP. I do not think anyone could believe that that is fair. We need to rebalance this and reduce EU vessels’ access to a more sustainable level. We are an independent coastal state. We reclaim our waters, we reclaim the fish and then we sit down and negotiate, under our rules and regulations, what access there may or may not be to European vessels.
When we leave the common fisheries policy at the end of this year, we will have control over our waters. This will be good for our marine environment and good for local fishing industries and coastal communities, who will benefit from a greater catch, especially for our under- 10 metre fleet.
The Government have been wise to look at the Norway model when it comes to fisheries because Norway has far greater control over its waters and acts quickly to shut them down if they are being over-fished. The Fisheries Bill is therefore a great opportunity to ensure that we can operate a more dynamic fisheries management system. The Bill is also a significant opportunity to deliver a much needed reversal of the fortunes of coastal communities and small-scale fishers, and I greatly welcome the direction of travel of our DEFRA Ministers. I also look forward to being able to help the sea anglers of this country and make sure that they have access to fish, because they are a huge economic benefit to the fishing industry but also to recreational fishing.
I welcome the Bill tonight.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to 7 and amendment 57 tabled by the Scottish National party.
It is notable that when Brexit negotiations ran into trouble recently the first concession that the Prime Minister’s hand-picked negotiator reached for was fishing. Straight off the bat, fishing was first to be sacrificed. It will be for a few years at first, but there will be more, step after step, until the promises that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made to foreign fleets will be realised. Their access to our waters will be assured.
The fact that the PM picked this negotiator and, one has to assume, gave him his instructions, shows that the attitude that the fishing industry is expendable goes right to the top of the Tory party and right to the heart of the UK Government. Given the impact a no-deal exit would have on the industry, getting a deal is essential, but in order to get a deal, this Government look willing to sell out the industry. Heads and the fishing industry loses; tails and the fishing industry loses also.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does the hon. Lady accept that under the Scottish nationalist policy of staying in the EU, she would take Scottish fishermen back into the common fisheries policy against their will?
Deidre Brock
I think the hon. Lady is well aware of the SNP’s policy towards the re-entry of an independent Scotland into the EU, but I remind her that the Scottish Government have called the CFP
“the EU’s most unpopular and discredited policy”,
so we would certainly be starting negotiations from that point.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations sent out a briefing in advance of the Second Reading debate in which it said:
“If the Government backs down on its promises to the UK fishing industry, many of the objectives that the Fisheries Bill is aiming to achieve will be impossible.”
I do not share the optimism about the Bill in the first place, but I do share the concern about the impact on the fishing communities being sold out by a UK Government once again—sold out to get a deal on the way in and sold out to get a deal on the way out.
Brexiteers relied heavily on the fishing argument during the referendum, promising that leaving the EU would produce a “sea of opportunity”. That was only ever going to be for some of the fleets, and I fear that it will turn out to be nonsense for all of them. The repeated promises of this Government to our fishing communities over years that Brexit meant taking back full control of the seas have turned out to be as empty of delivery as the emergency Brexit ferry companies were empty of ferries. Chief negotiator David Frost confirmed that the UK Government were offering a three-year transition period for EU fishers in UK waters on top of the four and a half years since the referendum, but we still do not know what follows that. It beggars belief that we are in the closing months of the transition period and we are still negotiating terms with our nearest and most important seafood export market. We still have no outline of what those negotiations look like or what the possible deals might be. Fishing communities that rely on exports for the finances to keep their communities alive are being left hanging, with no deal or no prospect of a deal, massive bureaucracy if they now want to export, and huge queues at the border posts with only some vague promises that their product might be prioritised by customs. As an Ealing comedy, it lacks the humour and the humanity but it certainly has the farce in spades.
At the very least, we once again ask the Government to take this opportunity to give some assistance to our Scottish fishing communities and right an injustice that has been hanging around for a very long time and where they might do a little to make amends. New clauses 1 to 7 make the case effectively for devolving control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It has long been the view of the Scottish Government that the current arrangements for the Seafish levy are not fit for purpose in Scotland and have had an ultimately detrimental effect on the promotion of our fine Scottish seafood. The inequity of the red meat levy has taken years to be resolved. It is more than time that the issue was finally resolved and management transferred to the Scottish authorities, as would be consistent with devolved competencies.
The new clauses would enable Scottish Ministers to further support the industry and promote the quality and excellence of our Scottish seafood products. While we will press only new clause 3 to a vote, I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to revise their opposition to these very reasonable processes. New clause 3 brings transparency to the levy finances and the details of their distribution across the UK. Transparency seems to me to be a good thing. Surely no one could argue against that, and I can see no reason why the Government continue to resist it. After all, the Minister knows that a commitment was made at the time of the Smith commission that the Scottish and UK Governments would work together to explore whether to revise arrangements in respect of levy-raising using the specific examples of red meat and seafood. Now the red meat levy problem is finally on its way to being sorted, but I am afraid that the commitment to properly explore arrangements for seafood has not been followed through on. There has been no such work and no such exploration to date of those legal and practical arrangements, which is why I would like to see on the record today a commitment to do that, with a timeline to follow shortly thereafter for the long-promised internal and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review of sea fish, which would take on board all the matters covered in my amendments.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
One point that I think is important to many in the Scottish fleet, as it certainly is to the Welsh fleet, is to see an increase in the reserve quota that would allow greater flexibility for our fleet. We are keen to see a provision in the Bill that would seek assurance that in the future that will be the case.
Deidre Brock
All from the devolved authorities would like to see that, and the hon. Lady will recall that at the recent roundtable discussion between the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation the Minister said that a consultation will be taking place on the distribution of quotas between the devolved authorities. We are certainly looking forward to that. [Interruption.] And it has been launched today—good to hear.
New clause 3 would also mark a useful first step—long overdue—to giving effect to the agreed commitment in the Smith commission report. Fiscal transparency and accountability and a proper and thorough review of current arrangements would help determine whether an equitable share is being received and how to address any issues. This Tory Government may have forgotten the commitments made as part of that process to bolster devolution and strengthen Scotland’s powers, but we have not.
The Secretary of State made it clear the last time we debated this Bill that the involvement of the devolved nations had greatly improved it, but as that example shows, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has mentioned, the Bill is simply still not good enough. It is a hastily cobbled-together mess, as we see when we look at the dozens of technical amendments tabled by the Government in a frantic attempt to tidy it up. I feel sorry for the civil servants who have had to operate under these conditions. We are left simply wishing that the Government had listened to the devolved Administrations when they were saying that we needed an extension before leaving the EU or, even better, when they argued against leaving the EU altogether. Here we are being asked to agree skeletal framework legislation simply to cover this Government’s intransigence and their British exceptionalist view—it is a fig leaf for the absence of a realpolitik attitude in Whitehall, and a failure to appreciate the situation that the UK found itself in before the pandemic arrived or the massively worse situation that unfortunately it finds itself in now.
We do know, but I will remind the House, that the law of the sea will be the fall-back position if, as looks increasingly and disturbingly possible, we end up in the worst of all possible worlds, with no deal. I know that some people have laid heavy bets on that scenario and stand to make a lot of cash from it, but massive wealth in the hands of some is no substitute for a decent living for many.
The Prime Minister, in his best Bertie Wooster chant, wants to, “Get Brexit done”, as if there is a crock waiting for us at the end of a rainbow, but even if we get a deal done, we have no certainty of the position for fisherfolk. As I mentioned, the Minister has announced just now that a consultation is being launched that will debate how any additional quota will be divided between the four nations, but that is if any additional quota is there to be shared. As the scientific advice and information from the Marine Stewardship Council makes clear, stocks are not in the best of health, so there may not be extra quota to share over that three-year extension to the transition period. Equally, the Government have not outlined what they intend to do about the large chunks of England’s quotas vested in foreign vessels or what they think might be a sensible way forward for reallocating those quotas over the next few years. Will it be the fishing equivalent of a Government land grab, or will things just be left well alone, so that the “sea of opportunity” remains nothing more than a “Narnia” tale to be recounted in years to come. The referendum was a couple of Tory Prime Ministers and two snap elections ago, but there still has not been anything worked out about how to deal with the fall-out. The light is dimming on our EU membership and only now, after this painfully long journey, is the question being asked about what to do. We recognise that some sort of legislative framework is needed; I should speak here to amendment 57 before I conclude. We propose inserting the word “short” before “long term” to ensure that sustainability is not an objective that can be kicked down the road and not dealt with until later, but must be worked on at all times. The UK, it must be admitted, is not achieving a sustainable fisheries management, so the amendment would encourage the UK Government to take into account sustainability when carrying out their duties. Our hope is that this will be seen as the constructive proposal that it is meant to be.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
If the hon. Lady has such a concern about sustainability, will the SNP start addressing the Scottish salmon fishermen?
Deidre Brock
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is something the Scottish Government are taking in hand at the moment.
We recognise that some sort of legislative framework is needed and we have all heard the fears that there might not be time, even now, to put in place all the fishing legislation that is required, but my view is that the Bill is not what is needed. There is a shortfall between the great expectations that fishers and producers were fed by this Government and the deliverables. It is not enough, it is not in time and it does not do what it says on the tin.
Scotland is ill served by this Tory Government and their failures, but so is England. There was a time when Ministers would resign for getting it so badly wrong, but these days it seems that the default position is finding someone to blame, preferably someone in Brussels.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I have got some news for her: she said the light was going out on our EU membership, but as far as I am aware, we are in a transition period and the light switch has already been turned off. It is also a pleasure to speak during consideration of this historic Bill on Report. The Bill does provide a framework for fisheries management after sovereignty of this valuable United Kingdom resource is, rightfully, restored to this House.
I want to address some of the amendments. It is disappointing that the SNP has tabled such a divisive set of new clauses, using the valuable platform of the Sea Fish Industry Authority to peddle its nationalist agenda. Perhaps we should remember that Seafish is based in two locations, Edinburgh and Grimsby. Board meetings may be held at either office, or at other locations in the UK. Seafish covers the whole UK and has served the fishing industry well through its current structure. I urge every hon. Member to reject these divisive new clauses.
Mrs Murray
No, I will not. Other people want to speak.
Other new clauses have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I apologise for speaking to them before he has done so, but he is after me on the call list. I know he is well intentioned, given his interest in promoting safety aboard fishing vessels. He has been a strong voice for fishing safety for many years. Owners of UK-flagged fishing vessels are responsible for basic health and safety on board their boats, safe working practices and safe equipment. The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 include measures to encourage improvement in safety and health of workers at sea. As far as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I have got this wrong—licensing will be able to control the terms on which vessels from other member states, or other nations, because there will not be member states as far as we are concerned, can access the UK 200-mile or median line limit. It will also ensure that the boats that fish in those waters are responsible, as is the behaviour of the skippers and crew of those vessels.
Mr Carmichael
I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 12, standing in my name. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I listened very carefully to her remarks, as I always do on matters related to the fishing industry, and I absolutely understand her background and family history, which has brought her to a very close interest in fishing safety over the years. I am grateful to her—enormously grateful to her—for accepting that I am well intentioned. I would hope, as I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on fisheries, of which she is the chair, that she would have expected nothing less.
I am afraid I was not entirely persuaded by the hon. Lady’s reasoning, however, and on this occasion I will stick with the views of the representatives of the fishing industry, who say that amendments such as new clauses 11 and 12 are necessary. I say to the Minister, who has obviously been told that they are probing amendments, that they are no such thing. Unless I am able to hear any reason or persuasive arguments as to why I should not push them to a vote, then with your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will certainly seek to test the views of the House on new clause 12 at least.
The hon. Lady’s proposition was an interesting one. She said that we should rely on the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and also on the licensing provisions. I am actually a great fan of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It is legislative poetry. A whole body of case law and regulations have been born and grown up out of it, of which I am not always a great admirer, but the Act itself is very simple.
Mr Carmichael
I will just explain this to the hon. Lady, and then I will give way to her.
The Act creates an obligation to provide a safe system of work for those who come into contact with it. It is a measure that has to be applied in a way that is reasonable and proportionate. I cannot imagine that any safe system of work would deal with the sort of piracy we have seen off the west coast of Shetland in relation to Pesorsa Dos, which I will speak about in a second or two. With all due respect to the hon. Lady, it seems to me that, in seeking to rely on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and licensing conditions, she is in effect saying—or advancing an argument that would be akin to saying—that we do not require the Road Traffic Acts and the offences of dangerous or careless driving simply because we license cars, but if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, I will give way.
Mrs Murray
I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I actually mentioned the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, under which a massive number of M notices—merchant shipping notices—are published, meaning that vessels have to be kept and operated in a safe way. If we license other vessels from other nations, we could insist, as part of their licencing, that they behave in a responsible way and that the vessels meet the same requirements as UK vessels.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady advances an excellent argument in support of my new clause 11, but as it happens, I am going to press new clause 12. The difficulty she has is that I do not hear any argument from her about enforcement, so when we are in the exclusive economic zone, if these regulations or licensing requirements are breached, how do we enforce them? At present, there is no power for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to do that, but that would be a sensible and reasonable thing to do, and it would, I suggest, be entirely appropriate given the stated aim of taking back control.
Mrs Murray
I think it is the Marine Management Organisation that enforces licensing but in his area, the Scottish fisheries protection agency goes out on board the vessels.
Mr Carmichael
There will be no provision in licensing that will deal with the dangerous and reckless conduct that we have seen west of Shetland, and that we will see in other territorial waters, I think, in the next few months as the political heat is turned up in relation to fishing and the changes that are going to come in on 1 January.
I want to make a couple of points before dealing in detail with the reason why new clauses 11 and/or 12 are necessary. The first is on Government amendment 36, which I raised with the Minister in her opening comments. I understand the reasons why a lot of late Government amendments to the Bill have come and I have sympathy with them, knowing the to and fro that there has been between the Minister’s Department and the various devolved Administrations, but the Bill is not new. We had the Bill go through all its stages in this House—certainly the Public Bill Committee—once already. It started then in the other place and it has been through Committee here, so introducing at this late stage—when, frankly, there is little opportunity for meaningful scrutiny of it—a provision that strikes at a fairly important constitutional point in relation to the Channel Islands as dependent territories requires further explanation from the Minister.
Essentially, the difficulty is that saying that this is just a backstop power is one thing, but the Government giving themselves a backstop power that can be used unilaterally—possibly without any consultation, although I accept that that is unlikely—takes us down a very difficult and dangerous constitutional path. I think that this requires greater scrutiny than this House is able to give it today, because once I have given way to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), I will not say much more about it.
Sir Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point.
Is there not a further difficulty in that the Crown dependencies have jurisdiction over their territorial waters, so for us to legislate unilaterally for something that they have indicated since the summer that they do not wish us to do would be a most dangerous and, frankly, entirely novel precedent? It is difficult to see how that could ever by justified.
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience of Government is that there are issues that sometimes just dot around the civil service waiting for a Minister who is prepared to pick them up and give them a go. This issue is not new. I know that the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), faced a similar dilemma and reached a very different conclusion. I strongly suspect that this has been slipped in at the last minute because officials somewhere wanted to advance it. The Minister should have resisted this. I say to her gently that this will not just be nodded through when the Bill gets to the other place. It will require and get more substantial scrutiny there.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who spoke for the Scottish nationalists, said at the start of her speech, there is a lot of uncertainty around the fishing industry at the moment, and that uncertainty is very damaging. It is worth reminding the House that the reason for that uncertainty was the decision by the former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, to enter into a withdrawal agreement that put an agreement on fishing into the political declaration. When that decision was made by the former Prime Minister, I remember that the hon. Members for South East Cornwall and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and others, were rather unhappy about it, as was I, and we are now reaping the whirlwind of that somewhat ill-advised decision.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
If I may take a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just received a text message alerting me to the news that a good friend of mine, a guitarist and former band member, has just died following a two-day battle with coronavirus. I send my love and prayers to his wife and pay tribute to a gentle giant, an awesome guitarist and a true family man. Rest in peace.
More than four years have passed since the referendum vote that set out the future of our nation as a full, sovereign Union. That has dominated the political debate in this Chamber and outside the Westminster bubble. One only has to take a look at the map of the leave vote to understand the impact of the coastal communities in deciding the future of our nation.
The sea and our insularity as an island have always been fundamental traits of our history and our identity as British, English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. Because of our geography, we have always had to find a way to connect with other nations by crossing the seas and the channel, to boost our trade with nearby nations and to attract the best projects and talent from around the world. We had to navigate. We would not be such an outward-looking nation if we were not an island. While my constituency is not directly on the sea, I was born just a few miles away from the beautiful Yorkshire coast, and my granddad Walter Naulls was a fisherman over in Hull. I am sure if Walter were alive today, he would be cheering on and welcoming this Bill and the opportunity to take back control again of our waters.
In Yorkshire, whether in Whitby, Morley and Outwood or the dales, we all know the importance of fisheries to our economy. Our seafood sector is worth £1.4 billion per year and employs 12,000 people. British ships land around 400,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters, while EU states’ vessels annually land almost double that in our waters. Thanks to Brexit, we will have access to and be in full control of our waters on our own terms, able to regulate access by third countries. Our fishing communities will not be left behind and we will grow thanks to this legislation.
This is an extremely ambitious deal, which offers only a glimpse of what we were able to do when leaving the EU. As a strong advocate for animal rights, I would like to commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her predecessors for the strong environmental approach that they have taken to this Bill. Adding references to the national benefit objective, along with the powers to make further provision on aquatic and animal health and the Government’s commitment to high standards, are extremely encouraging changes. The Bill will not only protect our fishermen, their families and the communities that rely on them but protect our marine fauna, creating a strong and legally binding framework that can leave the environment in a better state than we inherited, thanks to the quota levels set for fishing.
The objectives set out by the Bill for the fisheries policy authorities, particularly on sustainability, the ecosystem, the bycatch and the scientific evidence, are a sign that leaving the EU does not mean compromising, but rather enhancing, our environmental and animal welfare standards. Taking back control of our waters means maintaining the health of our seas, and the Bill offers a unique opportunity to be world leaders on sustainability, which is vital for our oceans and for future generations. I was pleased to read this positive feedback from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations:
“The Bill is an important and necessary step towards managing our fisheries in ways that can bring real advantages to our coastal communities.”
The Bill not only enables us to take back control of our waters as a sovereign nation but gives control back to the fishing communities, with a strong focus on devolution. Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh boats will be licensed by Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Ministers. The Bill gives more powers to the devolved Governments, who will be responsible for the positive trickle-down effect on coastal communities. I believe that, outside the EU, the Government are paving the way forward for others to follow. With its focus on communities, no compromises on animal welfare and the protection of our economy and, importantly, our sovereignty, the Bill is a clear indication of what taking back control really means.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate. I would like to offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on her loss. I would like to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the shadow Front Bench, and I want to focus my remarks on the opportunity for supporting coastal communities and the importance of protecting the vulnerable marine environment.
Our coastal communities have been neglected for far too long. Austerity and long-standing regional inequality have hit these communities hard. Last year, residents in coastal areas, shockingly, earned £1,600 less than people inland. The Labour amendment recognises these issues and calls on the Government to support those communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said earlier, landing more fish in UK ports will generate significant new jobs inland. One million pounds of fish landed in UK ports can create up to 76 new jobs, which is a significant gain in many areas. Surely, at this time when the Government are saying that they want to “build back better”, this amendment is worth further consideration. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will consider this approach and take some time to mull it over. It is important that the Government listen to the needs of all our communities, including those facing real economic challenges, both inland in seats such as mine and in coastal areas.
I would like to turn to the serious economic and environmental issues that have been raised in today’s debate. It is important to consider the sheer scale of some of the boats that we have heard about. These supertrawlers are more than 100 metres in length and they pull huge nets that can stretch out over a mile across the sea. These boats have been found to be fishing in vulnerable protected areas with fragile marine ecosystems containing rare flora and fauna. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by Greenpeace to uncover the full scale of this issue. These boats have been seen to present a severe risk, and it is now time for us to consider its full impact. In the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in protected areas. This is a significant issue, and I hope that the Minister will consider it fully.
Given this evidence, and given the Conservatives’ own manifesto commitments in this area, it is now time for further consideration of these environmental risks, and I urge Ministers to take some time to rethink their position and to look at the amendments from the Labour Front Bench. As was said earlier, the environmental and economic issues in fishing sit together. There is a long-term interest in preserving our valuable and very vulnerable coastal waters, and it is time for the Government to listen, consider the evidence and think again. I urge Ministers to take a reasonable approach to this issue.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I will keep my remarks short. I am getting quite used to having debates on fishing and fisheries policy—we seem to discuss it here every week or every couple of weeks at the moment, and long may that continue. This Bill is in a much better place than it was when it entered the House, and I support all the Government’s amendments.
Scott Mann
Indeed.
I welcome the package of three consultations launched by DEFRA today. The first is on strengthening the economic link for English licensed fishing vessels, to help ensure economic benefits for many of our coastal communities, including plans for an increased landing requirement of up to 70%. That is very welcome news for many people in North Cornwall. The second consultation is on proposals for how the new fishing opportunities that the UK secures in negotiations will be split between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in a way that is fairer and much more profitable for fishing communities across our four nations. Finally, I congratulate the Department on its proposals for how England’s share of those new opportunities will be distributed across communities. I hope that we will see greater benefits for many of our coastal communities and our hard-working fishermen and fisherwomen.
Concerns have been raised over the past few weeks that the scallop wars we saw a couple of years back in the English channel seem to be resurfacing, with many of our boats being targeted by the French. There is concern in the fishing community in Cornwall that, as we get to the crunch point in negotiations, much of their gear might be towed off and dragged due to the realisation that, if we do not reach a deal, there might be challenges for some continental fishermen.
Finally—it would not be a fisheries debate if I did not mention it—I want to talk about recreational angling. I know that I probably bore the Minister when I talk about this, and I promise that I will not talk specifically about bluefin tuna, although the conversation we had with the shadow Secretary of State on that recently was very productive; I am hopeful that we might reach a point where we have a catch-and-release bluefin tuna fishery around the coast of the country. I am grateful for the work that DEFRA is doing with the Angling Trust on developing a vision statement for recreational angling in the UK. The Minister will know that I have an ambition to create a world-class fishery and wide recreational opportunity for fishing off the north Cornwall coast. I look forward to working with her on the vision statement. Can she confirm that the statement will include policies that further support the interests of the UK recreational sector?
It is a pleasure to be in the House on this historic night. I have heard on many doorsteps in North Cornwall that we need to repatriate our territorial fishing waters, which were slayed on the altar as we entered the European Union. It is a pleasure to be here this evening to give a green light to the great opportunities that are coming to coastal communities. I ask the Government to continue to be robust in the negotiations, and they will continue to have my full support.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Yesterday, in the debate on the Agriculture Bill, Members heralded a new dawn for UK farmers. Likewise, today, with this Bill, we see a new dawn for our fishing industry, breaking free from the over-regulation of Brussels.
In Northern Ireland, we have a resilient and innovative fleet. They see Brexit as an opportunity. Therefore, as we chart this new course, it is incumbent on our Government to ensure that the approach taken is not simply a mirror image of EU regulation. This Bill indicates that that will not be the case, which is welcome.
Like most MPs here today, I read the briefing from Greener UK, which highlighted the fact that 58% to 68% of fish stocks in UK waters are now at sustainable levels. That signals an improving trend and is good news. The sustainability principle is already at the core of our fisheries policy. There is no need to give it precedence over other pillars of UK fisheries policy.
The top-down command and control approach of the common fisheries policy has failed. The UK must resist the temptation to begin this new era by prescribing draconian solutions across the board, as represented by remote electronic monitoring. On 29 September, the Fisheries Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots MLA, told the Assembly that
“it is important that we have that devolved flexibility to choose from the range of management tools and measures, and pick those that are best suited to our fleet.”
I agree with our devolved Minister because I do not support the amendment that would see REM prescribed. Rather, REM should be something to be considered with the fishing community, rather than imposed upon them.
Our fishermen in Northern Ireland are custodians of the sea. The principle of sustainability is written into their DNA. I hope the EFRA Minister will acknowledge that, in recent years, the total allowable catch in ICES Area VIIa has been managed according to the principles of maximum sustainable yield. The ICES advice for 2021 indicates more challenges and opportunities in the area. In the main, these are within natural fluctuations, but there continues to be debate among fisheries scientists and fishermen around some of the stark figures.
Northern Ireland’s fishermen have worked with members of the Greener UK alliance to develop and agree proposals for marine protected areas in the Irish sea. It is no secret that these measures and other similar plans within Northern Ireland’s territorial waters are causing economic harm to local fishermen. Nevertheless, what this shows me is that legislation at a national and a devolved level does work to achieve our marine sustainability goals. I wish to hear from the Minister about what legislative route she intends to use to devolve responsibility to the authorities in Northern Ireland for the designation and management of marine protected areas throughout our maritime zone, as is the case with Scotland and Wales. Amendment 42 offers more power to Northern Ireland, and we welcome that, but we support more devolution of these powers to Northern Ireland, similar to that in Scotland and Wales.
The Public Bill Committee reviewing this Bill did not have any representative from Northern Ireland. The written evidence submitted by the Northern Ireland industry, specifically by Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, referred to the marine protected area process, as well as the discrimination faced by all UK fishermen in the Irish sea, especially those from Northern Ireland because of the application of the Hague preference. We presume that, come 1 January 2021, this discrimination will end when the rightful share of annual total allowable catches is repatriated to the UK. That will then be shared among UK fishermen.
I want to make it very clear here that, within the UK, Northern Ireland fishermen expect nothing more than their share of the UK’s old and new fishing opportunities across all waters and quota species, based on the methodology used today. Based on established international law, zonal attachment is the principle that this Government have used to claim an increased share of the available catches. Within the UK, the established principle of fixed quota allocations should be used to apportion any new quota. It should then be left to the devolved Administrations to decide how to allocate that quota.
It is time to seize the opportunities that arise from our escape from the common fisheries policy and Government must ensure that that happens.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on an excellent speech. She spoke on behalf of not just her constituency but fishermen across Northern Ireland. She put her case and their case across very well in the House tonight. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be in the Chamber tonight, as we debate such an important piece of legislation for our own constituencies, the communities we represent, the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. They are looking to this Parliament to finally take back control over our fishing industry. It has for too long been dominated by decisions in Brussels, rather than here in our Parliament in the United Kingdom.
This is very much a framework Bill. It is supported by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and it allows us to do far more back here in the House of Commons or in the devolved Administrations. This legislation and the proposals put forward by this UK Conservative Government respect devolution. It looks for and enhances the sustainability in our seas, but also the sustainability in our fishing communities. For so long—decades—fishing communities in Moray such as Cullen, Findochty, Buckie and Burghead have suffered from a reduction in fishing right across the country through the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy. It has done so much harm to our industries, which were crucial to towns and villages right across the country. Many of those areas have been decimated, but now we can start to build back again: build back our fishing industry, our fleet, our crews and our catches, and what they mean to individual communities, what they meant decades ago, and what we can do to revitalise those areas when this industry gets back up and running because of the legislation that this UK Government and this Parliament are looking at, debating and taking through now.
Positive as I am about the Bill, I have to pause for a moment and stop that positivity to discuss the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). [Interruption.] She laughs about her contribution. I wish I could laugh at it. I really wish I could find it funny. I watched part of her speech on the screens outwith the Chamber and, when I was able to come in, I listened to it further. Watching it on television I thought it was bad enough, and then I looked in. Sometimes we say things in the Chamber and we reflect, because we are not reading a pre-prepared, scripted speech, that maybe we could have said something different and put it a better way. I watched the end of the hon. Lady’s speech and she was reading it out. I thought, “What kind of individual sits at a computer and types such a bitter, twisted and misleading statement, reviews it”—I presume she writes it herself, but I cannot guarantee that—“and stands up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and reads out such a poorly crafted argument that does not represent what Scotland is looking for from this Bill and does not represent what fishing communities right around the country are looking for from this Bill?”
I do not believe the hon. Lady’s speech represents the Scottish National party position on this. If you listen to her, there is nothing good in the Bill being brought forward by this Government, but her own party in the Scottish Parliament has given a legislative consent motion for it. So just once I would ask her to look beyond her blinkered vision of separatism, assuming everything done in this UK Parliament is bad, and consider for a moment that the 1 million people in Scotland who backed Brexit and the almost 50% of voters in my Moray constituency who backed Brexit, might actually look at this as an opportunity—an opportunity for this UK Government to take control back from the European Union over fishing and devolve further to our devolved Administrations right across the country. She would do herself, her party and Scottish politics in general a service if she looked at that and that argument from a more positive angle just once—to look at the positivity, rather than always the negativity.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I think I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there was almost 50% support for Brexit in his constituency, so he lost the Brexit argument in his constituency. Is that right?
Douglas Ross
When 122 votes separate the difference between tens of thousands of votes in the Moray constituency, I think it is fairly legitimate to say that almost 50% of the people in Moray voted for Brexit. I cannot split an individual voter in half, or in quarters or segments, so when 122 votes was the difference out of tens of thousands, I think it is fair to say that almost one in two people in Moray voted for Brexit.
Mr Carmichael
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having got some of that off his chest. May I invite him, though, to return to the paths of positivity? He says that he wants to follow the wishes of fishing communities. Look at my new clause 11, which is supported by fishermen, doubtless in his own constituency as well. There is a real need to act on this. Will he join me in urging his own Front Bench to take this seriously, and come forward with serious proposals on it?
Douglas Ross
I was not in the Chamber when the Minister made her opening remarks. I think she may have thought that it was a probing amendment, but I am sure that she listened to the points made. The right hon. Gentleman has now suggested that he will at least press either new clause 11 or 12 to a vote, and I am sure that she will respond to his points. I also listened closely to the heartfelt speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on not only her own experience of a tragic family bereavement but the representations that she has heard from fishing communities in her long career advocating on their behalf. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I accept the constructive way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his case.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has intervened, I can now mention Shetland. An organisation in Shetland has today published the opportunities for the United Kingdom to race up the global rankings in terms of what we can do as a country regarding our share of catch from UK waters. At the moment, about 70% of the fish caught and landed in our waters is caught by foreign vessels. If we compare that with Norway, 84% of the fish and shellfish caught in its waters are caught by Norwegian vessels. I think it is 95% in Iceland.
That is the opportunity that is available to Scotland and the United Kingdom, and that is why many of us in this Chamber are excited about the opportunities for this country, our fishermen and our fishing communities. That is why I had to briefly take a moment to call out the, yet again, negativity and pointless point scoring from the Scottish National party on this issue.
Douglas Ross
I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady, and hope that she has listened to my constructive criticism, will look at this afresh and suddenly decide that the SNP Members are not here just to be bitter and twisted, and for petty point scoring; they are here to work for Scotland’s fishermen.
Deidre Brock
There are always conditions attached to interventions when the hon. Gentleman allows them—very male, Madam Deputy Speaker. He clearly has ambitions to one day lead in the Scottish Parliament and become the First Minister of Scotland. He always references his constituency and the fact that a large percentage of his constituents voted for Brexit, but when will he accept that Scotland voted 62% to remain, and rejected Brexit? If he has ambitions to be the First Minister, how will he reflect that when he is making his pitch to voters?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will be rather careful here. This is a narrow Bill, specifically about—
Deidre Brock
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just had to endure a personal attack from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). I was making the point that if he wants to make those sorts of attacks, he has to be prepared to take it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That is not a point of order for the Chair. I assume that every Member can take it when they are having an argument. Let me just take a step back to the hon. Lady’s intervention. It was an interesting political point, but I want to ensure that in answering it the hon. Gentleman does so in terms of the Bill that is before us tonight.
Douglas Ross
Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will make a couple of points, if I may. The hon. Lady said that my allowing her to intervene, or her taking an intervention from me, always comes with conditions. I hope that she goes back and looks at the previous debate we had in this Chamber about fishing, because I was sat about a couple of metres along from where I am now, and on 12 occasions I tried to intervene on her but she would not let me in once. So I have to say that my generosity is far more generous than hers.
The hon. Lady seeks to criticise me for mentioning Moray. I am from Moray. I am proud of my roots. I was born and bred in my constituency, which I now have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, so I will never shy away from mentioning Moray and what a great place it is—Moray with its great coastal communities and great coastline, a little unlike Edinburgh North and Leith, which has neither.
I will now get back to the point of the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I just want to check, in order to keep within my rules, that Moray does have fishing.
Douglas Ross
The coastal communities on the coastline of Moray provide great opportunities for fishing in my constituency and, indeed, right around Scotland and the United Kingdom. In case I have potentially misled the House, I think there is some coastline in the hon. Lady’s constituency, so before the tweet goes out, I have corrected the record and I apologise for that. We all come to this House to represent our constituents and the areas for which we are elected in order put forward their views. I think it is right that the representative for Moray is able to outline how important this Bill is, and how important it is that the Lords amendments, which could cause some difficulties and troubles for the Bill, are not taken forward, because they would be wrong for the industry both in Moray and right across Scotland.
We have left the European Union. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, we come out of the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy—the hated CFP that has done so much to damage our industry over the past 40 years. Our fishing communities have decided to leave the European Union and have voted to come out of the common fisheries policy. Why would the Scottish nationalists ever say that, having taken the decision to leave, we should go back into a policy that has done so much damage to our communities and to our industry? I relish the bright future that is ahead of us now with this Bill and look forward to developing it further with communities in Moray, right across Scotland, and across the UK. This is a positive time to be in the fishing industry. This is a positive Bill from the UK Government—one that will deliver right across the country and one that I am pleased to support.
Dave Doogan
I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).
I am extremely fortunate to represent Angus, the garden of Scotland. Our bounty extends well beyond our exceptional farmland, over our cliffs, and into our abundant seas—the North sea. After all, we have in Arbroath the home of the Arbroath smokie—a taste sensation that I know for a fact the Minister regularly enjoys. Not only that, but in Ferryden and Arbroath harbours we have a thriving inshore fleet fishing creel for crab and lobsters primarily for the EU market. This is where my concern lies. The shellfish trade in Angus is an outstanding success story supporting many jobs and underpinning the thriving buzz in Arbroath and Ferryden harbours. These boats have little to gain from Brexit in their fishing operations, but much to lose if the Government will not or cannot secure a deal for unfettered and tariff- free access to their EU markets.
I remind Ministers that livelihoods and jobs depend on these last-minute negotiations, and fishing businesses, like any other, need clarity over future trading conditions. Even with a deal, fishermen from Angus exporting into the EU will be subject to a regime from 1 January that threatens cost and delay for their businesses. These burdens include the requirements for an export health certificate, a validated catch certificate sent to the importer hours before the lorry arrives, a storage document if the catch was stored, and a processing statement if the product has been treated. They must import their product through an EU border control post and the importer must be notified in advance of the arrival. Notification periods vary so they will need to check with the border control post in question to find out how much notice they can give.
This is a far cry from the seamless process undertaken currently by crews and hauliers supplying markets in the EU today. I seek the Minister’s assurance that due consideration will be given to those lorries loaded up with live catch from multiple vessels in respect of the effect of this new bureaucracy on my constituents in Angus.
There exists a seemingly simpler process for UK vessels landing directly into UK ports. They must land into a North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission-designated port with a prior notification form, a catch certificate and a pre-landing declaration. That is onerous, but not insurmountable. Direct landings into the EU should be seen as a sub-optimal opportunity. It seems clear that we need to secure as much value add in the commodification of marine product in Scotland, and the rest of the UK of course, as possible, thereby exporting a higher value product to market rather than exporting the unprocessed product to have the value added abroad. National landings will deliver that, and to that extent I have some sympathy with amendment 1 tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). However, as she will be aware, it is England-only so I will be unable to support it. I encourage the Minister, if not in this iteration of the Bill then in future policy, to consider the ambition of a national landing requirement. I know that that is an important element that all devolved Administrations will be taking forward.
We heard the hon. Member for Moray speak at length about the importance of coastal communities and reversing the attrition that was wrought on them in recent decades. This is an element that we may seek to exploit to achieve that. Ridding our fishing fleets of the thoroughly discredited CFP will of course have an upside for crews and skippers, but we need to ensure that we are more ambitious than that. We need to maximise and disaggregate the dividend as far and as wide onshore as possible. To do so will benefit precisely those coastal communities that we have heard discussed earlier this evening, with consequential benefits to local services, driving greater investment through higher populations in rural schools, and increased use of transport and connectivity.
A new future based on zonal attachment holds much promise for our fleets and for the gross value of the industry going forward. This will do much to correct the basic fairness of access to marine harvest. We should feel duty bound to attach any new prosperity widely to coastal communities and exploit every opportunity to secure marketing, processing, fuel supplies, services, installation, plant sales and haulage jobs on these shores and in our coastal communities rather than elsewhere. This is not protectionism, it is pragmatism.
I understand very well the need to ensure the most profitable and expedient routes to market for crews, but let us be clear that the damage that Brexit will do to our broader economy and economic prosperity outside fishing will be severe and in so far as fishing will benefit from Brexit, the industry should maintain an obligation to support the onshore economy as much as possible in management, processing and the wider supply chain.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He just said that fishing would benefit from Brexit—those are the words that came out of his mouth, and I absolutely agree with that. Can he explain how fishing would benefit from the SNP policy, which is to go straight back into the European Union and the common fisheries policy?
Dave Doogan
I am happy that the hon. Member for Moray is so quick to tell me what SNP policy is. Perhaps he will yield to my knowledge of such matters. I think I am probably on fairly solid ground as an SNP politician in saying what our policy is. I will be taking no lectures from a Conservative politician on how to access the EU in the interests of fishing. We have seen how badly it was done by the Conservatives in the early 1970s. We will not be making any similar mistakes with Scotland’s reaccession to the EU after independence, but I do not want to fall foul of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Home landings have their limits, such as with the pelagic catch, which can be so vast and so rapid as to overwhelm the local capacity to process, and there can be no argument with that reality. However, the principle of shared benefit remains intact if domestic capacity is by default exhausted first. I am confident that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are sighted on the national landings priority. The best interests of our Scottish fleet in coastal communities will be served by that devolved Administration, but we should in all four nations work in support of this ambition as maritime neighbours, where we remain subject to the same jurisdiction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I explain something, because there seems to be some confusion, perhaps among new Members who do not know how normal Chamber procedure works? If I impose a time limit, this debate will end at 10 o’clock and there will be several votes at 10 o’clock and Third Reading after that. Anyone can work out how late that will be. If I do not impose a time limit but appeal to Members, for the sake of all their colleagues, to speak for about three to four minutes, and thereby prove that brevity is the soul of wit, the debate will finish earlier, and those who are taking part will have the eternal gratitude of those who are waiting to vote.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I will try to speak clearly with my new self-imposed time limit. It is a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), and here we are going straight back down the line to Cornwall, which just shows what an important issue this is for the whole United Kingdom.
Despite being the great-great-granddaughter of a Scarborough fisherman, I had no idea as a young girl that I would grow up to become a Cornish fishwife, but here I am. Actually, I am very proud to be so. It is a privilege to be married to a fisherman, because it gives a great understanding of what a scary but wholesome living it is. It is absolutely necessary for the health of our nation. I mentioned in my maiden speech some time ago how precarious a living it is, especially when one is on the end of the phone and the weather turns and they cannot get back, so I will not go into that again.
One thing I have to say is that the fishing industry does not speak with one voice, and that is important to remember. To stand up for the fishing industry means giving our fishermen their voices back, and that is what this Bill absolutely does. It takes a first important step, and that is what we have to remember about this framework Bill.
I will speak briefly to the amendments. I do not think that the Bill is the right place for them, but I understand why they have been tabled. I believe they are well intentioned, and I know that Ministers are listening. In terms of amendment 1, I welcome the Government’s consultation, and I urge anybody involved to make their representations known before the closing date, which I believe is 10 November.
I would like to see more support from Ministers for direct-from-the-boat sales. When people go to London and eat a nice plate-sized piece of fish in a restaurant, the price can be eye-watering. Let me tell the House that at the other end of the scale, when the fisherman gets his price from market, that can also be eye-watering, but for a different reason. Somewhere along the way, somebody is making a lot of money out of it, but it is not the fishermen, and we need to put that right. I know there are voices in the Treasury who are sympathetic to that, and I make a plea to urge those conversations forward. A business in Falmouth that has just opened has as one of its unique selling points the fact that it wants fish that has never touched land. That sort of business should be encouraged, particularly in Cornwall.
Amendment 2 is about sustainability. One of the main reasons I came to this House was for the sustainability of our oceans and sustainability on land, but when we talk about sustainability in the fishing industry, we cannot talk just about the oceans; we have to talk about the coastal communities as well. Take bass, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and I have spoken at length about bass and recreational angling versus the commercial fishermen, and I want to try to bridge the gap tonight if I can.
I absolutely get the reason why we need to have a sustainable bass fishery. The angling economy in Cornwall is growing and is worth a lot of money, but if that bass fishery is suddenly taken away from an under-10 metre boat, that fisherman cannot feed his family. We cannot just expect these fishermen one day suddenly to have to go out to fish for something else—it does not happen like that. I am not prepared to make people suddenly do that, so we have to have a long consultation with the industry, the fishermen and the conservationists before we come up with a plan. That is why this amendment is misplaced. We have to go with the framework and see where we go from that.
Amendment 3 deals with supertrawlers. Again, I understand why it has been proposed, but I am reassured by Ministers who say that we now are in control of those licences, and pressure will be on our Front Benchers to make the right decisions there. I will not go on for too long, I promise, but let me deal with a couple more things that I want to see, if we can do them.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is no longer in his place, but I have sympathy with him on the enforcement argument, and not just on the outrageous incidents to which he refers. We see daily off the Lizard Point that French fishermen are within our waters and they should not be there. Even in the spawning grounds in the estuaries we need to make sure that anglers are not going up and taking undersized fish. There should be enforcement from one scale down to the last, and we need to make sure we are properly prepared to have enforcement here.
I am a big advocate of labelling—everyone in Devon knows how I feel about that—and it is vital that we get some clear labelling on our fish. The technology is there now to put the boat name on anywhere that that fish ends up, be it in an expensive fancy restaurant or in one of our supermarkets; we can see what boat that fish has come off and how it was caught. The fisherman who is fishing hook and line should get a better price than the one who is using the nets. The fisherman will then suddenly become responsible for his catch, in the same way as farmers are responsible for the high standards of their animals. That is important and it means that the consumer starts to become king—I hope that Ministers are listening.
We have a great opportunity for a culture change in this country about what we eat and why we eat it—that was mentioned earlier. The new Cornish residents, our TV chefs, who have moved down to the south-west have an important role to play in this. If we suddenly start eating wrasse, which they do in Japan, in sushi, or whatever else it might be, we can start making this a good thing to eat and consumers will follow.
I will conclude because I do not want to take up too much time. This Bill is a great first step, from which we have learned lessons from the CFP. We are finally starting to release our fishermen from the shackles of the CFP, which is vital. What we can achieve for the industry is endless because we are now an independent coastal state. I am reassured that future consultations will benefit our industry and I look forward to plans that come forward next year.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I will speak to new clauses 1 to 7, which we tabled to try to improve this legislation. I spent 15 years in the European Parliament, alongside the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), working largely on fisheries reform, among lots of other issues. It is safe to say that the CFP is not the Scottish National party’s favourite policy and a number of things need to be done to improve it. It is the primary reason why Norway and Iceland are not EU members, although they are proudly part of the EU single market, for reasons also largely to do with fisheries and fisheries products.
If I learned anything in my time in Brussels, it was particularly about the marine ecosystem: everything is connected to everything else, and if one does not look at the whole picture, one makes poor conclusions. This Bill really is only part of the picture and it leaves the big questions—the existential questions for all our fishing communities and the people employed in fisheries—unanswered. Passing this Bill tonight, as I suspect Conservative Members will, is the easy bit; making good on the fine promises we have heard this evening will be an awful lot harder. Four years after the vote to leave the European Union and a year after we left the European Union—a fact that I regret deeply—we have yet to see the much vaunted advantages of that Brexit. It is a poor state of affairs that we are this stage in this stage of the proceedings.
The fishing industry is complex. It is not just about boats going to sea and catching fish. In Scotland, it is even more complex. We have a structurally different set-up to our industry in Scotland from that UK-wide. As we have heard throughout the debate, for every one job at sea, there are—depending on how one counts them—seven to 10 jobs on shore.
Stirling—by way of a counterintuitive point, as it is a generally landlocked constituency but for the tidal Forth—is one of the biggest UK producers of farmed prawns. The aquaculture department at Stirling University is engaged in world-leading, planet-saving research that is crucial to our economy. Tens of thousands of people are employed in aquaculture: in the prawn sector, the salmon sector and the inshore fishery, catching scallops and langoustines, and in the wider processing sector. All those thousands of jobs and all that GDP are utterly dependent on access, by which I mean tariff-free and frictionless access to the EU single market. That really does bring us to the nub of our scepticism about this Bill, which, as we have heard, the Scottish Government and Parliament have consented to because it is necessary, given that we have left the European Union. There is a need for a new legislative framework; we just do not think that this Bill answers the big questions.
The Norwegians joke that there is nothing in such a hurry as a dead fish on the back of a lorry. There are going to be lots of dead fish on the back of lorries wondering where they are going if we do not get a deal that ensures tariff-free and frictionless access. The vast chunk of fisheries’ economic activity is in grave danger in these ongoing talks, and this Bill answers none of their concerns and takes account of none of their interests.
This Bill is a framework for catching fish, and it is meaningless unless there is a deal for market access for all the other fish and fisheries products. The big questions are unanswered, so we have tried to make the legislation better with new clause 3 on the sea fish authority. We believe that more transparency in that structure would very much help the evolution of the organisation in the new challenges ahead. I urge Members to support the new clause, much though we have heard of the Minister’s scepticism this evening.
I am struck by the tone of this debate, as I was struck by the tone of the debate back in December, when I made my maiden speech, on the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that so many Members on the Government Benches are now lining up to trash and the Government are looking to resile from in a “limited and specific way”, barely nine months later. The promises that have been made this evening are cheques that will not be cashed in the real world. When Government Members fail to deliver on their grand rhetoric—or, indeed, sincere hopes, genuinely held—they will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Anthony Mangnall
It is always a pleasure to be asked to speak briefly; brevity is one of my strengths, I am sure.
I have four points to make, and I feel that this may be—for those who were here on Second Reading—something of a rehash of my previous speech, not least because I want to speak against two amendments tabled by the Labour party, notably amendment 1 on UK landings. The Opposition talk about the need for specifying percentages for what our fishermen should be required to land. Rather than restricting where our fishermen can go and where they can land their catch, is not the answer to develop our ports to make them competitive with European ports, so that we can attract not only our own fishermen, but fishermen from Europe to land their catch here? That is a more efficient way of building and sustaining the processing plants across the United Kingdom, and building the ports such Brixham in my constituency. That is what we need to be doing—not restricting where our fishermen go.
My second point is on the sustainability principles and amendment 2. The first page of the Bill talks about the principles of sustainability; it is sustainable at its core. This is a finely tuned balance between the economic values and the sustainable values. The Opposition need to have a little bit of faith in the fishermen who fish our waters, who are determined to look after that stock, and to see their children and grandchildren go into the sector. That really matters.
A point that has been touched on by a number of people is how we develop and encourage our own “buy local” campaign.
I spoke during my maiden speech about the idea that the best of British—that British local seafood—should be on every menu across the country. That remains the case and we have a great opportunity to be able to create that campaign. I hope the Government will look carefully at how we can do that with cross-party support.
Lastly, I am going to sea next year for three days to see what goes on on a trawler vessel. I know that when they look at the Bill and hear us talking about it, they are proud of what the Government are trying to achieve. They are proud of the fact that it takes back control of our coastal waters, and they are proud of the fact that we will no longer be part of the common fisheries policy. I look forward to being able to report what it is like at sea and how the Brixham trawler fishermen operate —and I end my speech there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am no stranger to this issue—I live some 10 miles from the last working fishing village in the Province, Portavogie. I have watched this village go from hundreds of boats—and the livelihoods provided on the boats—and two fish processing factories to the loss of both factories and to having some 60 boats in the harbour. Women who could shell prawns quicker than we could pick up a hand to lift one were out of work and unable to use their skills in a different way. I have to say, the best prawns in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are from Portavogie—I do not care what anybody says. They are sold the world over, including across Europe, and everybody says that Portavogie prawns have a special taste. I can only agree and I am very pleased to put that on record.
We are pleased that at long last we are leaving the EU and the shackles that tied down the fishing boats in my harbour in Portavogie and across Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. They will be away and we will have the freedom of the seas, as we used to, and our fleet will hopefully grow from 60 to the 120 that it once was. The red tape and the bureaucracy will be away as well, so is it not great news that the promise of 1 January next year will see the fulfilment of the liberty and freedom of our fishing fleets across Northern Ireland?
None of what has happened is because there is no desire for fish, or a lack of fish to land—this is all down to the EU’s deliberate policy of giving the EU a living while excluding our own. These policies made sons decide it that was not worth the danger of the sea and the stress of the paperwork to continue generations of fishing, and it was heartbreaking to see. I am ever so thankful that this has to come to an end, and more than that, we have an opportunity to feed into the laws that will govern us. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my fishermen in Portavogie, as well as the fishermen of Ardglass and Kilkeel, whose MP is yet to come to this House to represent them—that is a fact as well.
I thank the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and Alan McCulla for all their work, as well as Harry Wick from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation for all he has done. I also commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray); we have had a friendship and relationship with her for a long time.
I am broadly supportive of the Bill and the Lords amendments. In particular, amendment 42 is of great interest to me, as I said to the Minister. We have been pushing regarding the designation and management of marine-protected areas in the Northern Ireland zone being devolved to Northern Ireland for many years. The interpretation that we have been given on amendment 42 is that it provides the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with powers to make orders relating to the management of fishing activities in the Northern Ireland offshore region for conservation purposes. I believe that we are disadvantaged compared with Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State retains the power to make designations in the Northern Ireland offshore region. Consideration was given to transferring designation powers to DAERA, but it was not within the scope of the Bill. That is what I tried to raise in my earlier intervention and I seek reassurance from the Minister in relation to that.
As one of my fish producers organisations said to me regarding amendment 42, we need to seek assurances or a commitment on the mechanism and the timeline for transfer of designation powers so that we might get Government agreeable to that and ensure that the ball keeps moving. This is too important, Minister, to be lost after the Bill passes. The Secretary of State and I have worked well over the years. I have the utmost respect for him and all he does. He is not here tonight, and we know why, but the Minister is here and I am very pleased to see her in her place. I ask for a timeline by which I can see the completion of not simply this Bill but the important intention behind it: to bring fishing home for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am pleased that the environmental factor ranks highly; I thank the Minister for that. That is the very thing that the fishing sector wants to see, and it is the way forward. Fishermen want to see a pledge for the future, because their ability to feed their family and pay their bills goes hand in hand with the need to ensure that fish are thriving. Rather than the red tape that sought to tie our fishermen while releasing other fishermen, we can and must work hand in hand to allow this industry to thrive, as it has the potential to do.
I gave you my word, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. As I have said, this Bill is not the fisherman’s dream. The fisherman’s dream is one with no more Europe. The fisherman’s dream is one where we can fish the seas around the United Kingdom of Great Britain free. The Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch and all those other EU countries think that they can come in and do whatever they want—not anymore, because we are in charge, and we are going to do it our way. We will be ever the compassionate brother and sister that we should be, and we will consider a system whereby they can also fish the seas, but it will be under our rules and our waters, and we will control that. We can look forward to finally shaking off the shackles of Europe and embracing the best of British fishing across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together, and that includes my comrades on these Benches.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I agree with him entirely that we are better together. I welcome this historic Bill, which will enable us to keep our promise to the British people and become an independent coastal state after nearly 40 years of being part of the EU’s common fisheries policy. The benefits of the Bill are multiple, as it will both support our fishermen in regaining access to their waters and ensure that that is done sustainably, by protecting our marine environment for generations to come. It will re-establish a balanced approach to fishing, as EU vessels caught nearly eight times as much fish per year in UK waters between 2012 and 2016 as UK vessels caught in other member states’ waters during that time.
What is more, with renewed powers to set catch limits, we can finally live up to our objective of setting higher environmental standards than the European Union. Among those is our commitment to safeguarding marine protected areas from overfishing. To that effect, I wholeheartedly sympathise with the sentiment behind amendment 3, which aims to ban trawlers of more than 100 metres in length from fishing in protected areas. Coastal communities such as mine in Redcar and Marske are increasingly concerned at the sight of those gigantic fishing vessels on the horizon, hoovering up hundreds of tonnes of fish a day. According to Greenpeace, these industrial fishing vessels spent nearly 3,000 hours last year fishing in parts of UK waters that are supposed to be protected.
The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to ensure that fishing quotas are not exceeded. It goes further, saying that the UK and devolved Governments not only control who is licensed to fish in our waters but that licence holders will face penalties for fishing in excess. For that reason, I believe amendment 3 to be unnecessary, and I will support the Government tonight. However, I encourage Ministers to recognise the strength of feeling in the House regarding super-trawlers and to use the new powers afforded to them to prevent these vessels from operating in UK waters.
Sustainability is this Government’s priority, and we can only achieve our objectives by working with every Government across our four nations, so I welcome the flexibility introduced for devolved Administrations to have their own say on fishing. I stood on Redcar High Street in 2015 campaigning to leave the EU so that we could take back control of our laws, our borders and our waters. This Bill is a milestone on our way to becoming an independent and sustainable coastal state, and I am proud to support it today.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am almost seduced by Opposition amendment 1. It is an admirable idea that we should land more of our own fish in our own ports, but I am probably not going to make it to their Lobby, because they lack ambition—why only 65%? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the Norwegians and the Icelandics, who have had control of their own fisheries for much longer or never surrendered them, have much higher percentages than that. These are small, prosperous countries that took their destiny in their own hands, and they have a much finer fishing industry than ours—crippled as it has been for too many years by the common fisheries policy.
So full marks to the Opposition for wanting, for once, to go in the right direction, but let us have a bit more passion and ambition, because it is a disgrace that, after all these years in the common fisheries policy, the overwhelming majority of our fish is taken by others, and it is a disgrace that this great fishing nation imports fish to feed ourselves. I want to see a much higher percentage than amendment 1 suggests, because I think we need the food for ourselves or we would be very good at processing it and adding value to it. I do not just want fresh fish for our tables; I also want to see us putting in those extra factories and processing plants in our coastal communities so that they can produce excellent fish preparations or derivatives of fish for our own purposes and for wider export around the rest of the world. This is crucial.
I am afraid that I am not seduced by amendment 2 either. While I and the Government, and I think everyone in this House, think that sustainability of our fishery will be most important, I do not think it is the only aim, or even the prime aim. It is a very important aim that we want to use our fishery to feed ourselves and others, and to produce much better jobs, more paid employment and factory processing. It is very important, as others have said, that we look after the wider marine environment —not just the fish stocks, but the environment in which the fish and others are swimming.
I think we need to have multiple aims, and I think that is what the Government are setting out. The Government are very much in favour of sustainability, so when we wait—desperately worried—on these negotiations, I say, “Please, Government, do not give our fish away again!” That mistake has been made too often—in the original negotiations to go into the European Economic Community and in annual negotiations thereafter. Let us hope that our fish is not given away in those negotiations. If we cannot fish enough of it in the short term, because we still do not have the boats and the capacity, let us leave it in the sea and rebuild our stocks more quickly, while we get that extra capacity. I would like to hear and see more from the Minister and the wider Government on how we are going to support the acquisition of much more capacity.
Should we not be helping fishermen and fisherwomen commission new boats from British yards, and have that combined shipbuilding capability and the fishing capability, leading on to the production capability? Many of our industries were badly damaged or demolished by our presence in the European Union. This is a prime example of an industry that was crippled. The scope for much greater prosperity for our coastal communities could be added to by the right schemes to get more boats, and by the right schemes such as enterprise zones that allow us to go right up the value chain and produce the best fish dishes in the world.
Derek Thomas
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It is fantastic to be the fourth Cornish MP that has the opportunity to speak in a fishing debate. When I first got elected, we would have to wait until December, just as negotiations were taking place in Brussels, to get an hour and a half to speak about fishing, so it is fantastic, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said, to be able to talk about fishing a bit more often, and we absolutely should.
It is a tremendous achievement by the Minister and the Secretary of State to get this far, with all those who have been involved, in delivering the UK’s first fishing policy for decades. This Bill enables Government, regions and the UK fishing fleet to work together for progressively managed, vibrant fisheries in a post-common fisheries policy landscape. I cannot believe I am an MP standing up and being able to say that—fantastic! I know, as an MP who represents one of the UK’s key fishing ports, that south-west fisheries are up for the challenge and keen to get on with it.
I want to speak briefly to the amendments of the official Opposition. I recognise that they have been hoodwinked by the environmental campaign groups, believing the Bill has been stripped of its ability to deliver real sustainability for UK fishing, but this is not the case. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the good efforts of our fishermen and women constantly undermined by the SNP and Labour Front Benchers. Their desire to install a heavy burden of regulation and bureaucracy on fishermen, because of an unfounded belief that the industry is preoccupied with greater access to fish, would be a mistake, and the Government are right to reject the pressure.
Newlyn fishermen have led the way in developing improvements in sustainability and environmental practices, including the cod-end, which has reduced fish bycatch by huge amounts and reduced massively the loss of fish that they were not able to land. Fishermen are not in the business of taking whatever they can, sparing no thought for the resources that future fishermen and women will depend on or for the natural environment. The fishermen I know support conservation priorities such as bycatch reduction and managing stocks under climate change, as well as advocating for a system that will allow for the flexibility and adaptation required to deliver on these goals.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). The common fisheries policy has been disastrous for the environment, fishing communities and our future generations. Those responsible in the EU have stood by and allowed chronic overfishing in British waters. That harms the biodiversity of our oceans and the economic viability of our coastal communities. It is now time to right the wrongs, and the Bill is a crucial first step.
Fishing is increasingly important to my island constituency of Ynys Môn. Sea fishing forms a major part of our tourism industry, with many chartered fishing boats operating around the island, as well as bait shops supplying those fishing off the rocks in places such as Aberffraw and Holyhead breakwater.
During the lockdown, we also saw some islanders live out their dreams of a career in Anglesey water. Sion Riley, a Royal Navy veteran, did not let a global pandemic halt his ambition of joining the fishing community. His new company, Holyhead Shellfish, is a favourite with local restaurants and wholesalers. I visited him last week, and he said to me, “Fishing is an important industry in our small but mighty island, but in order to protect the waters for future generations, we need effective management of fish stocks and investment in small businesses like my own. That is why I support the action being taken to ensure future generations can make their livelihoods off the beautiful Anglesey coast.”
The charity Môn CF in Holyhead helped Sion access funds for his boat, the Pan Arctic. Alun Roberts from Môn CF said, “Small business owners go out in all weathers to bring fresh catches to local markets, and a large proportion of produce is exported to countries all over the world.”
This historic Fisheries Bill carries many benefits for Wales. Equal access will be granted for all UK vessels to fish throughout UK waters and new powers will be granted to the devolved Administrations. The fisheries administrations will publish a joint fisheries statement setting out how common objectives will be met.
Importantly, this Government have learned from the mistakes of the common fisheries policy. Effective management is so important if we want fishing to be a viable career choice for our future generations. I had the pleasure of visiting Gary Thomas and Chris Pritchard, two Amlwch constituents who fish lobster, crab and whelks from their boat, the Boy James. They work tirelessly to provide fresh produce while also encouraging and inspiring the next generation of fishers. However, we must ensure that there are sufficient fish stocks to provide income if we want to keep those communities alive; that is why I am grateful to see the end of the common fisheries policy.
In conclusion, when I look back on my time as Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, I want to know that I helped Sion to grow and strengthen Holyhead Shellfish, I want to know that Menai mussels have reliable stock for decades to come, and I want to ensure that those who come to our island will experience the joy of their first mackerel catch in the beautiful waters of Trearddur Bay.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie).
In 2018, a community-led group came together to produce a long-term strategy for the fishing industry in East Anglia. The REAF—that is, the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—report was launched in Parliament on 17 October last year. The report concludes that there is an exciting future for the local industry, which has declined dramatically in the past 40 years, but that there is a great deal of work to do.
My interest is to ensure that this Bill provides the framework within which to deliver REAF. On the whole, it does. The Bill is by no means perfect, though it is an improvement on its predecessor from the last Parliament. It has been said by some that, at present, the Bill is a picture frame without a painting, and that there is a need for Government to articulate a compelling vision for a revitalised fishing industry, both leading the world in marine conservation and promoting the revitalisation of our coastal communities.
It may well be that that is what lies behind the amendments put forward by the Opposition. I can understand why the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and his colleagues have tabled them; I have some concerns of my own, which hopefully the Minister will address. However, on the whole, I do not think these amendments are necessary, and we need to get on with delivering this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revitalise our fishing industry, which can bring so many benefits to coastal communities all around the UK.
Amendment 2 seeks to make the sustainability objective a prime fisheries objective. I can understand the rationale for this amendment, but of the eight objectives, six already relate to the environment, one provides for equal access for UK boats to any area within British fisheries limits, and the other seeks to ensure that fishing brings social and economic benefits to UK communities. There is thus already a clear emphasis in the Bill on the vital importance of sustainability.
There is an alternative view that we are in danger of having too many objectives and that there should be just one straightforward duty to prudently manage a public asset using sound science. However, as it stands, the Bill provides a very clear direction of travel, and it should be noted that the REAF report’s recommendations, based on the feedback from those working in the industry, have sustainability at their core.
I have much sympathy with the intention behind amendment 1, as one of the main purposes of having a fishing industry is to provide jobs and to bring benefits to local communities—to support the whole supply chain, from the net to the plate, and not just to support those fishermen who sell their fish directly abroad. To address that concern, the Government should put in place policies and funding streams that will enable us to deliver meaningful social and economic benefits for coastal communities. That requires a review of the economic link, and I therefore welcome the consultation on proposals to strengthen the condition and to increase the economic benefit.
There is also the need to invest in infrastructure, in ports and in processing plants, and it is good news that the Bill contains provisions that allow Ministers to set up new grants and funding streams. But time is marching on; the transition period ends in two and a half months, on 31 December, and the industry needs to start planning for what can be a new and exciting future. We need the detail of what will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. What will be the role of local enterprise partnerships? In Suffolk and Norfolk, the New Anglia LEP is fully engaged in REAF, but its remit needs to be clarified.
Reference has been made to the coastal communities fund and the role that it can play, but its terms of reference need to be changed. The commitment to invest in port infrastructure is welcome, but that crosses the boundaries of other Departments, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. The latter is currently focusing on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us of what discussions her Department has had with those Departments.
Amendment 3 aims to prohibit fishing in English waters by boats longer than 100 metres—so-called supertrawlers. That is in line with the REAF recommendation, which actually went further: to ban beam trawling, including electric pulse fishing, which has caused so much devastation off the East Anglian coast. Again, I understand why the Opposition have tabled that amendment, but it should not be necessary, as with control of our own waters back in our own hands the Government are able to put a stop to that immediately.
It is good news that the Government have legislated that foreign pulse beam trawlers will not be permitted to operate in UK waters after 31 December, and that they have given notice to the four English-registered vessels that their authorisations will be withdrawn at the same time. I urge the Scottish Government to do likewise for their single pulse trawler. Studies have shown that pulse fishing has had a devastating impact on cod in the southern North sea, and thus I welcome Government amendment 55, which allows the UK to adopt its own measures with regard to the catching of cod in the North sea. That should help to restore stocks insofar as it is possible to do so, taking into account the impact of climate change.
The Bill is not perfect, in that it draws attention to loopholes that need to be plugged and provokes questions that need to be answered, but as a framework Bill it is more or less fit for purpose, and we now need to get on with putting in place the policies and initiatives that will arise out of it, which will revitalise the UK fishing industry, not just in Lowestoft or in East Anglia but all around the UK.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Report stage of this Bill is an historic moment for our country—one that I have long sought to see. As someone who voted no in the first referendum and leave in the second referendum, I am absolutely delighted to be here and see this happen. I will support the Government amendments and I was convinced by the Minister’s arguments that other amendments are not necessary.
Earlier in the debate, a couple of Members said that they were not around in 1988. Well, I was—I was here. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) was right to mention that piece of legislation, which was a building block. What I thought was dreadful was when, later in her speech, she described herself as an old woman. As far as I am concerned, she is in the first flush of youth, frankly. Her expertise in these matters was clear when she dealt with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on safety, which is obviously a very personal issue to her. She made her points extremely well.
The Bill leaves us with a unique opportunity to prosper as a global giant in the fishing industry and to regulate the sector how we see fit, instead of just following the European Union’s directives. Support for our fishing industry must not be overlooked, as our fishing and fish processing industries employ 24,000 people and contribute £1.4 billion to our economy. More data and scientific knowledge will help us to manage the fish in our own waters more accurately. With that knowledge and new management plans, we can allow the rapid growth of our own fleet and, in time, limit access for European Union vessels. More importantly, the Thames estuary and the east coast do not have good stock levels of Dover sole, one of the main species. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to improve the economic output of the industry, but we also need to be environmentally sustainable to ensure that there are plentiful stocks.
Sir Robert Neill
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. and old Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I think we can say that literally, being much of an age. He and I have consistently disagreed about Brexit, but we still remain friends for all that. For those of us who were staunch remainers, the common fisheries policy was about the most difficult aspect of our EU membership to defend. That is one part of our arrangements in departing that I do not regret, and I do not think that many other people will either. This is a good Bill and a necessary Bill to put matters on a proper footing going forward.
Bromley and Chislehurst is not particularly noted for its fishing industry, although I do use this opportunity to welcome and give every good wish to the establishment by local businesspeople of the excellent Fish Union Chislehurst, which will provide a direct link from the catchers to the streets of Royal Parade in Chislehurst. It is a great initiative and I am delighted that they are doing it.
In fact, as might not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to talk about a legal point instead, and that brings me to Government amendment 36. I listened with care to my hon. Friend the Minister in her exchanges with me and with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My hon. Friend is a very good Minister, she is a very good lawyer, and she was in the past a very distinguished member of the Justice Committee, all of which, I hope, will lead her to pause and take stock as to the wisdom of inserting a PEC—a permissive extent clause—at this late stage of the Bill. In effect, it seeks to give the Government the power to legislate, in certain matters, for the Crown dependencies.
There is a long-standing constitutional convention, as my hon. Friend will know from her time on the Select Committee, from our report in March 2017 on the implications of Brexit on the Crown dependencies, and from our visits to the Crown dependencies, that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense. They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.
The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner. I do not understand why the Government are adopting a different stance on this, compared with the one they took on the equally desirable legislation on tax transparency.
The problem is this: of the Crown dependencies, the Isle of Man has consented. Well and good—there is nothing wrong with a permissive extent clause that involves the Isle of Man. However, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, which involves three separate jurisdictions—Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, all of which have their own legislative integrity—and the island of Jersey, have declined to agree to the PEC. Indeed, there were discussions going back to July and they politely said, “No, thank you. We have a good relationship with our neighbours in France”—that is where the vast bulk of their catch lands—“and if we have difficulties we have our own legislative processes, and we will work and legislate for ourselves in an emergency if need be.” So I do not see the constitutional justification for the Government taking these powers.
I had a concern—the Minister will know this—about our taking what many of us thought to be pre-emptive powers in the UK internal markets Bill. In the end that was described as a “break glass in emergency” clause. I do not know whether this is supposed to be a “break glass in emergency” clause, but it seems to suggest the possibility of the UK Government trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies, in furtherance of a potential dispute between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies.
Mr Carmichael
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no provision for consultation of any sort in the Bill? This is something that could be done unilaterally. Is that really the way we should be gearing our relationship with the Channel Islands?
Sir Robert Neill
The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not the right way to do this and we should think again. That is why I ask the Minister to reflect between now and the Bill going back to the other place. In the end we came to a pragmatic compromise on the UK internal markets Bill, and we set in place certain processes, triggers and thresholds for the exercise of that power, should it be needed in emergencies. I urge the Government, between now and the Bill returning to the other place, to think hard about doing something similar, so that we do not get into a situation where our friends in the Crown dependencies find themselves obliged perhaps to seek legal redress against our own Government and, if need be, to invoke their internal arrangements in relation to a legislative referral procedure. As the Minister knows, that can be embarked on and is not the ideal way to deal with this matter.
The concern is simply that the principle of consent is thoroughly enshrined in our relationship with the Crown dependencies. The Government have always sought to adhere to that, and the Minister and I know that we have always advocated that in this House. I do not yet see the grounds for introducing this provision, other than the possibility that it might be needed at some point—again, that sounds familiar in respect of the UK internal markets Bill. Let us find another solution in much the same way, where we consult with the Crown dependencies.
Without any consultation, it seems a needless provocation to attempt to place in the Bill, at a late stage, a provision that I hope will never be needed, but that goes against the express wishes of the legislatures of two parts of the British family. One of those legislatures had a general election only last week, and it now has a new legislature and set of Ministers, with a mandate to maintain their constitutional position. I urge the Minister to use her good influence and wise lawyerly skills to cause her colleagues to draw back a little, put some safeguards in the measure, continue talking to our friends in the Crown dependencies and find a means of accommodating the legitimate concerns of both sides, without taking what might be termed a draconian step.
Victoria Prentis
Well, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), told us to eat more fish. That should not be difficult with Arbroath smokies, Strangford prawns and buying local in Totnes. Even Wokingham is very keen to eat lots and lots more British fish. Chislehurst has a fish union and Holyhead is willing to sell it shellfish—it’ll be great. “Welsh zone (parth Cymru) “Welsh zone” has the meaning given by section 158 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (and see article 3 of the Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/760), which makes provision about the limits of the zone)”; “parth Cymru (Welsh zone) mae i “parth Cymru” yr ystyr a roddir i “Welsh zone” gan adran 158 o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 (p. 32) (a gweler erthygl 3 o Orchymyn Parth Cymru (Ffiniau a Throsglwyddo Swyddogaethau) 2010 (O.S. 2010/760), sy’n gwneud darpariaeth ynghylch terfynau’r parth)”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that she was concerned that we would not actually act—that we would just consult. I reassure her that consulting is a precursor to action. We will consult on the economic link for four weeks. We will announce our new policy by the end of the year. We will give the industry a year to adapt and the changes will come in in 2022.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is no longer in his place, was concerned about coastal communities. I can tell him that we have invested £228 million through the coastal communities fund, supporting projects that should create 20,000 new jobs very shortly.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Many of the amendments to which she takes objection are at the behest of the Scottish Government. I say politely that new clause 3 is really not necessary. Seafish already publishes the information that is sought within it and lays its annual reports and accounts before this Parliament, and that information is widely available.
There were some emotional speeches, and rightly so, including from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has spent 40 years campaigning for this historic moment, but is she stuck in the past? She is not. Yesterday, she launched an electric boat, which shows that there is a future for this exciting industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) again spoke with experience and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) had a horrible experience during the debate and we send our love to her. Her defence of fishing made her grandfather and Yorkshire proud. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) also spoke emotionally. I encourage him to join in with our consultation process thoroughly.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) that clause 6(2)(c) gives him the flexibility that he seeks and I am looking forward to going fishing with him soon—if he ever asks me. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) stood up very, very soundly for the Scottish fishing industry and reminded us carefully that the Scottish Parliament has consented to this legislation. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the very serious matter of the case that happened off Shetland. The correspondence to which he referred is part of the MCA correspondence, so I am not able to give him that, but what I would like to offer is to arrange a meeting between him, the MCA and the DFT to discuss this very important matter.
On the speech by hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), DAERA asked for wider powers on conservation beyond the scope of this Bill. We are exploring the options for other appropriate routes if DAERA wants to continue to take that forward in the future—I am happy to take this offline with her. The hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) were concerned about the speed of lorry movements with fish and seafish on them. Seafood and day-old chicks do need priority care and access through the short straits and that is something that the Government recognise.
It was lovely to hear from the Cornish fishwife, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who gave us some real-life experience and made important points about labelling. I would not mind going on the trawler vessel with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) if he were to ask me. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) supported marine protected areas and I was glad that I could answer his concerns on super-trawlers. To my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I can say that the REAF report contains some interesting ideas that the Government will consider as part of our ongoing work on inshore fisheries.
At the end of this year, foreign vessels will not be able to pulse trawl.
On the PEC, I will continue to consult with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have also spoken on this issue. I reassure the House that I will speak again to those in the Crown dependencies who are concerned by this step, which is not one I take at all lightly, but I have been persuaded that there is no other option. We are not intending to use the provision, but I think it is correct to have it in the Bill.
I thank all those who have scrutinised the Bill at both ends of this place. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Gardiner. May his lines always be tight. Before today, we had spent 51 hours debating just this second version of the Bill, so I think it is fair to say that it has been well and thoroughly scrutinised. Thanks are also due to Lucy Cheeseman and Giulia Grierson, who are in the Box tonight, to parliamentary counsel, DEFRA officials and, indeed, all those from the devolved Administrations who have worked so hard on this Bill.
The Bill sets in stone our commitment to improving the health of our seas. It gives our fishermen the better future they need, and it is an opportunity to seize a once-in-a-generation chance to take back control of our natural resources and make sure we pass on healthier seas, which are abundant with life. The Fisheries Bill gives us the power we need to protect our fish stocks and help our seafood sector. It sets a gold standard for sustainability, and it allows us to bring fishing home. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated
(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—
(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or
(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated.
(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—
(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and
(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.
(3) In this section—
(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;
(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;
(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—
(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,
relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This new clause exempts foreign fishing boats from UK regulation where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. It also gives the Scottish Ministers power to remove this exemption from particular foreign fishing boats by putting them on a published list. These changes are in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Interpretation of Welsh legislation
(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In relation to a provision that—
(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and
(b) is contained in an instrument made after section43 of the Fisheries Act 2020 comes into force,
“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”
(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).
(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—
(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.
(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)—
(a) in the English language text, insert—
“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—
“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”
(7) After section 40—
(a) in the English language text insert—
“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zone
In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text insert—
“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth Cymru
Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.””
(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—
(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—
(b) in the Welsh language text, after the entry for “offeryn UE (EU instrument)” insert—
This new clause amends legislation that deals with the interpretation of Welsh legislation, in consequence of the changes made to the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru by clause 45.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports
(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.—(Deidre Brock.)
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Women’s Rugby: Government Support
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
What better way to adjourn than by celebrating the Minister’s 50th birthday by discussing Government support for women’s rugby?
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
This is well past my bedtime, but I know that this debate will be well worth the wait. Before I go on, however, I should like to wish the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), a very happy birthday. I am sure he cannot think of a better way to spend his 50th birthday than talking about women’s rugby with us. I wish him many happy returns.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting me this Adjournment debate on a subject very close to my heart. Being from Wales and choosing to talk about rugby in my first Adjournment debate is, I admit, something of a cliché, but across the world, more than 2.7 million women are registered rugby players, making up over a third of all rugby players in members’ unions, and some time ago I was proud to be one of their number. I took up playing women’s rugby when I was at university, and I proudly played tighthead prop for King’s College for four years. In my third year, I was fortunate enough to spend a year teaching English in France and so, to make friends, I joined the Gourdon rugby team, again playing in the women’s first team. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment playing rugby, even the occasional bruise and graze, and especially the social aspect of the team.
I found sport at a relatively young age when my knees did not creak and I could bounce back after 80 minutes of full contact rugby, but taking up sport at any age is a life-changing experience. The transformative lifelong rewards go far beyond health and fitness. I spoke recently to a former Welsh women’s rugby international and current referee, and she was clear that she would not be who she is without rugby. She said that rugby had provided her with the confidence, skills and work ethic to be successful not just in sports but in her work and personal life. Above all, playing rugby provided her with a sense of community, no matter where life took her.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate on a topic that is also close to my heart, particularly because she is talking about wellbeing in the community of women’s rugby, which extends to France. I also played my rugby for the women’s team at Benetton in Treviso during my year abroad, so obviously there are many links with rugby. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the confidence that all sport gives women continues, particularly during the pandemic, and that women are encouraged to enjoy sport, do more sport and exercise more?
Fay Jones
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will go on to talk about some of those things later in my speech, but if we can make just one point here this evening, it is that more women need to think of ways to prioritise sport and fitness for themselves, because the untold benefits to their mental and physical health really cannot be overestimated. She and I do not agree on everything, but we certainly agree on that.
Perhaps it is the love of the game of rugby that motivates the members of the Welsh national team to compete unpaid against countries such as England, which has offered 28 full-time 15-a-side contracts to women players since January last year. With that in mind, I welcome the Welsh Rugby Union’s recent announcement of its intention to make the Welsh women’s rugby squad semi or fully professional in the future. That is not only a recognition of the hard work that these sportswomen put in but an investment in the future of the elite women’s game in Wales, and I hope to see it come to fruition very soon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate; I spoke to her beforehand and sought her permission to make this intervention. Ulster Rugby has, in many ways, led in this area. The Ulster Rugby team wear the same shirts as the Ulster women’s rugby team, so whenever we see that shirt, we see not just a man but a woman. Does she agree that that decision gives equality and recognises the phenomenal job that the ladies do in representing Ulster? Their thrilling matches are every bit as worthy of the shirt as a men’s game, and the enjoyment is equal.
Fay Jones
I feel honoured to have been intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in my first Adjournment debate—I have truly arrived in this House. I could not agree with him more. Anything that raises the visibility of the women’s game and puts it on a par with the men’s game is welcome, and I congratulate Ulster Rugby on that step.
The elite and grassroots of women’s rugby in Wales are closely interlinked, and I pay tribute to the rugby clubs in my constituency who demonstrate that. Rebekah O’Loughlin had her first cap as a Gwernyfed Ladies player, a fierce women’s team in Talgarth near Brecon in my constituency. Wales captain Carys Phillips even takes the time to act as an ambassador for Red Kites, a female rugby hub for ages six to 18, also based in my constituency. So-called hubs such as Red Kites, which provide the opportunity for girls-only rugby, have seen an explosion of interest and participation. I spoke with the Red Kites female hub lead, and they stressed that the game is open to all, and those of all abilities can benefit from the family, team spirit and life skills that come from playing the game. Red Kites is just one of 32 hubs around Wales.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. Because of local lockdowns, Welsh Rugby Union training had stopped. I visited West Swansea Hawks in Gowerton in my constituency and saw its fantastic set-up for covid-regulated training sessions. I pay tribute to all the women’s rugby hubs throughout Wales and the United Kingdom, who are doing a great job in keeping people safe.
Fay Jones
Again, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I congratulate all those rugby clubs who have worked incredibly hard to consider social distancing measures. It is a contact sport, and it is very much to be celebrated that we are getting community rugby back up and running again.
The number of girls playing rugby in the 95 schools and colleges with full-time rugby hub officers has gone from fewer than 200 to almost 10,000 in the space of just a few years. I can only hope that each and every one of those girls enjoys rugby as much as I did. While I am the first to admit that rugby is my sport of choice, I am a firm believer that all sports provide lifelong benefits. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that women and girls are still 20% less likely to participate in team sports than men and boys, with many contributing factors to why that is the case. Sport England research has found that the main reason for this lack of participation is fear—something that I am sure all women in the House can relate to.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is high time that women’s rugby teams, such as Coventry Welsh Ladies in my constituency, enjoyed equality of esteem with that afforded to men’s games?
Fay Jones
I do not disagree. I think anybody watching the women’s game derives exactly the same amount of value and entertainment, and it is a sporting spectacle in the same way.
The fear identified in Sport England’s research as the main barrier to participation is a fear of being unable to participate, a fear of the judgment of others and, for many, a fear of choosing to spend time on themselves rather than their families. That fear is in addition to many other factors. For many women rugby players I spoke to, there are practical barriers to participation too, such as not having a club nearby, having to travel long distances to fixtures and, in one club’s case, only having two changing rooms, which meant that they were unable to arrange a fixture at the same time as a men’s match was going on. That said, I am pleased to hear that over the past decade women’s sport in the UK has been on an upward trajectory, and I wish to pay tribute to all those who have brought that about, particularly the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), whom we look forward to welcoming back to her place in this House very soon.
Increased resources from international and national bodies, alongside funding from brands, such as Vitality’s sponsorship of netball and Barclays funding of the women’s super league, have resulted in the growth of a variety of women’s sport. I wholeheartedly endorse campaigns such as This Girl Can, which has seen nearly 3 million women get more active, across all sports. The Welsh Rugby Union’s schemes such as rookie rugby and rugby fit are very much to be celebrated, as they challenge the perception that rugby is not for girls. This has allowed far more women and girls to reap the physical and mental benefits of playing.
However, it would not be 2020 if I did not have to mention the dreaded C word. Coronavirus is threatening the momentum generated over the past decade for women’s sport. During the lockdown earlier this year 42% of women, compared with 35% of men, reported a drop in activity levels. With a move en masse towards working from home, 32% of women said that they could not prioritise doing exercise during the lockdown as they had too much to do for others. Some 25% of women became worried that getting back into the habit of exercise would be hard, which I can say from personal experience is very true. As organised sport and exercise were put on hold for men and women alike, we saw the loss of events that showcase gender parity in sport, such as the Tokyo Olympics and The Hundred cricket competition. The visibility that these events provide for women’s elite sport is vital to making women’s sport a natural and accepted part of the sporting landscape. It can also have an impact on grassroots participation by highlighting to women and girls the possibilities of what they can do. At the elite level, although some men’s sport has started to return, women’s sport is further behind. The women’s premier 15s rugby was cancelled because of covid and started back only on 10 October, well after the men’s game, which restarted in August. In order for it to start significant changes have been made to the game so as to reduce face-to-face contact time and therefore avoid the expenses required for regular covid testing—these changes were not made to the men’s game.
Unfortunately, as sport returns, fans will not be returning. Admissions to matches provide a key funding source, particularly for rugby. Without that money, the WRU announced yesterday that its revenue was down from the £90 million level in 2019. The Rugby Football Union has predicted potentially losing up to £142 million and the rugby league union is also expecting losses, with the cancellation of the first home ashes series since 2003. As the rugby unions tighten their belts, I am extremely worried that women’s rugby will be the hardest hit. The RFU has already taken the decision to cut financial support to each of the 10 teams in the premier 15s by 25%, which means that each club will be receiving just £56,000, a reduction from the £75,000 this season.
At a grassroots level, clubs I have spoken to also have serious concerns about the finances of the women’s game. Some are worried that because women’s and girls’ rugby does not receive the same financial support as the men’s game, they will struggle to restart training and matches. But it is not all bad news, because in July the WRU committed to providing an additional £600,000 fund to support clubs in Wales. Enabled by the UK Government funding of more than £4 billion to cope with coronavirus, the Welsh Government have recently announced a £14 million fund for Wales’s sport and leisure sector. Significant support has also been provided to clubs by the Be Active Wales Fund, which has also seen funding awarded to seven bids from rugby union which positively target women and girls. I was also pleased to see the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport work with Sport England to make up to £195 million of funding available to help the sport and physical activity sector through the ongoing coronavirus crisis. The UK Government are also making more than £11 million of Sport England investment in the Rugby Football League. In May, the Government announced that the RFL would receive a further £16 million cash injection to safeguard the immediate future of the sport for the communities it serves.
I welcome the investment of up to £10 million in rugby league facilities to help drive the legacy from the 2021 rugby league world cup, which will, for the first time, see a combined men’s, women’s and wheelchair tournament. The visibility provided by the 2021 rugby league world cup and other future events, such as the Birmingham Commonwealth games, could really help to boost participation in women’s rugby. As the organisation Women In Sport has said, “Given the gap in participation between women and men, which has widened during covid, the visibility of women’s sport has never been more important.”
While I welcome the much-needed funds being made available for sport across the UK, we must fund the change we want to see in the sport. As we recover from covid-19, we should be aiming to increase the participation of women and girls in sport, the accessibility of women’s sport and its visibility. At the very least, we should not be prioritising men’s sport over women’s.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. A year ago, Wrexham rugby club set up the Valkyries rugby cluster, which recruits young women from across north-east Wales. It is vital that we in the House promote the role of women in rugby and get whatever financial support we can. I appreciate her doing this tonight.
Fay Jones
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour. I would be delighted to learn more about rugby in north Wales. As far as I am aware, it is more of a south and mid-Wales sport, but I would love to see even more participation in north Wales, where people seem to be obsessed with the funny-shaped ball, not the proper-shaped one.
Here is my ask to our Governments: to the UK Government, the Welsh Government, sporting bodies and rugby organisations alike, please ensure that women’s sports receive their fair share of this emergency funding and that we continue to encourage more women to play sport.
When I began playing rugby at university, we were in a tiny minority and were seen as women playing a man’s game. That is far from true now, so let us not let all the progress we have seen in recent years be undone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) for tabling the debate and those who have already contributed; many of them are very knowledgeable on the subject. It is a genuine pleasure to be talking about women’s sport—one of my top political priorities —on my birthday. I can look my daughter in the eye and tell her that this is what I spend my time doing.
It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport. Women’s rugby is a great example of the benefits that sport and physical activity can bring. It boosts self-esteem, builds resilience, is empowering and is fun to play. We have seen a number of successes in the professional game, with the Red Roses winning the women’s six nations championship on 15 out of 24 occasions, and winning the grand slam 14 times and the triple crown 21, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend, being a Welsh MP, might not be as enthusiastic about that celebration as I am.
My hon. Friend articulated the great progress being made by Welsh women’s rugby, which is no surprise for such a proud rugby nation. Sport is primarily a devolved matter, although much of what I have to say applies across the UK.
It is vital that we maintain our focus on women’s sport and build on the fantastic progress made in recent years. I pay tribute to those national governing bodies and competitions that have showcased women’s sport in their behind-closed-doors programmes over recent months. It was great to see the return of the women’s Premier 15s on Saturday, for example.
Sponsorship and commercial investment are key to growing elite sport, so I welcome the recent announcement that Allianz Insurance has agreed a sponsorship deal with the Rugby Football Union, which will see funds flow to women’s rugby teams. That partnership means the Premier 15s, which is the top-flight women’s domestic rugby competition in England, will receive a landmark investment to grow women’s and girls’ rugby, but I recognise the impact that covid has had on sport and that women’s sport has been hit particularly hard.
That is why I met governing bodies, including the RFU, the Rugby Football League and the chief executive officer of the charity Women In Sport, over the summer to explore the challenges covid has brought and discuss what more can be done. I am happy to say that there was a real shared commitment to protecting investment in women’s sport and promoting its growth.
I know covid has had an impact on rugby and the Rugby Football Union has had to make difficult decisions, with cuts to its workforce and a reduction in its investment in grassroots development. I want to take this opportunity to assure hon. Members that I am personally committed to helping women’s sport to come out of the current crisis stronger than ever, and I am working closely with the sector to ensure that that happens. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, and as I have made clear to sporting bodies in receipt of public funding, I expect a fair share of that public funding to benefit women’s sport and physical activity.
As we have seen in recent months, sports clubs have an impact and reach that goes well beyond sport. During the pandemic, they have proven themselves bedrocks of their communities, hosting test centres, looking after the vulnerable and organising food deliveries. Hon. Members will be aware of the incredibly challenging circumstances that many of our sports currently face. My Department continues to work closely with sports, including both codes of rugby, to understand what support they might need.
In May of this year, rugby league received a £16 million support package from the Government to safeguard the immediate future of the sport for the communities it serves. The Government are also supporting the rugby league with more than £11 million of Sport England investment over the 2017 to 2021 period.
Women’s sport as a whole has come a long way in recent years. To choose just two events, the women’s Six Nations championship and women’s rugby world cup are fantastic events that shine a spotlight on brilliant women rugby stars. We are seeing the popularity of women’s sport continue to grow, with record audiences attending international and domestic women’s events and watching them on television.
These events are inspiring more women and girls to become active. The latest data from Sport England’s Active Lives survey in April this year showed that before covid, there were more than 210,000 more active women compared with the previous year, and we want to continue to encourage more women and girls to get active and build on the momentum that initiatives such as Sport England’s This Girl Can campaign have generated.
Domestically and globally, female rugby participation is growing at a faster rate than male participation. Overall, the RFU has said it is seeing 17% year-on-year growth in participation; as of June this year, there were 40,000 female registered players in more than 400 clubs, up from just 13,000 in 2012. Furthermore, 90,000 girls are taking part in rugby through schools, colleges and universities. The RFU has also developed a range of programmes to encourage women and girls to take part. Inner Warrior is a series of camps, which has benefited from Sport England funding, aimed at introducing women to rugby in a fun and accessible way. The programme started in 2016 and since then 23,000 women have taken part.
The All Schools programme was a 2015 rugby world cup legacy programme, which got 750 more state schools playing rugby and has seen 80,000 teenage girls take part. O2 Touch is a non-contact form of the game, which has 10,000 registered female players. The women and girls’ game remains a priority for the RFL, too, especially in the lead-up to the rugby league world cup in 2021. Its aim is to use the Women’s Super League to raise the profile of the game, increase commercial interest and revenue, and drive participation.
The Government have also helped to secure a wide range of major sporting events in this country for the next few years. The rugby league world cup 2021 will bring additional significant exposure on free-to-air TV. It will also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned, be the first time that the men’s, women’s and wheelchair tournaments will take place at the same time. It will be a great opportunity to showcase the women’s game and encourage more people to get involved. We are continuing to explore a number of other hosting opportunities across the range of men’s and women’s elite and professional sports.
To conclude, the past few years have seen fantastic progress with women’s sport, including rugby, starting to get the profile it deserves. We definitely have our challenges, as my hon. Friend and others have mentioned, but we want women’s sport to continue to inspire increased participation in sport and physical activity. Women’s rugby is a hugely important part of that, and we will continue to support and raise the profile of it wherever and whenever we can. I once again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate tonight to shine a light on women’s rugby and the vital role it plays in our communities.
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) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Jeremy Hunt |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Graham Stringer |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Graham Stringer |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Dehenna Davison |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Mohammad Yasin |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, given the proximity of our constituencies. Thankfully, however, the debate today is not on which county is best, Devon or Cornwall.
The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers, including the UK branches and subsidiaries of overseas businesses, to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address an historic underinvestment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative.
The charge is paid by employers looking to sponsor someone from outside the European economic area for a tier 2 general or a tier 2 intra-company transfer visa lasting more than six months. It also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. The charge is paid up front when the employer assigns a certificate of sponsorship to a migrant worker and is automatically calculated based on the dates provided by the employer as part of the sponsorship process.
The charge applies at a rate of £1,000 per migrant per year for large businesses, with a reduced fee of £364 per year for small businesses and charities. To date, the charge has raised approximately £382 million. Although the income raised is not direct additional funding for skills, it provides financial support to help maintain skills budgets across our United Kingdom, as immigration must not be seen as the sole solution or a magic bullet to deal with the skills needs in our economy, not least given the situation many face due to the impact of the coronavirus on our economy.
As education and skills are devolved matters, the income raised also helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations overall. The money raised from the immigration skills charge is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett with which members of the Committee are familiar.
As regards independent analysis of the introduction of the charge, it was supported by the independent Migration Advisory Committee as part of its December 2015 review of the tier 2—in effect, skilled worker—immigration route. Subsequently, in its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC continued to lend its support to the policy, specifically in relation to the abolition of the resident labour market test, which is not considered to be fulfilling its intended purpose of ensuring employers only look to recruit from overseas where a suitable resident worker cannot fill the vacancy. The MAC stated that the immigration skills charge, alongside a system of salary thresholds, was the best way to protect against employers using immigration to undercut the wages, terms and conditions of domestic workers.
The draft regulations are necessary to ensure continued application of the immigration skills charge under the new skilled worker route, which will replace tier 2 general from January 2021 in the UK’s future points-based immigration system. I outlined the costs earlier, and the regulations do not change the amounts charged for either large businesses, or small and charitable organisations. The regulations will also not change the position in respect of European Union, EEA and Swiss nationals, who are exempt from the charge. Given the ending of free movement between the UK and the European Union, the Government intended to remove the exemption, but separate consequential amendment will be required following Royal Assent to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which the House will further consider next week.
As is currently the case, some other exemptions from the charge will continue, such as where the employer seeks to recruit people at PhD-level occupations, where they recruit a person switching from the student route or where the person is recruited for less than six months. There are also some exemptions for those within other sponsored routes, such as tier 2 minister of religion and tier 2 sportsperson. Those exemptions will continue to apply under the future immigration system.
The Government are making the biggest change to our immigration system in a generation and delivering on the will of the British people, as expressed in the 2016 referendum and the general election of December last year. The changes come at a time of global uncertainty as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, which has sadly resulted in lost and permanently changed lives. It has also resulted in many people across a wide range of sectors sadly losing their jobs at a time of wider economic uncertainty and instability.
While it is right that the UK’s immigration system encourages those with skills and talents—which every part of our Union needs to prosper—to come to the UK, now more than ever we must continue to support our domestic workforce in all four nations of the United Kingdom. We must ensure that the immigration system strikes the right balance between bringing in workers who can fill specific skills gaps and ensuring that employers are investing in our domestic workforce, who will be crucial to our long-term prosperity. We must make sure that the current circumstances do not mean that a generation is lost to the workplace.
The immigration skills charge is intended to do that. It is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in developing the skills the country needs, and that immigration is neither an easy alternative nor a magic bullet to resolve the failure of a devolved Administration to focus on delivering their own responsibilities for skills training. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. It is not often that immigration proves to be less contentious than the alternative debate that was perhaps being proposed by the Minister. I welcome being on solid footing with this draft statutory instrument this morning.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. As he is aware, we are certainly uncomfortable with elements of the immigration skills charge and, in particular, how it applies to NHS trusts as employers. I will take this opportunity to ask him once again to reflect on how the skills charge affects NHS trusts, with some hospitals paying back hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Government every year.
The draft regulations, as we heard, bring the definition of skilled worker within the immigration skills charge regulations in line with the Government’s new proposed points-based immigration system. Again the Minister knows, because we have been through this at some length during the passage of the immigration Bill, that we have broad concerns about how the Government define skilled workers, in particular in relation to social care. That is an issue that will return to the main Chamber next week, when we debate the Lords amendments to the immigration Bill.
The draft regulations, however, are incredibly tight in scope, so it would be futile to oppose them in isolation. We will seek to address those wider concerns at other more appropriate opportunities.
Question put and agreed to.
Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members about the social distancing regulations? Spaces available to Members are marked, and Hansard would be grateful if Members could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 990).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am pleased to introduce these regulations, which were laid before the House on 15 September. They form part of the corporate insolvency and governance legislative regime and ensure that there is no gap in the application of its provisions. The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which we in this House passed in the summer, introduces important measures to give specified entities in financial difficulty the best chance of survival. This is part of a suite of measures to help businesses weather periods of economic uncertainty.
We debated one set of regulations on 7 September, and today’s regulations extend the Pension Protection Fund’s creditor rights to certain other entities, namely relevant co-operative and community benefit societies in the case of moratoriums, and relevant societies in the case of restructuring provisions. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is unable to be here today.
The Opposition supported the measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act to help struggling businesses remain open and viable and to strengthen the role of the Pension Protection Fund in the process, protecting the pension schemes of companies in financial difficulty. Today, we are happy to support these further regulations to support the Pension Protection Fund, granting similar powers to safeguard the pension schemes of co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions. The Minister is right to note the important role of the Pension Protection Fund in the UK pensions landscape.
I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. As we know, the country faces a dire economic outlook, with severe shocks being inflicted on many employers and many pension schemes. Will the Minister say a little more about what assessment the Department has made of the resilience of the Pension Protection Fund? What measures will be undertaken to ensure that the fund is ready and capable when it comes to absorbing the potentially thousands more pension scheme members who will require security over the coming year? Although the regulations are welcome, they do not entirely restore the position that the Pension Protection Fund occupied in restructuring situations before the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act. Will the Minister keep that under review?
It is vital that the Government make changes to the law to protect and support companies and the jobs reliant on them during these times, but the Pension Protection Fund must also be protected to ensure its continued security for the thousands of scheme members who rely on it. Although we welcome the widening scope of the Pension Protection Fund to protect more scheme members, I urge the Minister to be constantly vigilant as to what safeguards are in place to protect the fund itself.
During this unprecedented time, we are all agreed that the hard-earned retirement income of workers must be protected. Every worker deserves nothing less than the simple assurance that their pensions must be protected for retirement, and we must all work to deliver this goal and ensure that the legislation we are considering today is well equipped to deliver it.
Guy Opperman
I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are constantly vigilant, and remain so. In all seriousness, the Pension Protection Fund is one of the great products of the Blair Government, and it has been supported by the coalition and Conservative Governments since then. Throughout the summer, I spoke on a number of occasions to the chairman and chief executive of the Pension Protection Fund to ensure that it is sustainable and functioning in a good way. They are confident that their long-term funding strategy and diverse investment approach gives them the ability to weather the current market volatility and any future challenges. Their modelling shows that the fund is well placed to achieve its self-sufficiency target. To put it broadly, the Pension Protection Fund members and members of defined benefit schemes can be confident in the fund’s ability to continue to provide the compensation required and remain a robust safety net.
I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Westminster North in more detail if she wishes, but I would suggest that the PPF is well able to continue its level of resourcing, albeit that it is keeping it under review. We keep all matters to do with the Pension Protection Fund under review. It is an arm’s length body, but it is also something with which the Department is very concerned. All Departments are obviously aware of the difficulties that followed the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act in the summer and are continuing to take due action as we follow this through. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 1 month 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
Universal Basic Income
(4 years, 1 month 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones, using the cleaning materials provided, before they use them and should respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can speak only if they are on the call list; that applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join a debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches, but they are perfectly free to do so if they wish.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the introduction of a universal basic income.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this opportunity. I regret that this sitting is not fully hybrid and that MPs who are isolating or shielding to protect their health and that of others are in effect barred from taking part. That only increases the pressure on Members to travel when they could work from home and forces those who support us to attend the parliamentary estate, too. It was my first time back on the estate for a wee while and I was delighted to see new signs everywhere saying, “Keep left and keep moving”. I am hoping that that is a new sign from the UK Government.
While writing this speech, I noticed that as soon as I typed in the letters “u” and “n”, my iPad prompted me to select “universal”; when I accepted that, it prompted “basic income”. It appears that my iPad has been paying more attention to me than the UK Government have. It also learns quicker.
Universal basic income is an inclusive scheme that protects and recognises everyone. All adults and children receive a set payment on a regular basis. It is fair. It destigmatises the recipient. People are paid regardless of their circumstances. After all, are all people not created equal?
UBI alleviates poverty and reduces inequality. It strengthens a sense of individual citizenship. It empowers people and facilitates civic partnerships. To quote the UBI Lab Northern Ireland working paper,
“A UBI can be understood to be a right of citizenship—a fair share of the assets we and the generations before us have helped create. It recognises each of our stake, or share, in ‘the commons’ of the earth.”
I find that a truly beautiful concept.
A UBI strengthens social bonds and improves mental health. Nobody would deny that economic instability contributes to poor mental health, yet the current system dangles the threat of sanctions over the heads of recipients, going so far as to drive some to suicide. UBI removes that psychological burden. A UBI will not fund the lifestyle of an MP, but it is a platform on which individuals can add other income without fear of financial repercussions.
The current system ties work to welfare. It can make the transition into work more complex. People should be free to take on part-time or occasional work without strings attached. A UBI affords more flexibility to employee and employer, while acknowledging that employees are empowered and less likely to be exploited. It is permanent. It gives security and peace of mind. It cannot be withdrawn or become conditional, unlike the pensions of hundreds of thousands of WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality—who were cheated out of their pensions by the UK Government. That permanency stimulates entrepreneurship, which can lead to the generation of jobs. It is the poorest in society who will directly benefit most; as we know, they are more likely to spend their money on essential items in their own community, which in turn stimulates local growth.
Prior to covid, the upsurge in interest in UBI was attributed to the gig economy, the increase in automation and the creation of a greater number of people described by Guy Standing as “the precariat”. Covid has accelerated the increase in the numbers of the precariat. Many people who once felt safe now feel vulnerable.
It is the duty of any good Government to protect their citizens—not just in the short term, not just by reacting to unfolding circumstances, but by planning for the long term, for future generations. To that end, pilot projects have already been run in Canada, the USA, Kenya, Brazil, Finland, India, Italy, Uganda and Namibia. Versions of cash transfer projects have been run in Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Zambia and Zimbabwe. There are plans for UBI-type schemes in Spain, Switzerland, Germany and Ukraine. I have a simple ask of the Minister: have the UK Government taken any steps to learn anything from any of those countries? And please do not quote the Finnish Finance Minister, who came out against UBI before the results of the Finnish trial were even published.
If the UK Government think it is beneath them to be advised by foreigners, will they back pilot projects in the UK and learn from them? Northern Ireland is asking, Wales is asking, Scotland is asking and England is asking. If ever there was a policy that could be pursued and that would be welcomed across the United Kingdom, UBI is it.
The four pilots proposed in Scotland are all well documented—all we need is the co-operation of the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Those pilots will help us not only to learn about the economics of UBI but to understand the political, strategic, institutional, psychological and ethical feasibility of a UBI.
When we exposed the UK to universal credit, it was plain to see that it had not been thought through fully, and it failed miserably. Ever since then, we have been patching and amending the system. If we had run pilots for universal credit, we would have avoided many of the pitfalls and saved many people from the suffering that it caused.
I claim that UBI reduces crime, gives people more opportunity, improves health and mental wellbeing, improves community relations and contributes to a stronger local economy. Minister, run these pilots across the UK and prove me wrong. I know that the Minister is not a fan of UBI: he will claim that the cost makes it a non-starter. Why even consider it, if we cannot afford it? Why run pilots that might tell us that it is amazing, even magnificent, if we cannot then implement UBI? Well, Minister, let us run the pilots, learn what benefits UBI brings or does not bring, and then we can argue about cost versus outcome. If the Minister is seriously telling me that even if all the benefits of UBI that I am claiming can be proved, he would not move mountains to provide them for the citizens of the United Kingdom, then he is skating on very thin ice.
The NHS did not just materialise out of thin air; it was not dreamt up one wet Wednesday afternoon in the Tea Room or designed on the back of a fag packet. The NHS was introduced on 5 July 1948, but prior to that half of Scotland’s land mass had already been covered by the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, which had been set up in 1913. HIMS acted as a working blueprint for the NHS in Scotland. It was directly funded by the state and it had Ministers centrally in a Scottish Office in Edinburgh. It was a pilot project allowed to develop and grow; it uncovered unforeseen problems and fixed them. It ensured that, on day one of the NHS, the NHS was to all intents and purposes good to go.
There is an interesting aside about HIMS. One of its administrators was from my constituency, a Gourock-born woman called Muriel Ritson. She was the only woman on the Scottish Board of Health in 1919, but by 1942 she was sitting on the Beveridge commission, which helped to establish the NHS. The link is there for us all to see. She had learned her lessons, and she brought that learning to bear many years later. She also attended the school that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I both attended.
Mary Breckenridge, an American, visited Scotland in 1924 and later established the Frontier Nursing Service in Kentucky, based on the HIMS model. But not everyone saw the benefits of HIMS—just like today with UBI, the Conservatives argued against it. Lord Banbury objected to English taxpayers contributing money that would be of medical benefits to Scotland. Here we are, all these years later, with NHS Scotland and the wider UK NHS acting in true UBI-style and supporting us all through the current health crisis. If we had not had the NHS, it would have been too late for us to create it. It was there for us and UBI could have been there for us, too.
If the Minister is not prepared to follow current examples from around the world, then he should be brave—support the pilot projects and lead the world. Yes, it will cost more; it will cost lots of pounds and lots of pence. However, their value will be far higher than that of our current system, and the society that the spending will support is too precious not to exist. Although I do not doubt for one minute that budgets must be balanced, recent times have taught us that when the motivation exists, the purse strings can be loosened.
I will now review quickly the response of the Minister to UBI in a recent Petitions Committee sitting. He had three objections. First, how do we afford it? The Minister explained that the Centre for Social Justice found that giving every working-age adult in the United Kingdom £10,000 per year would cost in the region of £400 billion. He seems to think it is higher, but I question that figure. His argument was that the average universal credit claim was more generous at £16,000 per year, completely ignoring the fact that the UC figure is per household. A household with two parents and two kids do not need £5K per adult and £3K per kid to meet his generous standards. I have just halved his £400 billion in one stroke.
His next question was: how do we deliver it? The simpler the system, the cheaper the delivery—and UBI is simpler. Even if it costs the same as the existing system, we are still no worse off. He went on to boast:
“My Department and HMRC have done exceptional work throughout the pandemic to stand up new services and increase the capacity of existing ones. We have been able to move quickly to support over 9 million people”.
I offer genuine congratulations. That is a job well done. I know my local DWP and the one jobcentre left in my constituency have been superb, but with UBI there would be no need for that. All payments would already be in place. With UBI, the safety net has already been built. We are not building it as we are falling.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that at the height of lockdown, although the herculean efforts of the DWP staff ensured that people got paid, many people were getting about £60 a month taken off them owing to advance repayments?
Ronnie Cowan
That goes back to my original point: that I do not believe universal credit is the solution we are looking for. It has been patched and amended, but when it is put under pressure and there are changes in circumstances, the system is not fleet of foot and able to cope with people’s day-to-day living.
During the Petitions Committee sitting, the Minister turned to the issue of the impact of UBI. He had the temerity to say:
“this is the fundamental case against UBI.”
It was not the cost or the delivery, but the impact of UBI that he did not like. He stated:
“Unlike our UC system, UBI does not target support at those in greater need”.
Finally, he got it right. We do not need to target it—everybody gets it, with no stigma attached. He went on to say that UBI does not
“take into account additional costs faced by many individuals, such as those with a disability or those with childcare responsibilities.”
If he reads the pilot project’s proposals, he will see that they do take those into account.
Then, in sheer desperation, the Minister went for an old chestnut. To put it into perspective, Chair, UBI would be paid to you, me and all Members of this House. Yes it would—and it would be taken back in tax, thank you very much. In attempting to vindicate the current system, the Minister, without a hint of irony, said in his conclusions that the UK Government were
“providing millions to food charities to help get through to those who are struggling”.
Yet if people had UBI, they would not rely on charity from this one nation conservatism-driven Government. People do not want handouts—they do not want charity or the crumbs from the top table. They deserve a platform on which they can build and that allows them to sit at the top table as equals, not to be beholden to their rich benefactors. For the benefit of all four nations in the United Kingdom, will the Minister please support the plans for UBI pilots and allow us to move forward with a progressive welfare system that is practical, compassionate and fit for this century?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for such an impressive and informative speech about what UBI could bring to this country.
I say to the Minister that I stand here making this speech today as a convert to UBI. Two years ago, as the DWP spokesperson at our party conference, I was not in favour of UBI: I did not think that we should dismantle what we have at the moment and considered that we had enough problems with universal credit without going back to scratch. However, that was before I had heard the word “coronavirus” and seen the impact it was going to have on this country. That was before we arrived at a situation where 4.5 million people in the UK were living in poverty.
Coronavirus has changed everything. It has changed everything in much the same way—this metaphor has been used a lot—as the second world war changed everything for this society. When Beveridge put together his report in 1942, a lot of people said that it simply could not work, that it was not sensible and that the country could not afford it. What on earth was he thinking about? And yet, immediately post-war, the Labour Government set about putting that Beveridge report into action. What I say today is that what this country needs now is that kind of vision, and that kind of willingness to take on a challenge and to change society for the better for the next generation. It is not an opportunity that we asked for; it has come in the form of a challenge—probably the biggest challenge that any of us will face in our lifetimes. But we also have to see it as an opportunity to make progress.
Why UBI? The reason I became a convert, frankly, has been the number of phone calls and the number of people who have come to me since March this year—every day, every phone call, every person who thought they were financially secure, every person who spent decades building up a company, every person who was self-employed but now finds that they are without the support they need for the future: all that has convinced me that the only way to tackle the issue fully and to make sure that everyone gets the support they need is through a universal basic income.
UBI would help the people on whom we rely but we often miss: the carers, the people who are low paid. As the hon. Member for Inverclyde said, there should be no stigma or penalty to taking another job, but at the moment there is. I am thinking of people who have worked long hours to get our food to the supermarket shelves who are not on a huge salary and who could do with some help.
My basic plea to the Minister is this: look at whether we can have a trial, to see whether UBI can work and whether we can have the courage that the Government had immediately after the war. That generation looked to Beveridge and thought, “Here is another way. Here is a way of improving society. Here is a way of making a change, a legacy for future generations.”
We have all gone out on a Thursday night and applauded the NHS, which was part of that bigger vision. We have all, at some point in our lives, looked to the welfare state and thought, “Will it be there to help me?” In this, we have seen that it is not. It was a wonderful vision for the 20th century, but we need something new for the 21st century. We need something that makes sure that nobody falls through the cracks as we have seen in this crisis: the 3 million people who have had no support and who, regardless of the Government schemes we hear about, still have no support, no financial safety net, no way out of this from the Government. UBI could provide that.
At the moment, I would not give the Minister a blueprint and say, “This is the one you must follow” because that would be a mistake. We have to look at how we can do it, how it can be affordable and how we make sure that support gets to the people who need it: as I said, the carers, the stay-at-home parents, the people on a low income. They need our support now more than ever.
Two years ago, perhaps, I did not see it, but now I firmly believe that universal basic income is an idea whose time has come. This time needs something special—it needs us to have the courage that a previous generation had to do something radical and progressive. When people look back at this time 20 to 30 years from now, they could have this as something we tried to do and hopefully succeeded in doing for the future.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Davies. I start by saying to both contributors so far that I wholeheartedly agree with the thesis that they set out while also highlighting the practical realities of what a universal basic income could bring.
We live in such an inequitable society—the second most inequitable society that there is. We have 4.5 million people living in poverty today, in one of the richest countries. We know that many have made their millions out of this crisis, but millions have fallen into very stark circumstances. We have heard about the 3.1 million people who have been excluded from any support whatsoever and are desperate at this time.
The unemployment rate in my constituency last year was 2.8%; next year it will be 27%. This is terrifying—one in four people losing their jobs because of the nature of our local economy. The 2.8% was an incredible feat, in a post-industrial city where the manufacturing base was wiped out, with the loss of the rail and chocolate manufacturing jobs, but we now face an unprecedented precipice, and we are worried—terrified—at what lies ahead. We have to think outside the box at a time like this. That is why I believe that York, because of the nature of the economy and the way our city works, would make an ideal pilot for a UBI, or citizen’s wage, as many call it.
We also know that, at the end of this month, many people on furlough today will fall over tomorrow. The reality is that, while wages are currently at 80%, they will drop in areas of high lockdown to 67% and in many areas to nothing. That will mean a longer and longer queue at the jobcentre—none of us wants to see that—or people simply struggling. UBI is not just about economic circumstances; it is about holistically supporting individuals, which is why I am also a convert to such a mechanism. It does not judge or call out, but it does protect. At a time like this, we have to look at how we protect society.
The Prime Minister talks about putting his arms around our society, yet we are not seeing the evidence of that. Many of the economic packages that have come out have been narrow, too late and too little. They do not look at the real, longer-term solutions that we need to look at in this crisis. The packages are short term and have not grappled with the real economic challenges of our age. We have to look at what will sustain us, and not just in the next six months or year—we are talking decades of recovery from this pandemic.
We have to inject the right solutions. Therefore, we should not rush, but move on this path to look deeper into this situation. We have seen the benefits where universality has been applied. We have the pension scheme—too low, I would argue, but it is a scheme that does not judge—and child benefit. Such a solution removes the issue of the undeserving poor, a narrative that has often sat with this Government. It does not judge; it recognises the real challenges. Of course, it should also sit alongside a progressive taxation system—something we desperately need which challenges those with broader shoulders and supports those without that resilience.
At a time when we see our high streets about to topple over, businesses folding, our whole local economy in York and our national economy spiralling out of control, and pp spiralling down with it, we need that safety net. Universal credit has been a good attempt, but it judges, it sanctions and it has caused harm. People have to wait for weeks before they get any money. At the height of the pandemic, it was not just five weeks, it was eight or nine weeks that people in my constituency waited.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
indicated dissent.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister is shaking his head. I talked to my constituents who were offered a loan, to be paid back. I am telling the Minister about cases in my constituency where people waited that length of time to get their hands on any money. They were absolutely desperate and needed to use the food bank. Why are we doing this to people when we have other tools that we can utilise?
That is why I believe that universal basic income will bring the universality, the collective responsibility of society, and the solidarity to see people through this time. I argued for it at the start of the pandemic, seeing what was ahead. I believe ever more strongly that, as poverty encroaches, we must find proper solutions. At the moment many people are struggling to pay heating bills. A constituent came to me about that this week. People cannot afford to feed their families. Often it is the women in the family—the mothers—who do without to make sure their kids get what they need. It is tough. My city is like many other places in facing that.
One of the benefits of universal basic income comes from the fact that at the moment people are in and out of work, sometimes because they must isolate, and sometimes because of the pace of fluctuations in work. People who are self-employed try to get started or to do more work and then, with levels fluctuating, they fall back. Perhaps they have access to workplaces, or perhaps not. If there was a steady income for the self-employed, what a difference it would make to entrepreneurs who want to start a business but need time to build it up and to build a custom base. That would give them the underpinning they need to grow.
As for people on statutory sick pay—as well as those who do not get it—universal basic income would provide more of an underpinning while people have to move in and out of the economy. People on zero-hours contracts get paid—and then they do not get paid. They do not know, from week to week. Universal credit, whatever the Minister will say, is not agile enough to respond to the real economy that people work in. That would not be the case with a universal basic income. Also, people entering training and skills development may move in and out of it, perhaps with different hours at different times. They may or may not be on full-time courses. Universal basic income provides underpinning and does not discriminate. It does not call out disabled people, those who are shielding, or anyone else. It does not judge in that way, but understands. We need a system that understands people.
Something that came through to me clearly when we debated the Coronavirus Act 2020 was that there were opportunities to volunteer during the pandemic. We saw that from the British people in an incredible way at the start of the pandemic. No doubt as we get through the winter crisis together—and it is going to be a hard winter—many people will put their hand up and say, “I will help.” Universal basic income would give employers flexibility, because they would know that their staff would be out volunteering, moving in and out of those opportunities, as we pull together as a society to get through this impossible situation. We have to have that solidarity that was built. Flexibility, built into our ability to sustain ourselves through the crisis, would be underpinned by a universal basic income.
That is why I say do not push it off the table. A recovery UBI would help the economy to grow and establish itself again. It is interesting that the Mayor of London and even Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, have said that we need to look at UBI. That is my ask of the Minister today: that we look at how to build the foundations of a new, fair economy, which does not discriminate and is built on the principle of recognising that everyone wants to put in, but sometimes people need help. UBI is the fairest way to do that. I ask the Minister whether he will set up a UBI commission to look at how UBI can work in different areas, and at the economic challenges of our age and the flexibility needed to grow a new economy, and to report back to the House on that commission to show how we can build a stronger, better economy and a fairer system for the future.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday the Prime Minister responded to me when I asked what someone on minimum wage, who will have a third of their wage cut, should do. He said, “Oh, that’s the point of universal credit,” in the way that he does. I think he was getting confused with universal basic income. That would be the point of a universal basic income—so that as wages fluctuated down or there were particular problems, there was an automatism; so that there was always a basic floor and an income stream that people could rely on.
The reality, as we know with universal credit, is that there is an application system that is particularly difficult, and the work component has been re-imposed on universal credit in this country since lockdown. It is not just a payment made to support people unconditionally, and we know that the stress of the waiting period causes huge anguish for many of our communities. People do not see universal credit, or jobseeker’s allowance, or the dole—or whatever name it is given—as something that is their right or that they deserve. They see it as something that they are being judged on to get, and many proud people leave it until it is too late. They leave it, thinking, “I will use my savings; I will do the good thing for society and not go immediately and ask for support.” That means that by the time they are knocking on the jobcentre door, they might have already used up what little resources they had—resources that the Government expect them to live on while they are waiting for an application. How could we avoid a system that is degrading, causes mental health problems and causes people to rely on food banks? Surely we should explore some sort of system of universal basic income. It would, after all, do exactly what the Prime Minister promised; it would actually fulfil that pledge.
Universal basic income is not a replacement for universal basic services. We need the NHS, we probably need a separate way of dealing with housing, we need lifelong learning—we need those things to go along with it. However, it is a liberating factor for those things that the Government really should not be providing. My view is that the Government should not be providing food parcels—neither the Government nor charities. Charities do it in large part. In Brighton, most of those charities are also supported by the local council through cash amounts for them to go to the cash and carry. That is not dignified. It is not dignified that people have to go and get a bag of pre-sorted goods to live on that week. I do not think that is acceptable. That is where a cash transfer is important, because cash has a liberating element in those circumstances. It has a dignifying element in those circumstances, because when a person walks into the supermarket, they are able, on a par with everyone, to engage and purchase the things they may like.
Nor is a universal basic income a substitute for a decent industrial strategy. We need strong trade unions pushing for greater conditions for workers. We need to ensure decent relations between employers and trade unions to make sure we have industrial harmony. We need to make sure that the national minimum wage is being pushed up so that it becomes a real living wage. All those things are needed. However, if we do not deal with the transitions, particularly in a society where we have more transitions and less stability in the job market, we might be helping those fewer and fewer people in full-time and stable work but not enabling people to develop full-time and stable work positively.
I am a universalist. I generally believe that giving things to everyone pushes the quality up, not down, because the pressure is that everyone understands their value. That does not mean that everyone pays in equally. One of the critiques that we hear is that giving all this money to everyone means giving rich people money. I do not know how those people think the pay-as-you-earn system works, but in a person’s payslip for the month they pay x amount of tax—x is given to the Government. If UBI were set at something like £100 a week—I pick that number from the top of my head—that would mean £5,000 a year. Under the current tax system, anyone earning more than £26,000 would be a net contributor. That is an interesting number, because £26,000 is about the average wage in the south-east, although it is slightly higher in Brighton. Actually, that would be very positive, because those earning more would be paying for it. Of course, the tax system would have to be redesigned to make it balance. Those enabling figures are an automatism.
In the ’90s, the Scandinavians developed what was called flexicurity. It was adopted, of course, by the European Union—we can have arguments about our leaving, but that is not why I raise it. I raise it because it was about looking forward and saying that the job market was changing. The Scandinavian countries recognised that they needed a more flexible labour market. Jobs for life were not necessarily going to happen, and were not necessarily desirable. Companies were saying that they needed the ability to be fleet of foot. The pact that was made was that if there was to be a more flexible workforce—the ability to hire and fire more easily—there needed to be greater protections. Some of that was about free lifelong learning. The pillars were a flexible labour market, lifelong learning, labour market policies and a strong trade union-business pact. The final pillar of the European model was a model social security system with adequate minimum support for all.
I know that the Government are slightly allergic to things that come out of Europe, but we should learn from that decent, forward-looking principle of how the labour market needs to look in the future. I do not want creative people to be forced to go into cyber-security, as the latest Government advert suggests, if they want to make ends meet. I want them to be free to develop new creative industries that provide billions of pounds of revenue to our country. If they are not given support to do that in difficult times, there is a danger that we will lose whole sections of our industry. I genuinely think that UBI is an opportunity to put some of that flexicurity model into practice.
UBI will not be perfect—there are problems with all systems—but I believe that it encompasses some of the principles of the failed universal credit system. It encompasses the idea that people can transition. Conditions could be put on it and infrastructure could be put around it, but I am not sure that would be particularly helpful.
UBI also has the ability to rebalance our generational problem. We have the clear problem at the moment that many younger working-age people—people under 30 or even under 40, so not that young in some accounts—feel that they are getting a rum deal. They feel that they will never reach pension age because it will increase on and on. They feel that the state has abandoned them in housing and welfare—under-35s have lower rates in housing, et cetera. They feel almost infantilised by the current system. That generational pact has broken. I think that part of the problem with coronavirus is that a lot of young people are not convinced that there is a generational pact in society, because they do not feel that the state or society has actually bothered to care for their concerns. They feel that huge amounts are given to pensioners. That is not necessarily true—our pension is rather low—but that is the feeling among lots of people.
A universal basic income would of course differentiate between ages. It would be slightly lower for children and would then increase for working-age people and again for pensioners. It would be a continuum, which would rebalance that understanding of a generational pact that everyone gains from. That would really transform our society for the better, which is why I hope the Government will at least explore some real, decent pilot schemes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan)—a fellow Greenockian, as he acknowledged—on securing this important debate.
I agree that the pandemic has made the case for UBI ever more urgent. At the outset of the pandemic, I and others welcomed the Government’s financial support schemes and, I admit, generally accepted that existing HMRC mechanisms were the most efficient way of getting support out quickly and effectively to employers and employees. However, time has passed, and we now need to recognise that millions of people missed out on any support and continue to do so. Many constituents have been in touch—I am sure the same is true of other Members present—to say that they had missed out on support either because they were employed a day after the furlough cut-off or because their old employer would not re-hire them. Others missed out on the self-employment income scheme because they were not able to jump through the Treasury’s hoops. They were, therefore, unable to access the support they desperately needed.
We have all heard these stories, which is why many of us are members of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). It is impossible to listen to these stories without feeling a huge amount of empathy towards these people, who have faced an incredibly difficult year and now find further months of restrictions looming. Some 3 million people were excluded, in some cases on an entirely arbitrary basis. Despite the campaigning of many, the Government consciously continued to exclude those people—if they got no support at the start, they are still not getting any now.
Other Members have referred to members of our society who are sadly all too familiar with the challenges involved in engaging with our welfare system. However, without access to the current support schemes, many who thought they would never have to do so have engaged with DWP and universal credit support for the first time. DWP staff have worked incredibly hard at this challenging time. I commend them for that, and acknowledge that, as a Member, I have had direct support from them. I also acknowledge that the Government have temporarily increased the universal credit standard allowance for 2021 and relaxed the minimum income floor for the duration of the crisis. However, that demonstrates that every support mechanism currently available has eligibility conditions, and it is therefore inevitable that people will miss out. That is often why they contact us, as their Members of Parliament, and it is why UBI is such a powerful idea: there are no hoops to jump through and no complicated terms and conditions that exclude people. There is no sense of arbitrariness.
We heard yesterday about further restrictions—more restrictions have already been put in place in Scotland—and I am glad that the Government are bringing forward further economic support. However, I am disappointed that, several months on from the initial lockdown, and facing renewed restrictions and a surge in infections and hospital admissions, we are still no clearer on test and trace or on a job support scheme that actually reflects the reality of operating under the current restrictions and the seasonality of work in constituencies such as mine, which relies on tourism. Indeed, it feels like we are back in emergency measures, calling on the Paymaster General to unblock issues and get responses from Government Departments.
Beyond covid, there has been support for UBI pilots. In Fife, the preparatory work has been done; they just need permission to run the pilot scheme. Instead of relying on evidence from elsewhere, let us develop our own evidence base, then we will be best placed to assess whether UBI will work and the income and infrastructure required to deliver it. This work could arguably start quickly, and report quickly as well. This year, many who assumed that the safety net of our welfare system would be there to catch them have found the holes too big. Exploring UBI is a way of addressing those holes and providing a platform for future prosperity and economic recovery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for setting the scene and I am pleased to make a contribution. I am also pleased to see the Minister. I believe he will do his best to respond to what we are asking for.
As others have said, covid-19 has been with us over the past few months. I recollect many conversations with constituents about these matters back in March. Never at any point did I honestly think we would end up where we are now, with these restrictions in place. Even as we were fast hurtling towards the changes, I never envisaged us being here.
I thank the Government, Ministers, the Chancellor and everyone who has been forthright and helpful. Others have done so, but I would also like to put it on the record, as it is important to include it in Hansard. Many of my constituents in Strangford have survived until now because of the Government’s commitment and help. To be honest, those people would not be there without that, so I put on the record my thanks to the Minister.
As elected representatives, the nature of our job means that people do not necessarily come to us to tell us how good things are or to say thank you, although many do and we appreciate that. People come to us because they have concerns and worries. Some have come to me—others have referred to this—because they fell outside the scheme.
Even with all the schemes that the Government have brought forward, it is clear that people have missed out, including the 3 million people referred to in a question to the Prime Minister during his statement on covid-19 yesterday, as well as the self-employed and directors. I do not want to labour the point, but they invested their profits and income back into their family businesses, thereby employing 12, 15 or even 20 people. But when it came to helping them, the help was not there.
Why do I look sympathetically on this particular methodology of benefit? It is because universal basic income could be the system to help those who did not receive the income they needed. I am not being critical of the Government, but I want to put that on the record. If we cannot help people, we have to consider different ways of doing things. That is why the hon. Member for Inverclyde has promoted this issue and other Members have supported it.
The experience of my constituency of Strangford is no different from that of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who said that tourism is important to her constituency. The core economic driver of Ards and North Down Borough Council, which covers the majority of my constituency, is based on tourism. Tourism is vital because it provides income and jobs, thereby keeping the whole thing going.
I am realistic about the system. I understand that the Government do not have bottomless pockets or a money tree at the bottom of their garden. There is no money at the end of the rainbow, so they have to work practically with the moneys that they have. I do believe, however, that the Minister should at least consider a pilot scheme for universal basic income, so that we can judge and consider it. Can we pay for it? That is important. We have to be realistic and honest. Can we reach out and help those people who have missed out, including in my constituency? Those are the people on whose behalf I am speaking today.
There are some 52 million adults aged 18 or over in the United Kingdom, and 12 million children and young people under 12. I understand the economics, the figures and the statistics that mean that some earners are taxed at a higher rate. My life is no different from that of anybody else, and the same is true of the lives of others in this Chamber. Society is judged by how it looks after those who are less well off. When I was a child—that was a long time ago, by the way—we never had much back in those days. It was a fact. We did not have material possessions, because that was the way it was in those days, but it made me more understanding of those who need help. That is why I am here today, to speak up and to support the hon. Member for Inverclyde.
The Minister is a compassionate person as well. I believe in my heart that he understands very well the policy we are putting forward and why it is so important. Can we do better than universal credit? I felt a wee bit embarrassed sometimes whenever people came to me during the covid-19 crisis and I said, “You can get universal credit.” I knew right away, though, that the guy or lady across the table had a business from which they were earning £300 a week—some were earning more—and I had to tell them, “Look, £94.50 is what you get.”
I understand that the Government offered what they could—I am not criticising that—but there must be a way to ensure that those businesses can hold on long enough so that they can then turn the corner and do better. I am really conscious of the issues. We need conditions when it comes to universal basic income. I understand that some of the naysayers are saying that it could reduce the incentive to work. Well, I tell you this: every person who came to me looking for help wanted to work. They wanted to continue to work and they wanted that opportunity. They just needed that wee bit of help to get them over the line. The Government have, in fairness, responded positively, but I wonder exactly what we need to do.
Ronnie Cowan
I should perhaps have said this earlier. One complaint about basic income is that it makes people indolent because people are paid for doing nothing. I refer the Minister to all the pilots that have been run throughout the world, which show that there is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. People the world over are just like us: they want the opportunity to work and earn a wage. Basic income does not make people indolent.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. I was sympathetic to the really good question that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the Chamber. I am not saying that because he is sitting across from me; I told him it was a good question at the time. It was about the minimum wage. I understand how it works. There are arguments to reduce the working week to four days and to reduce wages, but if someone on a minimum wage loses wages, they have nowhere to go. This is about every penny they have.
I remember the stories that people in my constituency have told me. They managed everything almost to the last pound for that week. Even a small reduction in what they have will mean that they will not be able to pay their rent or their car off. They may be paying off furniture for their property, too. The whole thing becomes a real difficulty. If somebody takes ill, it becomes a real problem. The hon. Gentleman’s question was pertinent, because I could relate personally to what he was saying. I thank him for that.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Inverclyde referred to other schemes. I read in the briefing about the Finnish experiment. It is not all about money. I am conscious of time, so I will come to my conclusion fairly quickly. Those who participated in the Finnish experiment
“were more satisfied with their lives and experienced less mental strain, depression, sadness and loneliness. They also had a more positive perception of their cognitive abilities, i.e. memory…and ability to concentrate.”
Giving people that help improves their quality of life, physically and mentally. We have to look at that, because there is cost otherwise. If the Government or others are not able to help, there are impacts on people’s physical and mental health, which then has to be paid for by the NHS. I suggest that although the Finnish experiment may not be the best example, it did highlight that issue.
As I see every day, those who are under financial pressure and who are worried about their future also face mental stress and difficulty. I meet people every day, every week, in my office—my staff do most of that, to be fair—and recently, when universal credit first came in, I remember that there were great problems. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and I have spoken about these things on a number of occasions, and we understand that.
Rachael Maskell
That brings to mind another aspect of this issue, which is sickness absence from the workplace. We obviously know the impact that has, but if people have the underpinning of a universal basic income, that will help with their rehabilitation and get those people back into work, whatever form of work that is. It may be volunteering experience or it may be through social prescribing, and therefore having a universal basic income could be a real aid to rehabilitation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is another opportunity?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. That is why I brought up the issue of people’s physical and mental experiences—because if we can get people into volunteering or get them back to work and moving up, that will make the Minister’s job a lot easier as well.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to the five-week period, which turned out to be an eight-week period in many cases. In a way, with all the experiences we had early on with universal credit, we overcame many of those issues, and the Government did as well. I therefore say gently to the Minister that we should perhaps be looking at a methodology for a universal basic income, at least on the basis of a pilot scheme, because with a pilot scheme the Government can perceive the issue, look over it, challenge it and investigate to see whether it is possible. In Northern Ireland, 16% of people—300,000 people—live in poverty, and that is before housing costs, which are enormous. With that in mind, the Northern Ireland Assembly also asked questions on this matter, although I understand that responsibility for the DWP lies here.
We have always had the greatest respect for the Minister, as he knows, and I believe him to be a compassionate person who can understand why we, the hon. Member for Inverclyde, and others have spoken on this topic. We believe there is a necessity for the universal basic income to be looked at through a pilot scheme. I believe it will help others, and therefore, along with others, I ask for that as well.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Davies. This has been a fantastic debate in which everyone has come to a consensus; we will see if that lasts as the debate goes on. It was led superbly by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), and I very much subscribe to his advice that we should keep left and keep moving—that is something we should all do, and I encourage the Minister to do so. He is shaking his head, for reasons that are beyond understanding. My hon. Friend also said that pilots are being asked for across the UK and should be supported, which is something I will come to later in my remarks.
As someone who sits on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I can say that the Committee will be looking at universal basic income. There have already been 20,000 individual submissions not only asking the Committee to look at universal basic income, but supportive of it and describing its benefits. I am struck by just about everyone’s contributions regarding the disadvantages of universal credit, particularly the five-week wait—something the Select Committee is currently looking at—and, of course, the advance repayments model. It beggars belief that at the height of lockdown in May, advance repayments of £60 a month were taken off people. At least 1.6 million universal credit claimants had money taken off them in May this year, which is something that the Government really do need to look at.
By way of background, the Scottish Government confirmed on 21 May 2018 that they would provide £250,000 over two years to support the undertaking of the feasibility study for a universal basic income pilot in Scotland. In June 2020, a group established to explore the feasibility of a citizens’ basic income pilot concluded that while such a pilot was desirable it was not feasible within the current devolved settlement, as the necessary tax powers remained with the UK Government through the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC. The Scottish Government have written to UK Ministers asking them to engage constructively, and to discuss the next steps in getting the pilots up and running. A petition entitled, “Implement Universal Basic Income to give home & food security through Covid-19”, was considered in an oral evidence session, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde mentioned, on 17 September this year. In response, the UK Government said that a UBI did not target help on those who needed it most, stressing that additional support had been provided during the coronavirus outbreak with the job retention scheme and changes to statutory sick pay and universal credit. I understand that the Welsh Senedd debated universal basic income on 13 September this year, with a motion calling for the Welsh Government to establish a universal basic income trial in Wales.
We want basic income pilots in Scotland, as well as elsewhere in the UK. That is desirable, but it can be done only with full co-operation and collaboration from the Government. Far too many people across the UK were living with the constant pressure of poverty, even before coronavirus. In the period 2016-19, about 1 million people in Scotland were in poverty, living precarious and insecure lives. That includes people in precarious and insecure work, which the Government need to tackle. It is not right in the 21st century that people are being pushed into destitution and homelessness, having to rely on food banks to survive.
The proposed pilot that the Scottish Government want to introduce would run for three years, with a one-year preparation period. Even with a pilot, it should be understood that such a systematic change to the welfare state could take many years to introduce. Commenting on these matters, the SNP social justice and fairness commission produced a discussion paper, “A Secure Income for All”, which explores the principle of the state providing a secure minimum income, with a more in-depth examination of universal basic income.
As many Members have said, the current situation with covid has exposed pre-existing vulnerabilities and shortcomings in the welfare and social security system. That system is an essential public service, like the national health service, and it should be funded properly and designed to support us all in times of need. Instead, it is our view that the Government have eroded the social safety net over the past decade, with brutal cuts and poverty-inducing policies such as the benefit sanctions regime, the benefit cap, the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. Even with the temporary £20-a-week increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which the UK Government have called generous, people who are out of work are £1,000 a year worse off today compared with 2011. We want that £20-a-week increase to be made permanent, and it is disappointing that the UK Government have refused the right to statutory sick pay to all those told to self-isolate as part of contact tracing.
If we look at the figures on statutory sick pay, the UK Government’s current rate is £94.25 a week, compared with £266 a week in Ireland and £287 a week in countries such as Germany and Austria. The UK Government have the second-lowest rate in the European Union for statutory sick pay. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members have said, during the covid period, people whom we would consider to have had a comfortable lifestyle before the pandemic no longer have such a lifestyle, which is one reason why a universal basic income could and should be a solution.
It is indefensible for the Government to obstruct potential solutions to poverty such as basic income pilots. As mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), there was a call by many political parties for an emergency basic payment to be put in place, to go in people’s pockets and support families during the covid crisis. An emergency basic payment would not be a universal basic income, but would go some way towards ensuring that people had a secure income. That is something which we very much believe the Government need to look at. The 3 million who have been excluded have been referred to in this debate. The Government need to consider an emergency payment going to everyone, particularly as local and regional lockdowns are put in place across these islands.
We certainly encourage a universal basic income. We want to encourage the Department for Work and Pensions to engage with all the devolved Administrations and any local authorities that want to put a basic income pilot in place, wherever they are in these islands. We believe the time has come for that to happen.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and others for securing the debate. We have heard strong contributions from Members who have critiqued the existing social security system and shown how its weaknesses have been exposed during the pandemic. That is absolutely right, for reasons that I will come on to, but we have heard not only about the pandemic, but about a recognition that the current social security system has a number of fundamental problems.
We have rehearsed the problems with the universal credit system on many occasions in the past and will no doubt do so again, 10 years on. Many problems have arisen from the fact that many people have been excluded from receiving help and the restrictions that apply, ranging from the five-week wait to the benefit cap and many other problems.
It is also true that there is a very long-term and fundamental issue with social security that those who support versions of universal basic income recognise. No system stands still. The world has changed fundamentally, particularly the world of work and the extent to which we are increasingly in a world of flexible employment, income volatility and fundamental demographic change.
Even the principles that Beveridge set out as the basis of the post-war social security system, starting with the concept of a flat-rate system, soon had to change as the world changed—as women went into the workplace and different pockets of disability emerged. The interaction between those at work and the nature of the jobs they were doing also changed and increasingly became a system that topped up the basic, flat-rate insurance-based systems, so we have ended up with a complex hybrid.
It is also true—I will come on to this in a minute—that whatever system we end up with will have to accommodate a variety of different approaches. Members have stressed this morning, and I agree, that if we want to build an argument for a form of universal basic income, the Government have done a lot of the work for us by introducing a system that has embraced conditionality and sanctions with vigour in recent years. If we want to convince people of the merits of a basic income, we could not do much better, given that the DWP seeks to micromanage so much of people’s lives, whether they are out of work or in work conditionality, where interaction with job centres often feels like an obstacle course of booby-traps designed to trigger sanctions. Those sanctions are wildly disproportionate including, until last year, cutting people off without support for up to three years. The social outcomes of all those policies include what many refer to as the soaring numbers of people whose destitution is such that they are dependent on food banks.
I do not want to cover all the points that have been made, but I will refer to two areas where the basic income argument is particularly relevant. The first is income volatility and the ability of the social security system to deal effectively with the fluctuations in income that have become characteristic of the labour market. Again, the problem is not new but, as self-employment, sometimes very dubious forms of self-employment, the gig economy and zero-hours contracts have become more prevalent, it is particularly pertinent.
The ability of the social security system to react in a timely manner to sudden drops in income is stretched to the limit. Despite the use of realtime information from the tax system, the monthly cycle of universal credit payments does not correspond to real-life volatility in many household incomes, as John Hills of the London School of Economics has certainly shown. There is a strong case for mitigating that volatility through payments that do not respond to changes in income, which is precisely what child benefit—the nearest thing we have to an element of basic income—does. The stability of child benefit has been shown to be one of the most valued components of the social security system. Whatever happens to earnings from other benefits, child benefit can always be counted on.
The second point concerns the basis on which benefits are awarded, whether to individuals or households. Our personal taxation system is overwhelmingly based on individuals, but our benefits system is increasingly based on the assessment of household income. Universal credit has reinforced that disparity. It is a benefit designed around an out-of-date model of a single breadwinner and it disadvantages second earners in the household, who can find most of their earnings lost to household means-testing. We should not be comfortable about the fact that people in lower-income households face a completely different set of implicit tax rates from the better-off.
Jim Shannon
I want to underline the issue. It is not just about finance, but about health, and the physical and mental responses to that. Does the hon. Lady feel that that has to be taken into consideration when it comes to support in such a scheme?
Ms Buck
I totally accept that security is fundamental to people’s physical and mental wellbeing. That is implicit in the idea of recognising the weaknesses of the existing system and how it responds to volatility, most obviously demonstrated during a crisis such as the pandemic, but consistent over the long term.
Basic income as a fully individual entitlement could go some way towards addressing that problem, although it must be recognised that it is not a complete solution, because most of the proposals for basic income retain large parts of the existing social security system, most critically, housing benefit. Beveridge was defeated by the disparity in housing costs across the country, and that remains now—if anything, it is probably more pronounced than it was. A basic income is not the only imaginable way to improve the current situation, but the argument for it sets out the problem with great clarity.
Some contributions to the basic income debate, however, suggest that the reform could be easily implemented—“oven ready”, to coin a phrase—and that all that is necessary to deliver it is political will and progressive values. I do not want to drown the debate in figures, but it is important to get a sense of the scale of change involved in even modest basic income proposals. I will refer briefly to two important studies that address the issue of how to fund basic income. Both show incredible clarity and are from people who are sympathetic to the idea.
The first is a paper by the late Tony Atkinson, who was a towering figure in the study of inequality. The paper was published after his death in 2017. Tony Atkinson favoured what he called a participation income, which would be conditional on some form of social contribution, but not unpaid work. As those conditions do not influence the modelling, we can take the results as relevant to basic income in general. The adult participation income in his model scheme is £75 a week. Child benefit is raised to £52.60 and £89 for the first child. The scheme prioritises children, and is certainly not extravagantly generous to adults. Other social security benefits would be retained, so it is essentially a partial basic income scheme. The modelling shows that it would not eliminate poverty, but would lead to significant reductions.
How is the model funded? The personal tax allowance is abolished, so income is taxed from the first pound. The basic rate of income tax rises from 20% to 30% from the first pound of earnings, rising to 40% of gross income at £25,000 to 50% at £45,000 and 60% at £90,000 and beyond. An earned income tax discount is introduced to avoid excessive taxes on lower-income groups.
Members will appreciate that those are not trivial changes to the system of personal taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said that a basic income would require a total restructuring of the taxation system. That is not something that we can enter into lightly. The scale of what is needed to accommodate such changes is considerable. A doubling of the marginal tax rate on gross incomes of £25,000 a year would surely make even the most ardent supporter of basic income hesitate.
Any basic income scheme faces the problem that spreading payments out over the entire population will require either cuts to other expenditure programmes or increases in tax revenue. The Compass basic income model, which is widely quoted, does not offer a blueprint for immediate reform. The other scheme is intended as a policy that could be adopted immediately. Therefore, the basic income for adults and children is lower, at £60 and £40 a week respectively. To balance the books, the income tax personal allowance is abolished, as is the primary threshold for national insurance contributions, so all income is subject to tax and national insurance. A new lower rate of 15p in the pound is introduced for the first £12,000 of income to avoid successively disadvantaging the lowest earners. All other marginal rates are increased by three percentage points, so the basic rate would be 23% in England, Wales and so on. That gives an indication of what the implications would be for changes to the tax system. In both cases, marginal rates of income tax increase not just for the rich, but for middle and lower earners, and income that was never taxed before becomes liable for income tax and/or national insurance contributions.
Although I accept a number of the arguments about the positivity of changes to the social security system that give people security, we cannot dismiss the fact that we will either have to find significant additional contributions to make it work or look at how the changes to the taxation system will affect people and ensure that is part of the debate. It is worth pointing out that the pilot studies that have been conducted in other countries do not have the advantage of being able to do all this in realtime, precisely because to make a full basic income work requires social security and tax to be fully integrated as part of the model; it cannot simply be about testing some aspects of the scheme.
I welcome this debate, and I certainly do not dismiss the idea of basic income. I recognise and support the contributions made this morning. People are saying that a basic income can address long-term problems that are poorly handled by existing social security models. As Labour develops our proposals for replacing universal credit with a more generous and less stigmatising system, I hope we will rise to some of those challenges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, and all Members who contributed. I will try to address as many of the points that they raised in the time that I have.
This issue ignites passionate debate in many quarters, and I am grateful to be able to come to the House and make the Government’s position crystal clear. Throughout the pandemic, people have faced significant challenges. Many have sadly lost their job or have seen their income reduce. During these challenging times, my priority as Minister with responsibility for welfare delivery remains ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society receive the support and financial assistance that is available to them.
Thankfully, universal credit and the Government’s £9.3 billion investment in the welfare safety net has been there to catch those most affected. It has been vital to the 3 million people who have made a benefit claim since March. We have paid more than 90% of claims in full and on time, and we have got support to millions of families at an incredibly difficult period. We have targeted support, which gets to the people who need it most while maintaining responsible economic policies.
Despite the success of universal credit, some still attempt to deride the system and instead demand what they call a universal basic income, or UBI. The concept, as has been explained today, is that a standard monthly allowance is paid to all working-age adults, regardless of their circumstances. At first glance, it may appear appealingly simple, but in reality it would be a costly mess that would leave the vulnerable in society far worse off. It would disincentivise work in key industries and leave the country’s finances in ruins.
On the flip side, the universal credit system has proven that it is up to the challenge. Replacing universal credit, at potentially astronomical cost, would be of little benefit to anyone, not least those who rely on our welfare safety net the most.
I hope that my clear arguments against UBI, which I will set out today, will make it clear that the Government have no plans to adopt this policy, and for good reasons. It is not in the interests of the taxpayer or of those who rely on our welfare safety net. Rather than continuing to push the unrealistic and damaging idea of a UBI, its supporters would do well to look at the welfare safety net that we already have.
In the short time that I have left, I intend to cover three areas, if possible: cost, delivery and impact. First, I turn to cost. A 2018 report by the CSJ found that giving everyone over the age of 16 in the UK £10,000 a year would cost £500 billion. Despite those staggering sums being paid out, a UBI would be likely to leave the most vulnerable in society worse off. As soon as we think about the people who need more support from the state, the supposedly simple idea of UBI quickly starts to unravel.
Will Quince
I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the CSJ report, because I do not have it to hand.
Will Quince
The point I am making is that when we even begin to think about introducing a UBI, we see that not only would the cost be astronomical, but the Government would have to increase taxation mercilessly; that is borne out in the feasibility report by the Scottish Parliament’s own commission. Indeed, there would be increased taxation far beyond anything seen in the United Kingdom before. We would be taking thousands of pounds in taxation from hard-working people, often simply to shuffle money around in what could be a costly farce of bureaucracy, before paying it back to people in monthly UBI payments. That would be a decadence of expenditure and a blow to productivity that we can little afford in the throes of one of the most severe economic situations that we have faced.
I turn now to delivery. UBI is indeed a fantasy, in which the practicalities are rarely thought through, and if we interrogate the idea even slightly, it very quickly unravels. Delivering infrastructure schemes of this size is not easy. For all its detractors, who have been proven badly wrong in the face of the pandemic, universal credit is one of the most advanced welfare systems in the world. As with any complex IT system that delivers sweeping reform, it has taken time to implement and it has not been without challenge.
In 2017, the Work and Pensions Committee found that any UBI that attempted to support people’s additional needs would not reduce complexity, and that ultimately it was difficult to see how a UBI would substantially alleviate poverty or provide income security.
As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) rightly pointed out, other countries have already tested UBI and quickly found that the practice is as bad as the theory. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, a UBI test in Finland was abandoned as a flop after two years, with the Finnish Finance Minister saying that the case was closed for UBI. Importantly—
Will Quince
I have given way once already; if I can give way again at the end, I will.
As I was saying, the Finnish Finance Minister concluded that there must be conditionality—that is the important point—in the social security system.
This Government have done brilliant work through the pandemic to stand up and bolster services, and to get money to those who need it in all four nations of our United Kingdom. We have supported more than 9 million people through the coronavirus job retention scheme and we have accepted more than 3 million new claims for universal credit. The universal credit system has proven that it is up to the challenge, and replacing it at potentially astronomical cost would provide little benefit to anyone, not least those who rely most on our welfare safety net.
Finally, I want to discuss impact, which is the fundamental case against UBI. The welfare system is a safety net and should be there for those who need it. Unlike universal credit, UBI does not target support at those in greater need or take into account additional costs faced by many individuals, such as those with disabilities or those with childcare responsibilities. To put things into some kind of perspective, UBI would be paid, as the hon. Member for Inverclyde pointed out, to me and all the other Members in the Chamber today and across Parliament. I would much rather that it be spent on supporting those who need it. To claim, as the hon. Gentleman did, that that would simply be taken back in tax is not a valid argument, as I have set out, because that is simply shuffling money around.
The OECD has also been clear about the broader consequences. For most high-income countries, a UBI could increase poverty and negatively affect the poorest, with middle-income households most likely to gain. That is all before we start discussing real outcomes. Evidence suggests that UBI provides a disincentive to employment, and in the Finnish trial the Government have acknowledged—I repeat this, because it is important—the need for conditionality.
Chris Stephens
Surely the Finnish model demonstrated that people rejected precarious work and that employers had to increase pay and model terms and conditions. It is just not the case that the Finnish model suggested a disincentive to work.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hear the call that he and other Members across the Chamber make for a UBI pilot, but in rebuttal I say, “Show me the international evidence.” The hon. Member for Inverclyde made reference to numerous pilots that have taken place all over the world, so why does he not demonstrate what he argues for by showing what impact they had, and then showing the evidence of how those countries have gone on to implement UBI?
Will Quince
I will gladly meet the hon. Gentleman at some point in the future and look at that in further detail—but why have those countries not progressed? On the issue of the pilot, not only do we think that the concept is deeply flawed, but it is certainly not currently operable.
The Government remain wholly unconvinced of the case for UBI. We have taken steps to address the financial implications of the pandemic, and that has been possible only against the backdrop of a welfare system that has been technically capable of meeting the challenge of hugely increased demand, and that targets appropriate support for those who need it most. More than 1 million people who needed to access UC quickly have been able to receive funds within 72 hours and more than 90% of all claims have been paid in full and on time. That is a record of which I am proud. The pandemic has shown that universal credit is the right approach for the United Kingdom. It simplifies the benefits system, promotes and incentivises work, and provides targeted support to those who are most in need, in a way that is affordable to the taxpayer—challenges that UBI simply does not and cannot meet.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank everyone who has taken the time to come and speak today, and I thank the Minister for his time as well. I have rebutted most of what he said, because it is the same speech he used in the Petitions Committee, about implementation, outcomes and being too costly. I have already dealt with that here.
If anyone really wants to see how the models work—I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said on that—with all the numbers in boxes that we can add up, subtract and play all these games with, Annie Miller wrote an excellent book called “A Basic Income Handbook”, which contains many examples that can be drawn on. She also handily gives calculations to put into a spreadsheet, so that people can build their own and play with it. If the Minister wants evidence from across the world, I am not going to bring it to him. He has the staff behind him. I would have thought someone would have brought him evidence and said, “You want to have a look at that.” That is why I asked in my speech whether he had looked at any evidence from across the world. He comes up with these old canards and arguments that UBI makes people indolent and stops them working. There is no evidence anywhere to show that.
I wonder what the final straw will be that makes the Government wake up to the idea. At one point, a couple of years ago, the gig economy was coming forward, and it brought the discussion back inside the Overton window. Now it is covid-19 that is taking us down the next stage of the path. I fear that if we do nothing now, it will be covid-22, a drop in the economy, or a serious escalation of the gig economy. I am asking that we do something now before it is too late. We do not know what the final straw will be. We need to plan now, to go forward. It is wise to fasten the seatbelt before hitting the wall. The Minister believes that the financial cost is too high to justify UBI. I fear that the cost to society without a UBI will be far higher.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for two minutes.
Fiscal Support for Events Industry: Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month 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
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fiscal support for the events industry during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. There are plenty of events happening these days, but unfortunately they are not the kind of events that we want. Ever-changing political events related to the global pandemic have devastatingly disrupted our ability to take part in the more fun kind of events and our ability to mix and gather safely. Usually, the UK has a truly world-beating, year-round programme of cultural activities: music, theatre, arts and outdoor festivals, as well as conferences, ceremonies and shows—events that happen thanks to the collective efforts of a diverse, trained and skilled workforce that employs around 1 million people. Those events bring us together, inspire us and lift our spirits. Sadly, since March 2020, the cultural map of events has been all but wiped out, and those events have been held only via computer screens. This vibrant sector has been brought to its knees.
I support the need to take action to tackle the increasing spread of the virus. Balancing public health against economic damage is clearly very tricky, although there is no single step more important than controlling the virus when it comes to getting things running again properly in the events sector. Not only are professionals in the events industry keen to follow the rules, but they could help to frame future solutions. The British Events Industry Coalition has members who have expertise in planning and running safe events of all shapes and sizes. They would be delighted to lend their health and safety knowledge and industry experience to help frame future regulation. They have innovative ideas, such as a formal BEIC safety kitemark system, by means of which events could demonstrate adherence to standards, boosting public confidence and getting people back through the gates when guidance allows. I hope that the Minister will be willing to work with industry on that, and I look forward to his response.
Last month, I asked the Prime Minister what to tell constituents in successful, viable businesses whose jobs rely on live events, and he said that it was better that they “get back into work”. I am sure that they would all agree; everyone in the events industry is itching to get back to doing what they are so brilliant at doing, and to pursue careers that they worked so hard to achieve. However, I have to say that the Prime Minister’s response was somewhat puzzling, given that my constituents still cannot do what they want under the Government’s restrictions, which either prevent events from running altogether or allow them merely to limp along in a financially unviable way.
Recently, the Chancellor made it clear what the Prime Minister meant by getting back into work: that people from all walks of life should retrain. To press that message, a Government-backed poster is doing the rounds featuring a young ballet dancer and rather gloomy text, which says that her next job could be in cyber but she does not know it yet. Forget the dedication, blood, sweat and tears and years of professional training for a career in the arts, and forget following passions—get stuck behind a computer. It is a worthy job, no doubt, but is that really the message we want to send to our aspiring young talent? Having tried unsuccessfully to get clarity from the Prime Minister on what he meant by “get back into work”, I hope the Minister can perhaps shed some light on this conundrum.
For those who are not sure what to retrain to do, the UK Government provided a handy quiz to help people find a suitable new career. It is a bit like one of those personality quizzes in glossy magazines that might be found in a dentist’s waiting room, and the results are equally ridiculous. On social media, I saw a choir conductor who was not too happy when advised to consider colon hydrotherapy as an alternative career. I had a go myself, and it suggested that I could perhaps be a football referee, although taking a second job that has something to do with football is clearly not something that a serious politician would consider—except, of course, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who clearly has too much time on his hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) suggested to me yesterday that if the Prime Minister were to take the quiz, it might suggest that he retrain as a Prime Minister.
The UK Government’s response to the crisis faced by the events industry has been crass, to say the least. They showed a real lack of understanding of the value of the sector and the far-reaching consequences of letting these jobs simply vanish. These are skilled professionals in viable careers that form the backbone of the UK’s cultural and economic life. Why on earth would the Government give up on them?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my constituency, and in my council area of Ards and North Down, culture and the arts are vital. It is a core issue for the council, to promote jobs and help things go forward. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to events, whether in partnership with the National Trust or events companies, the council has a key role to play?
Owen Thompson
I absolutely agree. Local government across the islands plays a critical role in making sure events can take place, and in supporting events—particularly community events, which I will come to later.
It may be that, as some have suggested—I could never be so cruel as to do so—those in the Treasury do not actually value the arts, but they must surely respect the billions of pounds the arts bring into the coffers. If they do not understand the value of that income, perhaps they need to take the retraining website quiz themselves. Let us consider outdoor events alone. I thank the incredible volunteers at the “We Make Events” campaign for compiling the figures. Across the UK, 141.5 million people attended outdoor events in 2018, spending £39.5 billion and supporting 589,000 jobs, with a gross value added of £30.4 billion.
We are very good at running events. In these challenging times, we need to look at what we are good at, to support, encourage and protect those jobs. The great thing about this massive economic generator is that it is the opposite of London-centric. It meets the Government’s proclaimed levelling-up agenda and it provides jobs right across these isles, no more so than in my Midlothian constituency, which not only has a proud tradition of community events and gala days, but is home to many businesses and freelancers who work in the world’s most fabulous and famous global events right on our doorstep in Edinburgh.
In Scotland, prior to the pandemic, the creative industry was among the fastest growing sectors, supporting around £9 billion worth of activity in the Scottish economy. With its contribution growing by 62% from 2008 to 2017, across the UK the creative industries were growing at five times the rate of the economy as a whole, contributing £111.7 billion in gross value added, and creating jobs at three times the rate of the UK average in all parts of the country.
These businesses are not just viable; they are essential to the UK’s growth and recovery from the crisis. Culture and events are not frivolous add-ons, or optional luxuries when other more serious jobs are taken care of. They are central to our heritage, happiness and mental health—part of what it means to be a human being. This crisis has surely shown us just how valuable the arts are in creating resilient communities. Hard times have been eased by music, art and creativity, as people look for ways to come together virtually, while we cannot do it face to face.
Nobody in the sector is simply sitting back holding out for handouts. They want to work. Businesses are innovating and finding ways to adapt, and people are taking jobs wherever they can find them to survive. Performers are looking for platforms to share their talent in innovative ways, such as “Stars in their Homes”—run by a constituent of mine—in which performers take to Facebook at the weekend to bring a bit of joy into homes across the country. The fact remains, however, that all sorts of skilled professionals dependent on live events have been left in the cold with very little support: people in staging, lighting, security, audio-visual technology, sound engineers, promoters, planners, hospitality suppliers, photographers, florists, technology manufacturers—the list goes on. All of that is before we get into the associated hospitality links and benefits, but given the time constraints, that is perhaps one for another day.
The decision on what is viable seems to me utterly misguided. There are so many examples of successful businesses, such as the audio-visual technology specialists in my constituency, VisionEvents, which were operating a booming business at the top of their game internationally before covid-19 cut their legs out from under them. These are creative, self-sufficient companies doing fantastic work to adapt to virtual events, but there are limits and constraints on the income gap that can be covered virtually in the absence of live events.
There is and always will be a demand for events, but if we allow these jobs to be lost now, it will be very difficult to pick up again where we left off and we will lose the competitive advantage that the UK currently enjoys. The Minister will no doubt draw attention to the job support scheme extension, albeit limited, and the fiscal support for the arts. That is welcome; I make no bones about that. There are clearly details still to come, but the question remains whether that goes far enough to protect the industry and support those on the brink. These funds may help venues and organisations to plan and adapt, but huge networks of individuals and support services, such as those in the hire and supply sector, are making huge losses every day.
Sadly, so far the announcement does not look like it will stave off mass redundancies. Crucially, it still misses all those freelancers who fell through the gaps in the job retention and self-employed support schemes. An estimated 3 million people have been excluded, many in the arts, in jobs that do not quite fit the spreadsheets—Excel or not. Individuals who lost their income overnight could lose their home or be left to struggle in poverty if they are not given support until the sector can get back on its feet.
No doubt the Minister will point to the £1.5 billion culture recovery fund. That is essential and will be crucial for much of the infrastructure and keeping many venues alive, but a comparison with the billions that the arts generates each year really puts it into perspective. Also, it does little for boots on the ground. As the We Make Events survey that was published today shows, the vast majority in the live events sector do not benefit from the fund. I understand it is not fully allocated yet, so I hope the Government will consider extending its remit to cover the full range of the live events supply chain.
Like the furlough replacement, the fund appears to be targeted at regional lockdowns. Sadly, it will not reach many of the businesses that we have discussed today. The Chancellor famously said he will do whatever it takes, but he is falling short when it comes to the live events sector and the specific challenges that need to be addressed. I invite the Minister to commit to a meeting with industry representatives from the We Make Events campaign, which would be more than happy to work with him to find a solution to help the industry move forward. It has set out its asks that are vital to the sector in a way that will work, and it has a realistic financial plan supported by the CBI. Its campaign, like the industry itself, is a global leader, having spread to 28 countries around the world. Are we going to let such expertise wither as other countries recognise the need for support, or can we actually recognise the benefits that the arts and culture bring to society?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this important debate. It is the second or third occasion that we have encountered each other in this forum. He raises significant issues that I will try to deal with forensically. I draw attention to the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who has responsibility for sport, heritage and tourism, which also covers the events industry. We are working with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary to deal forensically with the challenges that the hon. Member for Midlothian set out in his excellent speech.
As the hon. Gentleman powerfully highlighted, the past months have been intensely difficult for the businesses and workers in the events industry. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the challenges in his local authority area, which are mirrored across the country. Local authorities are trying to work constructively with the sector in a very difficult set of circumstances. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Chancellor both recognise the energy that the industry devoted to the pilot tests in early September to explore how individual events could be run safely. I acknowledge how frustrating it must be that, despite the success of those tests, they have been overtaken by circumstances.
The hon. Member for Midlothian mentioned the We Make Events campaign a couple of times. I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be keen to engage with that campaign, if he has not done so already. I recognise the innovative work that different sectors of the economy are doing to try to overcome the different challenges and how they affect different sectors.
Last month, in the light of rising covid-19 cases, the Prime Minister had to pause the reopening of business events, and yesterday he set out how we will further simplify and standardise local rules by introducing a three-tiered system of local covid alert levels in England. Given the challenges facing the sector, it is imperative that we fully understand the long-term impact of covid-19 upon it. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s prompts, I will not reiterate all the Government support schemes for the arts, but I will say that, as a former Arts Minister, I still communicate a lot with the arts sector. Indeed, I received a message at the weekend from Darren Henley, the chief executive of the Arts Council, and I feel passionate about the sector’s concerns. We are committed to continuing to reappraise what has happened so far. That is why the Treasury has been working intensively with employers, delivery partners, industry groups and other Departments to gain a deeper insight into the conditions that would make it financially viable for the events industry to reopen in a covid-secure way.
Some of the sector has benefited from the Government support packages to safeguard the economy during the pandemic. That includes the broader measures of deferral of VAT payments and a year-long rates holiday for eligible businesses, although I acknowledge that for some, whose rateable value falls below the threshold, that has not been something that they have been able to use. I am not presenting all these interventions as fully comprehensive for every business, and the Chancellor, as the hon. Member for Midlothian acknowledged, has said that.
Some businesses have benefited from a range of Government-backed and guaranteed loan schemes, the retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund and the discretionary grant. In addition, 94% of events venues have been able to make use of the coronavirus job retention scheme. Last month, we committed to helping viable businesses facing lower demand due to covid-19 through the new job support scheme. All small and medium-sized businesses, including thousands in the events sector, are eligible. On Friday, the Chancellor announced a further extension to that scheme, which will provide temporary help to businesses that have been legally required to close as a direct result of the covid-19 restrictions. We intend that extension to cover those directly employed by business conference venues and exhibition centres that have been unable to open as a result of the further measures to address the rising cases of covid-19 announced on 22 September.
We will be setting out more detail in due course. I recognise that it would be ideal for me to announce that now, but a lot of work is going on to clarify it. It is important that we have clarity in the communications, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very closely to ensure that that is clear and is made available as urgently as possible. Sadly, we cannot promise to save every job or every business, but I can commit that we will continue to listen to representations from across the House and monitor the impact of our economic support, and we stand ready to evolve our policies as required.
This is an extremely challenging time for a sector that I grew very close to and have great affection for, and I empathise with it very clearly and strongly in the challenges that it faces. I can assure the hon. Member for Midlothian that his representations in his very fair and balanced speech will be taken account of, and I can assure the wider audience this morning that we will do everything we can to bring clarity as soon as possible. Indeed, I shall be talking to the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for this sector, after this debate has concluded. That concludes my remarks. I hope that I have responded in some way effectively to the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made.
Question put and agreed to.
RNLI and Independent Lifeboats: Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month 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
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, to support social distancing. Please sanitise the microphones using the cleaning materials provided before you use them. Respect the one-way system in the Chamber. That means going in one door, and walking this way, and leaving by the other door. Members can speak only from the horseshoe. There is no requirement to stay after speaking, although Members may wish to do so. In an oversubscribed debate, if there are Members waiting to speak in what used to be the Public Gallery, please make way for them after you have spoken. I think that that covers it. Finally, this is quite a busy debate, with 10 or 11 additional Members down to speak. If Members stick to four minutes each, everyone will be called.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the RNLI and independent lifeboats after the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I thank you for being here. Across the United Kingdom, there are 60 independent lifeboat stations and 238 Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat stations, covering more than 19,000 miles of our coastline. Each of those stations protects and serves coastal communities and those who choose to visit our spectacular coastline. Any Member of Parliament who is fortunate enough to represent a coastal community has become well accustomed to the sight of lifeboat crews on training exercises or responding to an emergency call-out. We should all be aware of the important work that the RNLI and our independent lifeboats do, and comprehend how incredibly difficult 2020 has been for that frontline emergency service. There can be no more emotive sight than witnessing the launching of a lifeboat with its crew of volunteers responding at speed from their day jobs, and heading at pace to an emergency situation of almost unknown proportions. A single call from the coastguard operations centre puts into action months and years of training. Crews are mustered, boats are launched in record time, and victims are reached at eye-watering speed. That rapid response system, delivered by volunteers who are on call 24/7, 365 days of the year, is supported by a comprehensive lifesaving network of stations covering the whole United Kingdom.
The purpose of the debate is to recognise the challenges that covid-19 has placed before independent lifeboats and the RNLI, but also to celebrate the important and extraordinary work done by our lifeboat crews across the country. I have a number of suggestions for the Government, and for Members of Parliament, and I hope that we shall be able to build on today’s debate to give further support, and act to ensure that our lifesaving coastal coverage is never compromised.
I should probably start by highlighting the differences between the RNLI and our independent lifeboats. As we all know, the RNLI is a long-standing organisation founded in 1824 by Sir William Hillary. Its establishment has led to the saving of more than 143,000 lives, the creation of an international arm that seeks to prevent drowning, and the setting up of 238 lifeboat stations comprising 445 lifeboats, including 164 all-weather lifeboats, 274 inshore lifeboats, and seven hovercraft. According to its latest statistics, in 2020, up to July, the RNLI had launched its lifeboat crews 3,143 times—equivalent to 16 times a day—saved 95 lives and assisted 584 people at sea.
Remarkably, those results come at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. The RNLI, as a charitable body, is reliant on donations from members of the public, and generous legacies. In 2019, it raised £52.4 million through donations, and £126.5 million through legacies, while it has an expenditure of £181.5 million. However, the RNLI expects a 20% decline in annual income by the end of 2020. As a result of covid, fundraising activities have been restricted. RNLI shops have been closed, and the legacies that make a significant proportion of its budget are expected to decline. Alongside that, there has been a significant fall in expenditure—17%—with the temporary closure of the RNLI college, and reduced lifeguard cover on beaches because of a shorter season. Thirty per cent. of RNLI staff have been put on furlough or other wage subsidy schemes, and there has been a halt to building development, and a pause in boat construction. The RNLI has, as an organisation, been able to build up healthy reserves over the years. While it is fiercely independent without Government funding, I would like to make it clear that the purpose of this debate is not to change any part of the RNLI’s funding structure. My concern is not the provision of the services that the RNLI is able to roll out this year, but what will be the impact of 2020 in 2021, and what lessons we have learned from this period over 2020. Expenditure will have to rise again, as training, infrastructure development and new equipment purchases cannot be put off indefinitely. Ensuring that the RNLI continues to benefit from strong public support will be essential in maintaining those services.
The Government can play their part. By bringing the RNLI into the fold and upgrading the channels of communication, we can improve its ability to respond rapidly to situations. I propose that the RNLI be included in the fold with the four paid emergency services regarding the level of information and communication it receives. That information and communication must come before policy implementation. An example over the summer could not be more clearcut: the RNLI came under sustained attack by the media for not being able to provide 100% lifeguard coverage on our beaches. The Government were at fault, because they failed to give significant advance warning to the RNLI about changes to lockdown measures. The RNLI was not at fault, and responded in an extraordinary way. Fortunately for all of us, its response ensured that 177 beaches had lifeguard coverage: a remarkable achievement that shows not only the RNLI’s resilience but its flexibility in responding at times of crisis.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a most excellent speech, and will know that my home coastal community of Eastbourne has one of the oldest and busiest stations in the United Kingdom. Does he share my dismay that, when the RNLI was challenged over the summer period in maintaining that secure presence on the beaches and out at sea, it came in for criticism for picking up those who had become stranded or distressed in small boats? The RNLI has a policy of preservation of life at sea. We would want it to be recognised as the hero that it is, and in no way come in for any public criticism for its work in that area.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend says it better than I could, and I will only say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. Perhaps in the near future I can come on a visit to her lifeboat station. Excluding an emergency service from information that is likely to increase the demand on its services is not only inexplicable, it is dangerous to members of the British public. Before I come on to independent lifeboats, it is particularly welcome to hear that the RNLI recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. After hundreds of years of working together, that official step formally affirms the collective aspiration to save lives at sea, and emphasises the dedication and determination to provide the UK and its people with another century of coastal coverage.
This year has seen an incredible rise in domestic tourism. My own constituency has never felt better. The town of Salcombe in my constituency saw a turnover of 35,000 people per week, and the figure for Dartmouth was only slightly lower. The dramatic increase in coastline visitors undoubtedly heaps pressure and demand on our independent lifeboats and the RNLI. The whole House will agree with me that they have responded in a manner that is a credit to their professionalism, training and structure. Our independent lifeboats are derived from the RNLI and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As the RNLI and the MCA have changed their structures, communities have often stepped forward and maintained their lifeboat stations and crews as independent, self-funding entities. My own constituency is home to the Hope Cove Life Boat, one of the UK’s 60 independent lifeboats. I joined it this summer to discuss the impact of covid on its operations, and committed to holding a Westminster Hall debate. I am delighted to be able to deliver on that promise. That said, I am now acutely aware of the challenges faced by our independent lifeboats: the lack of recognition for lifeboats independent from the RNLI, organisational issues, lower levels of funding with the phasing-out of the Government’s grant scheme and, of course, the impact of covid. I will address each of those points. Identity is key, and identity challenges are just that: challenging. Our independent lifeboats have great difficulty stepping out of the shadow of the RNLI. More often than not, those who donate to the RNLI think they are contributing to all lifeboat stations across the United Kingdom. This is not the case. Today’s debate is, I hope, the first in many steps in helping to raise awareness about our independent lifeboat stations and to inform members of the public about the difference between independent lifeboats and the RNLI.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) held an event in Parliament a few years ago that was attended by many members of the independent lifeboat community. I understand that at that meeting proposals for an independent lifeboat association were raised. I would like to build on this idea, but rather than create another bureaucratic body that ties down hard-working volunteers, I would respectfully ask that each Member of Parliament whose constituency is home to an independent lifeboat meets me and other representatives from independent lifeboats, to discuss how we might ably and effectively embolden the voice of our independent lifeboats.
Such an association might initially just record the data of each station from the operating expense to the capital expense cost, from budget submission to call-out information and response times. From there, the information could be collated, documented and centralised, to create a clearer picture of the work done by our incredible independent lifeboats.
That association—which, for brevity’s sake, we shall call the ILA—would create an informal organisational structure around independent lifeboats and help to ensure that their voice is heard by the UK Government and members of the public. We could go one step further and encourage the nomination of a representative from one of the 60 independent lifeboats, so as to be able to educate, inform and engage members of the public and Members of Parliament. Such a representation could then represent all independent lifeboats on the UK search and rescue body, rather than the current system where the representation of independent lifeboats is made through the RNLI. I hope everyone is keeping up with this.
I hope the Minister will consider supporting these proposals. I am conscious of the time and I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to this debate. I have two quick final points. First, we have all recognised that fundraising efforts have been significantly curtailed due to covid-19, and for small, independent lifeboats fundraising is a lifeline, year on year. Coupled with the expensive cost of personal protective equipment, which has to be more durable at sea, they have suffered huge impacts on their budgets.
I wrote to the Minister on this matter over the summer, with a great deal of support from hon. Members attending this debate. I thank him for his response. The letter raised my concern around PPE costs for independent lifeboats and the RNLI. The RNLI is not calling for any form of reimbursement, but many of the independent lifeboat stations are. I ask the Minister to look again at that letter and to set up a fund that can be made available to independent lifeboat stations, so that they can recoup their costs around PPE. A temporary fund would not only be a significant step in the right direction but would be widely welcomed.
Secondly, the rescue boat grant scheme was set up in 2014 as a five-year scheme of £5 million. The last phase of bidding ended last year. If my information is correct—or my spies are correct—I understand there is a possibility that the scheme could be reintroduced. I hope the Minister will recognise, given the attendance today, that our lifeboat stations are of significant importance to many hon. Members, and reintroducing that rescue boat grant scheme would be welcomed on both sides of the House and across the country. Groups such as the Severn Area Rescue Association have told me that another five years of that grant would provide the breathing space for independent lifeboats to recover from 2020 and plan long into the future.
Of course, the work of independent lifeboat stations and the RNLI would not be possible without the extraordinary help of the National Coastwatch Institution. With 57 stations and over 2,500 watchkeepers, it works intimately with lifeboat stations to maintain a watchful eye across our coastline. If any Member of Parliament finds themselves walking along the south west coastal path, as I did this summer, I urge them to visit Prawle Point Coastguard station. Not only will they be greeted by a magnificent view, but they will see the extraordinary work done by the NCI. I hope that any decision made today and in the future will consider how integral these networks are and why we need to maintain them.
I have spoken at length about the value of the RNLI and our independent lifeboats. I hope the Minister will recognise the necessity of ensuring clear channels of communication with the RNLI and to bring it into the fold with the four other paid emergency services. As for the independent lifeboats, there is a great deal of work that we can do as Members of Parliament. The Government should support our steps to create this new ILA, renew the rescue boat grant scheme and, of course, cover the costs of PPE.
As one Twitter user said to me in response to Parliament’s digital engagement on this topic, we should always support those who risk their lives to save others. I am in awe of the volunteers who brave the harshest elements to rescue those who find themselves in trouble at sea. These key-sector workers need our support, our applause and our commitment. I hope this will be the first of many debates, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before we continue the debate, I will say two things. First, if the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) wants to take a seat in the horseshoe, she is more than welcome. Secondly, 11 Members are due to speak before the summing up, which will begin at 3.30 pm, so if everyone could speak for just shy of four minutes, everything will be perfect.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate. We are all probably going to agree; this is fairly uncontroversial. However, I will highlight a number of points.
In Northern Ireland, every bit of politics is local. We have the largest inland waterway in the United Kingdom, Lough Neagh, and Lough Neagh Rescue, an independent lifeboat service, which does a fantastic job. We also have Foyle Search and Rescue and Lagan Search and Rescue, both of which are independent. We really do rely heavily upon them. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would usually be here, so it would be remiss of me not to mention something relating to Strangford on his behalf: we also have Portaferry lifeboat station, an RNLI service that does a fantastic job.
This year has been extremely difficult. Many of the events that would have been organised to raise funds for these services, including on-street collections, could not take place. Their finances are critical at the present time. Some of them really are finding it difficult to respond. I put on the record my thanks to those who have donated and have made a sacrifice for them. Mention has been made of a 20% reduction within the RNLI, but some of the independents are seeing an even greater reduction in the funding that they have been able to get. These men and women put their lives at risk to respond; when everybody else wants to get inside the house, they go out to sea. The Northern Ireland fishing industry regularly requires the use of the lifeboat service and puts on the record its thanks to those who put their lives on the line to save fishermen.
We deal with what I call our 999 response in very different ways. People lift the phone whenever they have a fire and they know that the fire service will respond with no thought about what is happening—they know that the fire service will be there. We should put the RNLI and those independents on the same platform as the fire service. Let us be truthful: they respond to the need to save life. An island nation surrounded by sea, this summer has been probably very typical of what is happening. Many people did not go away but bought pieces of equipment, whether a bodyboard or surfboard, jet skis or whatever, and used our own local resources rather than going abroad. Unfortunately, many of those people came into difficulties, and the coastguard, the RNLI and our independent life services were the people they called upon to help. On many occasions, they have not been able to recover somebody and have had to go back the next day, giving of their time voluntarily to do so.
I support totally what has been put forward here this afternoon, and I hope that we can achieve some sustainable future funding for our emergency services at sea.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
As I said earlier in an intervention, Eastbourne has one of the oldest lifeboat stations in the United Kingdom. In fact, it was established in 1822, and the very first boat was donated by the MP “Mad Jack”. So began its story, and over the last 200 years, 700 lives have been saved by the local lifeboat. As I am sure other Members will also say, those saved include holidaymakers, visitors and would-be paddlers, kayakers and sailors. Sadly, our RNLI station in Eastbourne also performs a service that is perhaps unique to our area—recovery at the foot of Beachy Head. What our crew experience is truly challenging, and their bravery and fortitude are quite incredible.
Indeed, the Eastbourne crewmen must be made of something extraordinary, because each year their service to our town and its visitors is celebrated by the Salvation Army. The relationship between the two might seem curious, but it extends back many years in our local history, to a time when brave crewmen stepped up to support the bandsmen, who were under attack by local people for having the temerity to play their music on a Sunday. Ever since, that relationship has been remembered, and the gratitude the whole town feels for our crewmen is expressed by the Salvation Army in the very important services that take place. On those occasions, we hear of the lives saved, the rescue attempts made and the generosity of local people.
However, many of my constituents and those of other Members will be surprised that 94% of the service provided by the RNLI is powered by the public, and in all sorts of ways. That is something that we would not want to change or challenge, because there is something truly of value in that giving, over and above pounds and pence. It says, “We support you, we value you and we have regard for the work you do.” The RNLI crews are high-profile and vital.
Although lockdown meant that the seas were quieter than before, it was still generally business as usual. In the aftermath, the issues around being covid-secure have been hugely challenging. However, that challenge has been met. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) in his championing of those who save lives at sea, and I put on record my own gratitude and that of everyone in my town for the work of the Eastbourne RNLI.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Hosie. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate and on the positive suggestions he put forward.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is a largely landlocked constituency, apart from one small enclave along the lower Tywi and Gwendraeth estuaries, encompassing the villages of Ferryside and Llansaint. It is an area of outstanding beauty. I used to visit it often as a child; my parents used to take me to the other side of the Tywi, to Llansteffan. Every time I go down to that part of the world, it takes my breath away.
Ferryside is an incredibly close-knit community, and at the heart of the community is the independent lifeboat, which has served the Tywi, Taff and Gwendraeth estuaries, and Carmarthen bay, since 1835. At the start, until the inter-war period, the lifeboat’s main area of business was commercial shipping associated with the port of Carmarthen. Captains would say that entering the bay area—and leaving it—was by far the most treacherous part of the journey.
Today, the Ferryside lifeboat is an integral part of the Saint John Cymru marine division, and call-outs relate mostly to leisure activity in the area. In May 2019, I had the pleasure of launching the new Llansteffan ferry, and I am proud to say that it is probably the safest ferry journey in the British isles, because of the lifeboat in Ferryside.
Carmarthen bay is of course part of the Bristol channel, which has the second largest tidal rise and fall in the world. That gives an indication of the challenging environment that the crew operate in and of the dangers that they face. The lifeboat offers a 24/7 service and is wholly manned by local people working closely with the coastguard. Considering that it is a voluntary service, it is absolutely incredible that their average launch time is only eight minutes.
I have had the honour and privilege of working with the team since my election, and I am always impressed by the dedication and commitment of everybody involved with the lifeboat. Soon after getting elected in 2010, I was offered the opportunity to experience a trip on the new lifeboat. It was a perfectly calm day, so I had absolutely no anxiety when I was donning my kit and taking my place on the boat. It was not long, however, before the water got very choppy out in the bay, and we were speeding among white horses in a new boat powered by two Suzuki 90 hp engines.
Exhilarating would certainly be one word to explain the experience, but on looking at my pale complexion, I think the crew decided quickly to return to the safer and calmer waters of the Tywi river and to head upstream, which was a much more pleasurable experience. The benign—or relatively benign—conditions that day gave me an indication and appreciation of the dangers faced by the lifeboat crew, who not only race towards danger in far worse conditions, but perform search-and-rescue operations in extremely hostile environments.
As the lifeboat is independent, the crew are wholly reliant on their own funding activity. One of the consequences of the pandemic, as has been mentioned in the debate, has been the reduced income faced by search-and-rescue operations. Last year, the lifeboat in Ferryside raised more than £110,000, mostly as a result of substantial grants from the Charities Aid Foundation and the Department for Transport. The lifeboat was also able to raise substantial sums from local fundraising activity. So far this year, I am informed, they have been able to raise only £3,000.
The incredible fall in income is clearly not sustainable. My key ask of the British Government in this debate is that they recognise the importance of the rescue boat grant fund, under which they have successfully issued about £6 million to lifeboats such as Ferryside since the scheme was set up in 2014. It is regrettable that there has been no grant for this financial year. Were the Minister to get to his feet to say that the grant would be available next year, I am sure that that would go a long way to bringing a smile to all our great lifeboats across the British isles.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I, too, commend the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this debate and for the way in which he constructed his opening remarks, and I think his views will be shared across the Chamber.
Like many other Members, I represent a coastal community and a constituency where people have for generations gone to sea for work, secure in the knowledge that, should anything ever happen to them, they would be supported by independent lifeboats or the RNLI. For close to 200 years, crews have gone out and put their lives at risk to protect and save others who come into unfortunate situations.
RNLI Buckie in my constituency is a station that I have visited on many occasions in my time as an elected representative. I will use today’s debate, if I may, to make some remarks about Adam Robertson, who died suddenly just days before his 70th birthday. Adam was an integral part of the Buckie RNLI station and its operations for more than 30 years. As with many RNLI or independent lifeboat volunteers, Adam’s professional life was not at sea, but on the land. For 30 years, he had a career in building control with Moray Council. When I was a councillor for a decade, I often met Adam in the corridors of council headquarters. We would stop to have a blether, and he was always well informed, but also generous with his time. He was someone I respected a lot.
Adam initially became involved with the RNLI at Buckie when he helped to organise its annual gala days as part of its fundraising efforts. He rose through the ranks to become responsible for ensuring that the Buckie lifeboat was always ready to go to sea and for arranging ambulance support on land when it was required. He was a genuine stalwart of the RNLI and the local community for decades. He was also an officer with the Boys’ Brigade, and for many years he helped to organise the annual fireworks display in Portgordon, which draws thousands of people to the coastal village every year. As a councillor, an MSP and an MP, I always helped with the stewarding at Portgordon fireworks, and every year Adam was there to do the security briefing to ensure that everyone knew where they had to go and what they had to do. He did that in a purposeful and powerful, but always respectful, manner. Although we will not be having Portgordon fireworks this year, when we meet again we will remember Adam and all the help he gave that organisation and many others throughout his near 70 years.
Adam’s wife said:
“He was a family man who would do anything for anyone, his love for the community was exactly the same.”
That is what the RNLI and our independent lifeboats are all about at heart. Groups like the Buckie lifeboat team are filled with community volunteers who sacrifice their time to help others. We thank them for their dedication and the work that they do.
I also want to mention the Moray Inshore Rescue Organisation, based at Findhorn, which is an independent lifeboat organisation that does so much. We are indebted in Moray for the work that our independent lifeboat and the RNLI do day in, day out. They work both at sea and on land, educating our young people about the dangers and the safety that they need to bear in mind. Their community work right the way through our towns and villages is something that we all respect and congratulate them on, and it is something we can all get behind.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to our independent lifeboats and the RNLI and for allowing me to put on record my thanks to and admiration of Adam Robertson for everything he did for Buckie RNLI for more than 30 years.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Given that a few speakers on the call list are not here, I am pleased to say that the remaining speakers can now take five minutes.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to speak in a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is a doughty champion for his constituency, as we have seen this afternoon. I welcome this debate.
I want briefly to raise awareness of Hamble independent lifeboat station in my constituency. Like lifeboat stations in all coastal constituencies, it provides a vital service to constituents. It celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2018. It is based on the river Hamble, which has some of the most difficult navigational circumstances, due to the tides and channels. It serves a major yachting area and the entrance of the UK’s busiest waterway—Southampton Water and the Solent.
In 2019, the RNLI saved 220 lives and aided an average of 26 people a day. My local crew aided people in 100 incidents last year. On average, Hamble has three times more lifeboat launches than any other lifeboat station in the UK. We saw the good work that it does in August when, unfortunately, Emily Lewis, who was 15 years old, suffered a tragic boating accident in the Solent. Our heartfelt condolences should be sent to her family.
I pay tribute to the work that independent lifeboat stations and the RNLI do across the UK voluntarily on behalf of our communities and residents. I want to make two brief points—you will be glad to hear, Mr Hosie, that I will not take up the full five minutes. It is concerning that, in the current pandemic, independent lifeboat stations are facing a triple whammy of difficulty. As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned, fundraising efforts have been hampered by the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, the RNLI has seen a 20% reduction in its income, but independent lifeboat stations have seen much more of a reduction than the RNLI. Hamble lifeboat station is no different: its fundraising efforts for most of 2020 have been completely hampered, and its income has reduced.
That has been exacerbated by the Government’s stopping of the inshore grant and by a lack of clarity about the rescue boat grant fund, which they have been asked to continue and reintroduce next year. The amount of money given to independent lifeboat stations across the country was not enough to help them cope with the impact of the pandemic on their operations. Operations have had to continue during the past year, but with generally reduced income. With the same number of incidents happening on the Solent and across the UK, the RNLI and independent lifeboat stations have had to deal with an awful lot. The Government have rightly put their hands in their pockets to help the emergency services, but more needs to be done to assist independent lifeboat stations across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned PPE. It is not desirable that the associated costs—especially high at the beginning of the pandemic—have not been covered by the Government. I therefore have two main asks. First, will the Minister work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to come to an arrangement whereby equipment can be provided by local authorities, but claimed back as an additional cost due to covid, as we have seen in other areas of the UK, where local authorities can reclaim from central Government any extra expenditure they have faced owing to the pandemic? Will the Minister, as other hon. Members have asked, also accept that the grant my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned needs to be reintroduced?
On both sides of the House today we have heard examples of how lifeboat stations work tirelessly for our communities and our residents on a voluntary basis. Given what we have heard and what we will hear across the House, the time has come to reward such selflessness and bravery with a little more help as we face the pandemic going forward.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). Earlier this summer, two young boys were caught out by the surf on the coast of Hastings. They were carried several hundred metres out to sea, and one of them could not swim. It could easily have turned into a tragedy if not for two brave young men who were on lifeguard duty that day: Oliver Veness and James Blything. They acted swiftly, got the boys back to shore and saved their lives. Oliver’s and James’s actions were nothing short of heroic.
In our everyday lives, such heroism might be rare, but, for those serving in the RNLI, heroism is an everyday occurrence. This past year, it is estimated that almost 8,000 lives have been saved by RNLI boats and lifeguards. Likewise, it is important to pay tribute to independent lifeboats. Recently I visited the crew and volunteers at the Pett Level independent rescue boat, where the brave men and women risk their lives to save those in distress at sea in the Pett area. They rely completely on fundraising and donations to support their rescue efforts, and they rely on volunteers to man their boats. That vital utility is provided to residents at no cost because of the generosity of the public and the bravery of volunteers.
The RNLI and independent boats have kept the British public safe for centuries, and now they need our help. As with many charities, the coronavirus pandemic has hampered their ability to fundraise, and they have struggled to gain access to Government grants. These British institutions need easier access to different kinds of support in order to—no pun intended—stay afloat. However, that support cannot come at the cost of their independence. I am a strong believer that decision making should be in the hands of the most qualified, and the most qualified people to make decisions about rescue at sea are the people who have been doing it for almost 200 years.
Accessing Government funding might risk decision calls being made from Whitehall rather than locally, and that would be a loss not just for the lifeboats, but for the people of this country. Any support the Government provide to the lifeboat services must protect the independence of the crews, who are in the business of saving lives.
If someone is in distress at sea, someone will come to save them no matter their background, income or station in life. The fact that that person will often be a volunteer is further testament to the heroic spirit that has pushed forward the lifeboats for centuries and represents some of the best of this country. We need to protect this institution from not just the financial hardship wrought by the pandemic, but any force that wishes to challenge its independence. At the very least, we owe those heroes that. For those reasons, I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is putting forward today.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, in my first speech in Westminster Hall. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for securing this debate and for making his case so eloquently. It is a useful opportunity for us all to pay tribute to our local lifeboat stations, including my local RNLI station in Redcar, which does such an amazing job in the most difficult of circumstances. I also wish to extend my congratulations to Redcar’s Bob O’Neill, who today has received his 50 years’ service award from the RNLI—an incredible achievement.
As has been said, there is no doubt that fundraising has been completely curtailed this year. The annual Redcar lifeboat fundraising day usually raises about £4,000. This year, just £600 was raised through a virtual event held online. I commend Redcar RNLI for that £600, because it is not easy to raise money online only. That was an incredible achievement. However, it does not take a mathematician to realise that £600 is a long way from £4,000. On top of that, a lot of fundraising comes through the Redcar lifeboat ladies guild, and, unfortunately, most of the women in the guild are in the vulnerable category and have been shielding throughout the pandemic, so they have also been unable to raise money as they usually would.
The annual cost of running my local lifeboat station, which goes up and down depending on the number of shouts, is in the order of £50,000, excluding any out-of-the-ordinary maintenance that might have to be done to some of the equipment. We can, therefore, begin to see the problems that may arise if the lifeboat station is unable to fundraise in its usual way.
Nationally, the RNLI faces a predicted shortfall of between £20 million and £45 million this year. That is unsustainable for any organisation, not least a charity such as the RNLI. I want to be clear that I do not support any form of nationalisation of the RNLI, and I am glad that no one else present does, either. It is in troubled waters, and in those circumstances we do not need a new captain; we need a lifeboat. That is what I think we should be aiming to provide: a helping hand at this difficult time, whether requested or not. Personnel at the Redcar lifeboat station tell me that they are incredibly proud of their history as a charity that is funded by the community to support the community. Last week marked a birthday celebration, it being 218 years since the first launch of a lifeboat in Redcar. The Redcar lifeboats predate the RNLI by about 20 years and we are home to the oldest lifeboat in the UK, the Zetland, which successfully completed its first rescue in December 1802, saving 15 souls.
We are incredibly proud of the Redcar lifeboats. As I have said, the cost of running our station is in the order of £50,000, which goes up and down depending on the number of shouts. The lifeboat station personnel tell me that during the period of lockdown until now has been their busiest summer on record. This is attributed to the fact that this year was the year of the staycation—the UKation—where more and more people are staying at home and enjoying the sun on the beaches in the UK rather than abroad.
Another, much more harrowing aspect is the mental health crisis we face. A growing number of people are choosing to end their lives at sea due to mental ill health. We need to have an honest conversation—perhaps not in this debate—about the obvious link between the mental health crisis and covid-19. We need to be realistic about the risks to mental health of lockdown, in the same way as we are realistic about the risks to physical health of allowing the virus to spread. That, however, is for another debate.
To finish, I would like to say a big thank you to the Redcar lifeboat station for the tireless dedication of its volunteers, who have gone through all the same personal difficulties as the rest of us, arguably more so as a result of seeing the effects of potential loss of life at sea. Each one of those volunteers gets the shout and they respond without hesitation. No matter what they are going through at that particular time, they put themselves at risk to serve others. They deserve our thanks, they deserve our praise, and most of all they deserve our support.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I will not take up too much time. I am just going to thank the many lifeboat crews we have on the Island and then reiterate some of the concerns, which I am sure the Minister is listening to. I congratulate him on his reasonably new role, which is incredibly well deserved.
The Island is in part defined by our coastline. Indeed, the south-west of the Isle of Wight was a centre for shipwrecks. There were nearly 50 shipwrecks from the late 18th century until the early 20th century, so we were something of a ship graveyard. Many ships sank off the south-west of the Isle of Wight, sadly leading to loss of life, and lifeboats were developed on the south-west of the Island from the 1840s and 1850s onwards to address the situation. A great-great-uncle was the coxswain of the Brooke lifeboat well over a century ago, and I am very proud of that connection to the lifeboats.
For the work they have done this summer, I thank Sandown & Shanklin Independent Lifeboat and Freshwater Independent Lifeboat; the RNLI lifeboats in Cowes, Yarmouth and Bembridge; the coastguard rescue teams in Needles, Bembridge and Ventnor; and Ryde Inshore Rescue. There is a common-sense theme: a lot of people are engaged in helping sailors, swimmers and others who get into trouble at sea, and we on the Island are very grateful to them. Feedback from Sandown & Shanklin Independent Lifeboat indicates that it was one of the busiest summers on record—possibly the busiest, as many people flocked to the beaches from June onwards. People got out and about while the covid pandemic was at its height, and the Island was absolutely packed from August onwards. That meant that many people were out on the water and the lifeboats were busier than ever.
Combined with that busier-than-ever period, significant fundraising has been impossible this year, so I hope very much that the Minister will take on board what I and other right hon. and hon. Members have said about the need to provide some slight additional support. That could mean reintroducing the rescue boat grant fund, which was an exceptionally good idea brought in by a previous Government in 2014. Is there any way in which we can bring that back into being, or at least provide funding for the protective equipment that both the independent and the RNLI lifeboats have had to buy? Most of the independent lifeboats in my constituency have funding for the year ahead, but, depending on what happens next year, they might start to get nervous about their cash flow and their ability to raise funds in order to continue doing the incredibly important work to which we have all paid tribute.
The Island is at the centre of global sailing and it has many beaches. We know of the vulnerabilities faced by people at sea, and everyone involved in rescuing them is very important to my constituency.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for having brought such an important debate to Westminster Hall. Much like everybody else, I will begin by paying tribute to the volunteers, and particularly to the six lifeboat stations in my constituency: the RNLI crews at Wells, Sheringham, Cromer and Happisburgh, and the independent lifeboat stations in the picturesque villages of Mundesley and Sea Palling. My coastline—as most MPs will realise, because they visited my constituency for their summer recess—is a stunning 50 miles, with six blue flag beaches. To myself, who grew up there, it is the best coastline in the country—[Interruption.] We can be controversial, occasionally.
The year 2020 has been very challenging. Tried and tested lifesaving procedures have had to be adapted to take account of covid-19, and additional personal protective equipment has been required. Life-changing decisions have had to be made about whether the risks of administering CPR outweigh the risks to the crew, and personnel have had to engage in time-consuming cleansing and disinfecting routines for all equipment. There has also, as we have heard, been a rise in demand for services this year. Although a staycation culture has provided a welcome boost to the local economy, it has also meant vast increases in numbers of visitors to the coast, and a much higher number of incidents to respond to. All of this is happening in a climate where the break in regular training regimes has risked skill fade—the gradual loss of the highly practised and rehearsed mechanisms that lifeboat crews put into operation every time they launch—and at a time when traditional methods of fundraising, through shop events, normal events and face-to-face appeals, have reduced greatly, or even stopped entirely.
Carrying a pager 24/7 is a heavy responsibility and a great imposition on the everyday lives of our volunteers. That they continue to give so much of themselves, in spite of these challenges, is inspirational. They deserve all the support that we can give them.
As we have heard, the RNLI faces a shortfall in funding of about £20 million this year. Independent lifeboat stations typically have operating costs of about £30,000 to £40,000 and are in a similarly precarious position. In considering how we might help, we need to bear in mind that the RNLI and independent stations have traditionally resisted asking for or accepting Government funding. For instance, the RNLI has been self-sufficient for the entirety of its 196-year history.
Although there have been huge technological and technical advances in life saving, the business of saving lives at sea is much the same as it always was. Lifeboat organisations are cautious about accepting money from Government because they do not want their work to be influenced or adversely affected by external changes in policy, politics or funding that might put their vital work at risk. Put simply, they want the freedom to do what they do best, in the way that they know best—and it is the best. Britain’s lifeboat crews lead the world and, increasingly, are responsible for training lifesaving operations and organisations in other countries.
If we are to provide meaningful forms of financial support, we must first establish the strong principle that there are no strings attached to it and that the Government will not seek, as we have heard time and again today, to influence those organisations. We must also consider not just lifeboats, but all voluntary lifesaving organisations around the country that are in similar positions to the RNLI and independent lifeboat stations. What about mountain rescue teams, dog search and rescue, and drone piloting groups assisting with coastal and inland search? All those organisations have had to bear the additional cost of PPE, cleaning fluids and equipment, which have been a necessary part of lifesaving during covid-19. None would have been able to anticipate these costs, or build them into its fundraising plans for 2020.
Some kind of grant fund—possibly, as we have heard, the rescue boat fund—to reimburse those costs would be fair and reasonable, but only if it is open to all voluntary lifesaving organisations, recognising the fact that it is not only lifeboat crews that have had to incur this kind of expenditure.
In conclusion, we owe all our life savers an immense debt of gratitude. Not only do they save lives at sea and elsewhere, but they do so at enormous personal cost.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. Like everybody else, I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on bringing forward this debate. We call it a debate, but it is not a debate in its truest sense, because everyone here agrees on the good work that is done by the RNLI and the independent lifeboat stations.
Not for the first time, I am a bit of an oddity speaking in this debate. I am the only one who has spoken so far who does not have a coastal community, so I cannot refer to a local station that I have visited or with which I have close links. It is, however, a testament to the work of these organisations and their importance to their local communities that so many MPs have wanted to pay tribute to them and stick up for them.
A common theme of the debate has been to point out that lifeboat stations are manned by volunteers. They are the ones who put their lives at risk when others are in danger. Clearly, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said, they go to sea in conditions that make us want to shelter in our houses away from the weather. I want to put on the record my own testament to the work that these guys do.
Another common theme is fundraising and the impact that covid has had on those activities that cannot now go ahead. For the RNLI, that will leave a shortfall of up to £45 million. We have also heard that it is much harder for independents to undergo their fundraising activities. I hope that the Minister was listening. Another issue is the additional cost of PPE associated with covid. If the Government could do something about that, there would be a lot of happy MPs in this Chamber.
The hon. Member for Totnes set out the case well. Even at the outset, he spoke about the emotive sight of the launch of a lifeboat, because we know what is at stake for the crew and the people being rescued. The fact is that these people are on call 24/7, 365 days a year. The bare statistics about the RNLI show that 143,000 lives have been saved over the years. What better testament could be paid? The hon. Gentleman highlighted the organisation’s expenditure of £181.5 million, which shows how much it has to rely on volunteers to raise that money and how significant a shortfall can be. We are talking about a shortfall of up to £45 million, which is a huge percentage. I reiterate my plea to the Government to do something.
The hon. Gentleman had another key ask about bringing these organisations into the fold, in terms of communications and emergency services. That is a valid point. We all know the stories of what happened when the covid restrictions were lifted. Many hon. Members have spoken about the fact that people flocked to the beaches in huge numbers, which put a strain on the RNLI in terms of lifeguards and manual stations, and on getting the PPE in time. It is important that cognisance is taken of that.
It was good that the hon. Gentleman set out the problems of independent stations as well. The bare fact is that, unfortunately, they tend to live in the shadow of the RNLI in terms of fundraising. People sometimes mix up where their donations have gone and do not realise that the independent stations have to be funded separately. I hope the Minister will take that on board.
We heard from the hon. Member for South Antrim. As a wee aside, he is the only Member with the same name of a lifeboat station. A town in Scotland has a lifeboat station that has been there for 140 years, and it shares his surname. He highlighted that Northern Ireland has the largest inland body of water, at Lough Neagh, which is also reliant on volunteers to do the important work of rescuing people.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) said that she has one of the oldest lifeboat stations and that the original boat was donated by an MP. I think she was throwing down the gauntlet to youse guys in the Chamber. As I have a landlocked constituency, I do not feel the same pressure as everyone else.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) spoke about Ferryside independent lifeboat. He highlighted the fact that the average launch time is eight minutes, which illustrates how vital the work these guys do—the training, the preparation and getting out to sea in that time—is for saving lives. It was also interesting to hear him talk about taking a boat trip in what he thought were benign conditions, but which made him seasick and he had to turn around. That is a salutary lesson about the actual conditions in which these guys go out to sea.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) paid personal tribute to Adam Robertson, illustrating how organisations can rely and depend on certain key individuals. Someone who donated 30 years to Buckie RNLI certainly deserves to have that tribute paid to him. Obviously, my best wishes go to his family. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the work of the Moray independent inshore organisation. It is important to acknowledge that these organisations also do education and preventive work. Ideally, people would never have to be rescued, but we never quite get there, so education is certainly important.
That brings me back to another important thing that the hon. Member for Eastbourne said. She spoke about having to deal with trauma of Beachy Head. We are discussing saving lives, but these crews also have to deal with the trauma of recovering dead bodies. What they have to deal with can lead to mental health pressures and trauma, so that is another reason to pay tribute to them.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) paid tribute to Hamble station, which is having its 50th anniversary. He highlighted the effect on fundraising locally and the need for the Government to reconsider on the rescue boat fund, which other hon. Members also suggested, so I hope that the Minister will say something positive about that grant fund in summing up the debate.
We heard from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who paid tribute to Oliver and James, lifeguards who, crucially, saved two young boys who had got into difficulties. Again, that type of personal story is testament to the importance of what these guys do. Funding has become critical, and we heard the first pun of the day—stay afloat. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) was hot on her heels with a pun about troubled waters. But again, these things illustrate the fact that funding is so important. The hon. Gentleman also highlighted his local station having the busiest summer on record. A recurring theme has been that staycations and local tourism are putting additional pressures on these volunteer organisations.
We heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). There are several crews on the Island. They were too many for me to list; I could not write them down fast enough, but again, that is indicative of island life and the level of tourism on the Isle of Wight. Again, the plea was about fundraising. That was repeated by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who spoke at the end of the Back-Bench speeches and paid tribute to his six local stations. I did notice a wee bit of groaning around the room when he started to go over the top and brag about having the best coastline and how every MP will have visited his constituency. For the record, I have not visited his constituency, but I will bear it in mind as a recommendation.
As I said, this has been a debate in which everybody pretty much agrees on the importance of what these organisations do. I repeat the calls from other hon. Members for the Government to try to help out with funding, particularly for PPE issues.
To finish, I want to mention a wee story that I have picked up on. It is of a woman who has been described as a “fundraising phenomenon” for the RNLI and has been recognised in the Queen’s birthday honours. Audrey Wood, whom I do not know, from Newmachar in Aberdeenshire, was recently given a British Empire Medal after raising more than £235,000 for lifeboat stations across the north-east of Scotland following the death of her son. Sadly, Stuart “Woody” Wood was one of 16 men who died in the Flight 85N helicopter tragedy in 2009. Aberdeen RNLI’s D-class inshore lifeboat has been named “Buoy Woody – 85N” in his memory. Mrs Wood has described her fundraising efforts as
“a distraction therapy for us in this lifelong grieving journey of losing our only son”.
That brings things together in a circular way. This is somebody who, in the face of adversity and tragedy, has decided to go out and do good work for the community and try to prevent that tragedy from happening to somebody else, so I pay tribute to her. I pay tribute to all the fundraisers who work for the RNLI and independent stations. And of course I pay a massive tribute to the volunteers who staff these vital rescue craft.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
We should form a website after this—CoastalCommunitiesRUs.com. Being a Mancunian, I can say that we do not have a beach; that is the one thing that we do not have in Manchester, so I will not compete on the territory of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) about who here today has the best beach. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and it is great to be back in Westminster Hall. I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) that this is an opportunity to celebrate the work of the RNLI and independent lifeboat associations, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. What was really good was the powerful personal testimonies of people in the room today. I will point out just a few of them.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) referred to Adam and a lifetime’s dedication of work to the RNLI. He is a stalwart of the community. I bet Members know Adams in coastal communities up and down our land, and we could not do without them. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) talked about the very sad death of Emily Lewis. May I say, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, that we send our condolences to the family?
I join the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in paying tribute to Oliver and James, who saved two young boys out at sea. I think she referred to there being heroism every day, and that is true. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) on his first Westminster Hall speech, and Bob on the 50 years of his life that he has given to the RNLI. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) spoke about Stuart “Woody” Wood. It is great that the boat was named after him.
The RNLI is an institution indelibly ingrained on the psyche of the British nation, and we give thanks to all the souls who down the years have risked their lives to keep those of us in peril on the sea safe. Those brave men and women are on standby 24 hours a day, every day of the year, launching in minutes, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) said, with the equipment, skills and expertise that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the last 200 years. I pay tribute not just to the RNLI but to the independent lifeboat stations as well, as many Members have done.
The coronavirus pandemic has not prevented the operation of the continuous maritime and coastal search and rescue service that the RNLI and many independent lifeboat stations provide to HM Coastguard and to people in and around British waters. As has been pointed out, it is of great credit to the voluntary crews that they have maintained that provision even in the midst of a national lockdown this spring. Since the inception of voluntary lifeboats in the 18th century and the subsequent foundation of the RNLI in 1824, voluntary crews, and those they have rescued, have relied on voluntary donations to keep them going, as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said.
Many of us—even the landlubbers such as myself, the Minister and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who are far from the sea—are touched by the courageous actions of boat crews, although I can point out that, unlike the constituencies of the two Members I mentioned, Manchester has a ship canal, built by Daniel Adamson in 1890, and therefore has access to the Atlantic. I point that out on every occasion. In a testament to the positive impact of lifeboat crews, one of my best friends was rescued by the RNLI on a cliff as a youngster, and five decades later he is still raising money for it, even though he is a constituent of mine.
The RNLI’s 248 lifeboat stations aided more than 9,000 people last year, saving 220 lives. That is more than four lives saved every week. Lifeboat crews depend on well maintained rescue craft, equipment and facilities. Regular training is also essential. Those costs add up. Personal equipment costs £2,500 per crew member. Lifeboats vary from £50,000 to up to £2.2 million. Even an inshore rescue boat costs more than £10,000. According to the RNLI, it cost it more than £181 million to operate last year, with 94% of its income coming from donations. The RNLI tells us that this year it has received reduced income—an outlook reflected across much of the charity sector during the virus and the national lockdown.
Despite the lowered income, lifeboat crews have continued to provide an around-the-clock service throughout the pandemic. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this summer may have been one of the busiest for British lifeboat crews. That is probably linked to the greater number of “staycations” as was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and others—particularly as the country came out of lockdown. On top of that increased demand, the RNLI has spent an additional £1.3 million this year on the PPE required to follow public health guidance and maintain safety for crews, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell). Steve, my parliamentary assistant, who is a former mountain rescue operative, asked me to mention the skill of the work, particularly at Beachy Head, where it is necessary to rescue people from the cliffs. It is time-consuming work, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned.
The RNLI has made it clear that it has not sought financial support for the additional costs of the pandemic. Nor has it sought wider Government funding. I nevertheless ask the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that that truly vital service remains effective. I will end with one simple request to the Minister. Will he review voluntary lifeboat funding and ensure that those courageous crews can continue their lifesaving operations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hosie. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this debate. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) is quite right: it is very good to be back in Westminster Hall. Like him, I will not attempt to find a local coastal link to my constituency, given that it is landlocked—I would be pushing my luck with the River Thames, although I note that the RNLI has a station on the River Thames at this end of the river. This is an extremely important issue, which highlights the impact that covid-19 has had on all our frontline services.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the brave people, often volunteers, who risk their lives to save others. The RNLI is an incredible organisation. Since its foundation in 1824, its lifeboats have saved over 143,000 lives—143,000—an astonishing number that is worth repeating and celebrating. That the phrase “worse things happen at sea” has entered our national lexicon is not surprising. It is thanks to those brave individuals that the lists of those lost at sea are not far longer. Those individuals include people such as Adam Robertson from Buckie RNLI, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who said that they sacrifice their time to help others. He is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) said that she would like to see these people recognised as the heroes that they are. I agree, and I do so now.
The challenge of saving lives at sea cannot be overestimated. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) rightly said that they go into conditions from which the rest of us wish to shelter. He is quite right. Their decision to do so often comes at great personal cost. Hon. Members may be familiar with the story of the Penlee disaster, which I have always found particularly moving. The lifeboat Solomon Browne went to the aid of the vessel Union Star when it suffered engine failure in heavy seas. Both vessels were lost with all hands—16 people, including the eight volunteers of the lifeboat crew.
Many people are also surprised to learn that there are many independent lifeboats. There are 60 inshore teams around our coasts, such as the Hamble lifeboat, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) mentioned, which has had its 50th anniversary, and the Sandown and Shanklin lifeboat, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) mentioned. These teams have proud histories, stretching back in some cases even further than the RNLI itself. As a result of the very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes today, the star of independent lifeboats will shine all the brighter at the end of this debate.
Together, independent lifeboats have been launched over 23,000 times—not since last year, but just since the start of the covid-19 pandemic: 23,000 situations where lives have been at risk and were saved. Today there will undoubtedly be more. One example of an independent lifeboat charity is Hope Cove in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Hope Cove has had a lifeboat protecting the waters around Bigbury Bay since 1878, with brave local teams serving their community over many generations. Only this year, since covid-19 reached our shores, the current crew from Hope Cove has responded to no less than 23 incidents in its area, including responding to seven incidents over the late spring bank holiday where multiple persons were assisted. The crew were continuing that longstanding and proud tradition for the community they protect.
It is in large part due to the personal commitment and skill of these teams that the UK has one of the best records for water safety in the world. The founder of the RNLI, Sir William Hillary, once said:
“With courage, nothing is impossible.”
These brave individuals continue to personify the British tradition of altruism and selflessness in the face of adversity. I know that all hon. Members will join me in offering our heartfelt gratitude for their service to the nation. That they have all found a way to continue operating with the additional impact, strain and implications of coivd-19 only further increases my admiration.
The impact of the pandemic cannot be overestimated. The Government have responded with an unprecedented £330 billion of financial measures to support businesses of all kinds across all parts of our United Kingdom, including the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. Our charities are playing a crucial role in the national fight against covid-19, backed by an army of volunteers, who continue to deliver these vital key services. As hon. Members have highlighted today, the search and rescue sector has been particularly hard hit during the pandemic. Operational costs have increased, while at the same time fundraising opportunities have declined. In common with many other charities, search and rescue organisations have reduced income this year, and they will need to address and assess their operational capabilities and outputs, as our country recovers from this global crisis.
I recognise that easing lockdown measures and restrictions earlier this year also resulted in significant spikes in the number of operations, as the public flocked to the coast in places such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, as he quite rightly said. The increase in staycations has also increased pressure on our search and rescue charities, as people have chosen to holiday in the UK in places such as—but not exclusively—North Norfolk. They have also undertaken more adventurous activities outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) quite rightly pointed out the very moving story of Oliver Veness and James Blything, who saved lives this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) also made a significant point about the impact on people suffering from poor mental health. That is a factor that we should consider as well, because these charities assist those people too.
We have already initiated discussions with search and rescue charities to understand the impacts on their operations, as part of the recovery from covid-19, and we have provided assistance where we can. For instance, Her Majesty’s Coastguard, which has a close relationship with the RNLI and independent lifeboats in any event, has increased the support it provides through its search and rescue aircraft, to reduce the burden on charities such as air ambulances, and it has provided additional assistance to other emergency services.
We continue to assess the impact of the pandemic on the provision of search and rescue services. As part of this process, we have considered alternative options to provide a service to anyone who may need help. For example, HM Coastguard has instigated additional safety patrols through its coastguard rescue service, which has its own volunteers, to ensure that assistance can be provided more swiftly in high-risk areas. It has also introduced additional patrol activity, by using its helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to increase its visibility and reduce response times.
Recent formal agreements with the RNLI and Surf Life Saving Great Britain will also ensure even closer working relationships, and enable vital information about beach activities to be passed to HM Coastguard, to further improve mission planning, asset availability and asset usage. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes quite rightly made a point about information sharing. We are dealing, of course, with unprecedented circumstances, but I know that the lessons that need to be learned will be learned.
Let me turn to the additional costs of operating under pandemic conditions. I entirely recognise that all search and rescue charities have been required to assess their operations and PPE needs, and to decide how best to support their services. In some cases, as my hon. Friend so powerfully outlined, this has involved significant additional costs outside of normal operational requirements. Through the UK Search and Rescue Medical Group, we have provided advice and guidance, which is publicly available on gov.uk, to balance the provision of PPE against the risks to both rescuers and those being rescued. That guidance does not set any requirements on search and rescue services. Operational decisions, such as requirements for specific PPE or deciding whether to accept a launch request, always ultimately rest with the individual charity.
If a lifeboat charity is advised that it is unable to respond in these unprecedented times, HM Coastguard will entirely respect that decision and seek to request alternative assets. However, in recognition of the importance of the charity sector to the delivery of these frontline services, the Government announced £750 million of new funding in April this year. That announcement was accompanied by new guidance, which provided best practice advice and assistance on how services could be provided safely.
My Department has also recently provided significant financial support to the search and rescue sector, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. The rescue boat grant fund has provided nearly £6 million of funding over the past six years to assist charities of all kinds with the purchase of large capital items and everything down to and including PPE. Grants have bought nearly 100 new rescue boats and other craft, many more launch vehicles and trailers, and thousands of items of equipment, including PPE items.
A number of Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), have asked that the importance of that fund be recognised, and I can say today that the future of the fund is part of the wider review of Government spending that is currently under way. The fund was complemented with a further £4 million, which was made available to search and rescue charities to provide funding for the training of their volunteers. Those combined funding measures available to charities during the Government’s unprecedented financial package of covid-19 response measures have left the sector in a much stronger position to weather the current storm. We will of course continue to work in partnership with the RNLI and independent rescue boat charities to ensure that the impact of the pandemic on our search and rescue services can be mitigated as far as possible.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes for raising this important issue and for providing the opportunity for us to debate the additional challenges that covid-19 has introduced for lifeboats. As my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Hastings and Rye, and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) have all pointed out, when we are in trouble at sea, those services will be there for us, and the House has made it clear today that it will be there for them.
Anthony Mangnall
I do not need long to sum up, because every single word uttered by Members in this Chamber today shows the strength of feeling that we all have for the RNLI and our independent lifeboats.
I thank the Minister for his response. It is extremely reassuring to hear about the coverage from Her Majesty’s coastguard, and extremely gratifying to know that lessons will be learned and that information sharing can be developed with regards to the RNLI and how it functions alongside the emergency services.
Many of us were aware of the £750 million available for the charities. I hope that we might be able to find something tailored more specifically for the lifeboats, on the basis of the complaints that came through. It is fair to say that these are no ordinary charities; they are part of our emergency services, one way or another, and they have to have a special position as a result.
With regard to the rescue boat grant fund, I am glad that it is under review. I have a willing group of volunteers in this Chamber to push on that and to make the case to the Minister and to the Chancellor—I certainly have form on doing that.
One of the most important parts of our RNLI and independent lifeboats is the volunteers. By standing up today to speak about the need to support those vital lifeboat stations across the country, and their crews, I hope that we have the opportunity to encourage more volunteers in the years to come.
Given the words of all Members, this debate has been a wonderful opportunity to say how much we appreciate what those volunteers do for us. I heard Members calling them heroes, and telling us about them braving the elements and doing the things that none of us would do—they were undeniably right. With work on this in future, we can create a network for a steady flow of volunteers to come through to support such sectors.
I should add that two Members were unable to attend the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mrs Elphicke)—and Deal—and for East Devon (Simon Jupp). They send their apologies. They have been strong advocates in their respective communities, and I will work with them as part of the group.
As I said at the beginning, the idea of what we can do for our independent lifeboats is to create an independent lifeboat association, and that is something that we as Members of Parliament should lead on. We should not take up the time of volunteers, but engage in creating that structure so that they can come to us. We can help in the formation of such an association. In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, “I’ve got a little list”, and it has all of our names on it. I will contact Members individually about what we can do to ensure that we build this structure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the RNLI and independent lifeboats after the covid-19 outbreak.
Equality Act 2010: Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds
(4 years, 1 month 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
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ensuring that the Equality Act 2010 protects children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I raise this matter today because, in truth, I am not convinced that it does. In fact, my view is that the misapplication and misinterpretation of the Equality Act 2010 has led to the exclusion of some of our country’s poorest people. Whether by flaw of design or subsequent false interpretation, the Act does not deliver what was intended. That is not something we should shy away from just because it is difficult or because it cuts against the popular narrative on diversity. It is important. If we listened to that narrative—the one that holds sway in the media and on Twitter—we would be forgiven for believing that protected characteristics in the Act are things such as black, Asian and minority ethnic, female, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. That is how usually it is put across, even by our institutions, by businesses and even by Government Ministers and Departments on the odd occasion. In truth, that is not correct. The characteristics listed, in fact, are race, sex, sexuality, among others. In fact, a white heterosexual male has just as much protection under the Act as a black, gay female. It is equal, hence the name.
Sometimes it seems like nobody knows this. It is actually quite mad. Rather than the Equality Act 2010 existing to prevent discrimination, an awful lot of people in influential positions—even in our national institutions—seem to be under the impression that the Act and its provisions on positive action give them the right to actively discriminate in favour of certain groups. Discrimination on the basis of those characteristics is, of course, illegal, whether it has “positive” as a prefix or not, but it seems commonplace. For example, there are countless scholarships and bursaries for higher levels of study offered only to BAME students. That is not positive action, I am afraid; that is discrimination. There is a difference. Encouraging under-represented BAME students to apply for scholarships, yes; excluding all white students from a scholarship on the basis of their race should be a no. That is the very definition of discrimination, and it is even worse when, without the lens of identity politics, it is actually the disadvantaged white children who struggle most to access higher education, not BAME children. That positive discrimination favours a group that already does better statistically, and at the expense of the most under-represented. But as I have said, that is commonplace. The Act, or at least its interpretation and implementation, is fundamentally flawed.
According to research by the writer and commentator Douglas Murray, the Act has, in the main, tended to support and promote those who are already closest to their destination, rather than digging down into supporting those in genuine need, perhaps due to the lack of provision around socioeconomic circumstances. There is a socioeconomic duty in the Act, in section 1, which puts a duty on public bodies to exercise their duties in a way that is designed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. However, that section has never been enacted. I am not a legal expert and I am sure there is a reason for that: perhaps some unintended consequences that would occur if it were enacted, or perhaps a perception that it is unnecessary—a public body should already be doing that. I know that is not directly in the Minister’s brief but, following the debate, can she ask the Equalities Minister to write to me on the issue?
It seems clear that socioeconomic status or social class is, in fact, the greatest indicator of life chances, but that is not a protected characteristic nor is it enacted in section 1. I am sure that there is a reason.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a very good case, not just on the specific points he has mentioned, but on the wider principle of making sure that the Equality Act actually works. I wish to add to his list the issue of geographical disadvantage. Often, where a person is born in this country—not just the family they are born into but the geographical disadvantages—is a key factor that very often gets overlooked and does not get addressed.
Ben Bradley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A person’s access to services, for example, can be limited or decided by where they are lucky enough to be born. A key point I am making throughout this speech is that those differences in equality of opportunity exist outside of the protected characteristics enshrined in the Act and that there are other reasons people might not have that same opportunity that we should be addressing.
A lack of provision around socioeconomic equality in the Act and the perverse consequences of the misinterpretation of protected characteristics and positive action means that it can often seem like every other group in society has support and is protected by the Act apart from the most disadvantaged white children, and white boys and men in particular. Recently, UCAS statistics showed that only 9% of white boys on free school meals go to university. The second lowest was white girls on free school meals at 14%. White boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are most likely to drop out of school with no qualifications and have the lowest rate of achieving GCSEs, followed by disadvantaged white girls. In contrast, black or Asian girls have the highest chances of going to university. If those statistics were reversed, I guarantee that there would be an uproar. In BAME groups too, boys tend to do worse than girls.
Rates of grammar school entry is another area in which results differ based on ethnic background. Disadvantaged white British children enter grammar school at the lowest rate of any major ethnic group. Disadvantaged Indian pupils are four times more likely to attend, and Chinese pupils are 15 times more likely. Again, across all races and ethnicities, boys are lower in the rankings than girls.
In education at least, the constant false interpretation of the Act, which promotes positive action for BAME and female pupils, seems entirely backwards. Disadvantaged white boys are statistically faring the worst. They are under-represented at universities and in our public institutions, and their life chances are most limited because they are most likely to have no qualifications.
The popular narrative of white privilege is regularly wheeled out, and it is assumed that those poorest white children do not face discrimination on that basis, but in fact they do. If we step outside the Twitter bubble, we are faced with the stark reality that, through that kind of rhetoric, our society is ignoring what is statistically one of its most vulnerable demographics. As it happens, those lads are more likely than anyone to chuck themselves under a train, and that is not a coincidence.
It could be argued, if one were so inclined, that the Act, or at least the unfettered misapplication of it, has played a part in exacerbating this problem. I have long argued that identity politics is divisive and unhelpful, and the Act enshrines it in our law. It does not recognise the individual needs of the most disadvantaged people, and it actively supports the advancement of others through so-called positive action based not on their actual individual needs or disadvantage, and not on any actual discrimination or barriers they face as individuals, but on the basis of broad assumptions based on their physical characteristics.
The identity politics—the lumping of people into boxes, rather than considering their individual circumstances—that is enshrined in the Act is deeply troubling. We have seen it manifest itself in other ways that have become part of the popular narrative recently. But it is surely the case that privilege or hardship are not based on which of these characteristic boxes a person ticks but are down to their wider individual circumstances—things such as socioeconomic background or geography, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned. Socioeconomic status and social class are more indicative of a person’s life chances than their physical characteristics. Physical characteristics play a part, of course. Discrimination, racism, misogyny and homophobia exist, but they are one part of a more complex picture—one segment of an individual’s life experience and opportunity. We should help people based on their actual needs, not on guesswork based on flawed metrics. The interpretation and implementation of the Act is deeply flawed.
I am fed up to the back teeth with identity politics. I do not want to be stood here saying, “White kids this,” and, “White kids that.” I value all kids and their futures, and the support they get should be based on what they need, not on the colour of their skin, their gender or any other grand narrative that we concoct to make ourselves feel better. Separating black and white, gay and straight, male and female in that way is combative and unhelpful, but it sometimes feels like I have to highlight white disadvantaged kids and their plight, because otherwise they do not seem to get a look in.
If we talk generally about disadvantage, the system and our legislation—this misinterpretation of the Equality Act—always seem to bring the discussion back around to the BAME, female and other misinterpretations that we have enshrined in law. If we do not say “white kids”, the popular narrative and the system seem to leave them behind—and have done so in many cases—in favour of a fundamentally flawed diversity agenda, which is hugely frustrating and, in many ways, wrong.
In closing, I want to ask the Minister some questions. I do not know the answers, and I do not expect her to know the answers, but I hope they will be taken away for consideration. As an Education Minister, she will no doubt have some remarks about the points I have made about education, which I would welcome. The Secretary of State has been clear about his wish to support more disadvantaged white working-class boys into university, for example, if that is their aspiration, and that is very welcome.
I have some questions about the Equality Act itself, and I wonder whether the Minister can take them away and perhaps raise them with colleagues in the Government Equalities Office. First, why has the socioeconomic provision within the Act not been enacted? If it is flawed or inappropriate in its detail, how can we fix it? What protections can the Act offer to those who face barriers and discrimination based on being poor, being in care or other hardships that are not recognised in this law? Secondly, if the answer is “none”, will the Government look closely at the implications of that section of the Act and seek to amend it in a way that offers such support?
Thirdly, will the Government review the implications of amending the Act to remove or change any damaging positive action elements that go way beyond preventing discrimination and, due to the constant misinterpretation of those who claim ownership of it, appear in practice to condone positive discrimination to the exclusion of some of our country’s poorest people?
Finally, at the very least, the Government should consider clearly restating the actual aims and nature of the provisions of the Act, laying out the reality, challenging the false rhetoric around it and requiring their own officers and institutions to implement it in a fair and balanced way. There are fundamental flaws in the way the Act is implemented, whether owing to poor design or poor interpretation. Left unchallenged, that has made things worse for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. This narrative has led, for example, to fee-paying schools rejecting charitable support for disadvantaged children based on their race, and we have heard in recent weeks that it has led to racial segregation in UK businesses, such as Sainsbury’s. It is unhealthy and a backward step. Something needs to change.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this short but important debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who has done a tremendous amount of work to raise important issues about children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is particularly white working-class boys in the north of England and the midlands who are falling behind, as we see from the statistics. We could do so much more to solve the problem.
Fortunately, standards in Warrington South schools have risen dramatically over the past 10 years. Evelyn Street Primary School in Sankey Bridges, which is in one of the town’s pockets of high deprivation, has gone from failing to proudly being one of the top schools in England. I have seen at first hand how the academy trust’s chief executive officer, Mrs Smith, approached the school’s transformation, changing the culture and pushing for improvements at every turn. We have seen the same thing in all the academies in her trust. It is fair to say, looking back at the data, that many of the children who were most at risk of being failed in that school when she first arrived in 2004 were white working-class boys with hard-working parents, many of them on low incomes or struggling to find employment. A key part of the school’s success has been educating parents to have high expectations for their children.
Sadly, not all school experiences are as good as that of Evelyn Street. In towns across the north and the midlands, white working-class boys are falling behind, and they have been for some time. More than a dozen times in recent years, they have been ranked the lowest or second-lowest performing ethnic group in the country. As the chair of the all-party group for school exclusion and alternative provision, I am greatly concerned by that, as is the rest of the group. By the age of five, white working-class boys are 13% behind disadvantaged black boys and 23% behind disadvantaged Asian girls in phonics, and they are 40% less likely to go into higher education than their black counterparts.
The events of recent months have shone some light on why we need a review of the system to give everyone equal opportunities to succeed while providing children, parents and teachers with the tools to do so, and supporting children like those at Evelyn Street Primary School. I am particularly pleased to see the £1 billion catch-up fund to help children to recover some of the learning that they lost when schools were closed. Although that funding is hugely welcome, it is critical that it is focused on disadvantaged cohorts such as white working-class boys.
This short debate is about the Equality Act 2010. It is interesting that the Act introduced many protected characteristics, including age, disability and sex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, whereas one key determinant of success in school is socioeconomic background, which is not a protected characteristic. There are many arguments for and against making socioeconomic circumstances—including where someone was born—a protected characteristic. Given that white working-class boys are clearly identifiable as being more at risk of exclusion and failure in the system than almost any other group, perhaps it is time to review that. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the data on exclusions outside London. I also ask her to commit to looking into whether making socioeconomic background a protected characteristic could be a way to protect the forgotten group that is white working-class boys, or whether the Act could be amended in some other way. Part 1 of the Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield mentioned, puts a duty on public authorities to have regard to socioeconomic inequalities when exercising their functions, but that section of the Act is not in force.
To conclude, hon. Members will find nobody who is more supportive than I am of the Government’s commitment to levelling up across our country and investing in communities that need it most. The fastest way to help people out of poverty is to help them to get a job, and the best way to make sure that young people have a fighting chance when they enter the workforce is to make the most of their talents and ensure that they get a great start in life with a first-class education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this really important debate. As he knows, ensuring equality of opportunity is a topic that is close to my heart. I feel privileged to be part of a Government that holds this important issue as a real priority.
The Equality Act provides protection to all children, as well as to adults. We must get away from the perception that protected characteristics in the Act are there only to protect certain groups and exclude others. For example, a white boy at school is covered by the Act in the same way, and to the same extent, as his BAME classmates or schoolgirls of any race. If a white boy from a disadvantaged background feels he has been treated less fairly in educational work compared with his female or BAME peers, he has a means of redress available to him, initially through informal routes, but ultimately at a tribunal if it is felt to be necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield asked about the elements of the Act that relate to positive action. The Act enables positive action to help to ensure that all groups of society are fairly represented, but that is not the same as positive discrimination, where one group might be unfairly favoured over another. Positive action is designed to enable the promotion of a level playing field. An example of positive action is when an employer wants to address the fact that it does not have any disabled apprentices; the employer can favour the recruitment of a disabled applicant over a non-disabled one, provided that their applications are broadly of equal merit. That is positive action.
Positive discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act, however. If people have evidence of positive discrimination, they should take such cases to the courts or tribunals and call out breaches, to help to ensure that the positive action provisions are used only as intended. The provisions were supported across Parliament when the legislation was brought in in 2010. We support them as a means of levelling up the playing field for disadvantaged groups, but it is really important that the public and private sectors understand the lawful use of positive action. The code of practice and guidance exist for that purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield also asked, most perceptively, about the socioeconomic provisions in the Act. Social status is not one of the characteristics protected by the Act, and we need to be careful not to use it as a vehicle for social engineering rather than as a shield against discrimination. A duty of that kind would more likely result in public bodies trying to retrofit a levelling-down agenda, rather than offering better opportunities for all disadvantaged groups and levelling up.
Ben Bradley
I do not mean to try to catch the Minister out here, but can she explain to me the difference between social engineering and positive action?
Vicky Ford
Positive action is designed to enable opportunities to be given, as opposed to positive discrimination, which is unlawful. That is why it is so important that the guidance is clear on the subject. We need to promote the level playing field and enable levelling up, and not encourage behaviour that could constitute levelling down.
We need to avoid taking a tick-box approach. Amending part 1 of the Equality Act would not necessarily lead to what my hon. Friend seeks, because there is a real danger that it could create a tick-box mentality, which might be seen as an acceptable substitute for meaningful action. We want to avoid such distractions and concentrate on real help. I assure him that the action he has taken today has ensured that the Government will keep both the legislation and the guidance under review.
We are also improving our approach to equalities. We are reshaping the Government Equalities Office, bringing it closer together with the race disparity unit and the disability unit to create an equality hub. We need to move away from the idea that we are simply dealing with groups that already enjoy Equality Act protection, and instead ensure that we are looking at individuals across the country and identifying those who are most in need, what their biggest barriers to success are and where there is unequal delivery of public services. We want to examine issues such as geography, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned, where communities in certain areas risk being held back. We also should be focusing on analysing the data, looking closely at individual dignity and opportunity and also at areas such as income and background, so that we have a more holistic view.
We understand, however, that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, including boys, may face greater challenges at every stage of education. We are committed to addressing those challenges, levelling up education standards and improving outcomes.
Andy Carter
Will the Minister tell us a little bit about how the Government are particularly addressing the issue of boys from disadvantaged backgrounds, to get that levelling-up agenda delivered?
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. One of my passions is the early years of development, and too many children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are falling behind in those early years. It is then so hard to close the gaps once they have emerged, and evidence shows us that what happens in a child’s pre-school years—those very early years—are the most important and have a huge influence on later outcomes. That is why the Government have been making record investments in early education, including 15 hours of free education for all disadvantaged two-year-olds as well as three and four-year-olds. It is also why we have doubled the amount of free childcare available to three and four-year-olds for working parents.
These investments have led to a real improvement. The latest early years foundation profile shows that the proportion of all children reaching a good stage of development by the time they start school—year 1—has gone up from 51%, or one in two children, in 2013 to nearly 72%, or two in three children, in 2019. Furthermore, over the same period, the gap between the children who are eligible for free school meals and their peers at age five has narrowed from 19 percentage points to just under 18 percentage points. Indeed, the same is true in school: because of the education reforms that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), 86% of schools are now judged to be good or outstanding, compared with only 68% of schools in 2010. As a result, the disadvantage attainment gap has narrowed by 13% at age 11 and by 9% at age 16, and it has narrowed at every stage from early years to age 16 since 2011. However, we know there are still issues in other areas, so we have committed an extra £18 million to the £72 million opportunity areas programme to transform the life chances of young people in 12 of the most disadvantaged areas of the country—those with particularly low social mobility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South also mentioned the very important issue of exclusions. It used to be the case that looked-after children—children in care—had the very highest rates of permanent exclusion, and we are making sure that those children in care, who often have the worst life outcomes, are supported to succeed in education. For example, we have put in place virtual school heads, designated teachers for looked-after children, and extra funding through the pupil premium plus for this group. The virtual school heads, in particular, have made a significant impact since they were introduced in 2014. Data shows progress across maths, reading and writing for looked-after children, and today, looked-after children are less likely to be permanently excluded from school than all other children. Interventions of this nature are making a real impact on some really disadvantaged groups.
However, we know that the disadvantage gap is at risk of widening because of the pandemic. Lack of digital access is of particular concern, and that is why we have committed over £160 million to support remote education access and provided nearly half a million laptops and tablets to those most in need. We have also announced the £1 billion covid catch-up fund, of which £350 million is going into the national tutoring programme. That will particularly focus support from high-quality tutors on disadvantaged and vulnerable children who are most at risk of falling further behind. The first group of tutors starts on 1 November, and I strongly urge all my hon. Friends to ensure that schools in their constituencies are aware of that element of the catch-up programme and ensure that the vulnerable students in their area receive support.
Ben Bradley
I do not expect an answer to this, but I want to highlight a challenge. The poorest school in my constituency in the poorest catchment is very keen to access support for IT, tutoring and everything else, but 25% of parents within the school are illiterate and they do not want to take laptops home because they fear that the laptops will be stolen, or that they will targeted by gangs involved in drugs on the estate where they live. There are children on free school meals, and then there is another group of children who have this huge disadvantage. Will the Government consider that group, who will not be able to engage with laptops and tutors? Is there something else we can do to help them?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. This is why the national tutoring programme will bring extra resources into schools to help young people. That will be on top of the £650 million catch-up fund that has gone to all schools. It will provide extra tutoring and support—one on one, or in small groups—for those individuals, for whom it is so important. This is a deeply challenging time, and we absolutely understand that we need to make sure that the attainment gap does not unnecessarily widen any more. We have spent a decade trying to close it, and we need to make sure that it does not spring apart again, particularly for the cohorts of children that my hon. Friend mentions.
I am enormously grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for this agenda. He has raised important concerns. I particularly note his questions, which we will take up with the Equalities Office. I hope I have helped to explain the difference between positive action, which is allowed, and positive discrimination, which is not. I point him again to the need for continual work on the guidance on this subject, and I will make sure that I continue to raise these points with the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch). I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is happy that the Government’s response today echoes his concerns. We have taken steps to underline the importance of supporting the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, and to make sure that all children from all backgrounds, including the most disadvantaged, have the best opportunities in life.
Question put and agreed to.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those who are coming in for the next debate, I am suspending the House for two minutes.
Chinese and East Asian Communities: Racism during Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month 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
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Chinese and East Asian communities’ experience of racism during the covid-19 pandemic.
I thank Members for joining this debate, which is the first parliamentary debate to look specifically at racism against the Chinese, East Asians and South-East Asians. I will use those terms throughout my speech, because it is vital to get the language right. Chinese, East Asians and South-East Asians have been subjected to horrific hate crimes, especially recently due to the pandemic. I wish we did not have to have this debate, but it is particularly fitting that this is National Hate Crime Awareness Week. Given the sharp rise in hate crime against British East and South-East Asians and the trebling of racist attacks since the covid pandemic, it is absolutely necessary.
I am proud of my roots and my mixed heritage, both Asian and British. It allows me the best of both worlds but, unfortunately, it also allows me to experience some of the worst. Racism against Chinese and South-East Asians is absolutely nothing new. An undercurrent of anti-Asian racism plagued this country before the pandemic started, but now the lid has been lifted and the far right has wrongly been given legitimacy to air its derision, violence and hatred.
From an early age, it was made clear to me that I was seen as different. Sitting backstage at the age of about seven or eight, waiting to perform in a play set in a Chinese courtroom, the person doing our make-up pointed at me and said, “Make the other kids look like her.” The other children had their hair covered in black tights, their eyes coated in exaggerated black eyeliner and I remember sitting there thinking, “Do I really look like that?” Thirty years later, sadly, we still see examples of yellow face all over western culture, whether it is Ting Tong in “Little Britain”, productions of “Madame Butterfly”, Scarlett Johansson or countless examples on Amazon, which has yet to take down its offensive adverts.
Only in my teens, though, did I feel that my racial identity meant that my safety was threatened, when a student brought a knife into school to stab me with because she did not like it when races mixed. I therefore understand the fear and frustration that many British East and South-East Asians are feeling right now, as racists add another powerful tool to their arsenal: coronavirus. A month ago, police chiefs warned that the far right is using covid-19 as an excuse to attack what the Metropolitan police describe as “oriental people”. We do not have enough time in this debate to unpack what is wrong with that term, but it is 2020, not 1920.
The figures obtained by the organisation End the Virus of Racism showed that there were 261 hate crimes against Asians in April, 323 in May and 395 in June, rising each time as lockdown eased. Those do not include the number of hate crimes that have gone under-reported, so I expect the real figures to be much higher, and they are rising across the board: covid-related racism has increased for the Jewish and Muslim communities as well. Protection Approaches reported that this July saw the highest ever numbers of recorded hate crime against protected groups—40% higher than even after 7/7.
In March, Jonathan Mok, a 23-year-old student from Singapore, was punched and kicked in the face on Oxford Street by a group of men. He heard shouts of “Coronavirus!” and was told, “I don’t want your coronavirus in my country!” British-Chinese filmmaker Lucy Sheen was on her way to rehearsals on a bus, when a white male passenger whispered in her ear—forgive me for the unparliamentary language: “Why don’t you f-off back to China and take your filth with you?” In Hitchin, just down the road from my constituency, a takeaway owner was spat at and repeatedly asked if he had coronavirus. In Luton, people have been shouted at from cars. One woman wrote to me to say that she no longer feels safe, and walks about with her mask on and a hood up to cover her face.
That is all without looking at the cesspit of social media. During the pandemic, blatant racism and conspiracy theories have been allowed to spread, unchecked and unaccountable. I report racist videos I am sent of people eating live animals or claiming that I am some part of a global conspiracy, but it is exhausting and the onus is on the wrong person. I hope that the Government will address that in the forthcoming online harms Bill. Social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook should be held responsible for what is published on their sites.
Coronavirus has been given the face of a Chinese Asian person. This sort of racism punches up as well as it punches down. Asians are equally dehumanised, to the extent that we are all the same and all eat live animals, as well as somehow being part of a global conspiracy. The mainstream media have added fuel to the fire. The petition started by the fantastic Viv Yau, Mai-anh Peterson, Amy Phung, Charley Wong and Karlie Wu called for media outlets to stop using East and South-East Asian-related imagery when discussing covid-19. Their work has revealed that some 33% of images used to report covid-19 in the British media have used the image of someone who looks like me, completely unnecessarily and unrelated to the story. The problem has been compounded by our under-representation in the UK media, so the negative coverage has no balance by positive representation.
I am grateful to the Minister for Digital and Culture, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), for her recent meeting with us to find a way forward on the Government’s own advertising around covid-19. But political leadership, standing up for and standing alongside British East Asians and South-East Asians has been virtually non-existent, and at its worst it has incited further hatred.
Donald Trump this week called covid-19 the “China plague”. We have seen Tory Ministers sharing covid-19 jokes with caricatures of a person in a Chinese pointy hat, bucked teeth and slanting eyes, yet this was not addressed by the party. A Tory council leader said in a meeting that this was all because someone was eating undercooked bat soup in China. Again, that was not addressed by the party.
A couple of weeks ago, two MPs sat in the same room as me and referred to the Chinese—I will quote this unparliamentary language—as “those evil bastards”, and “oh, you know how they look.” They were rightly discussing the awful human rights abuses being carried out by the Chinese state, but this is an othering of an entire ethnicity, which should have no place in society, let alone this House. We need to lead by example. We should absolutely criticise the Chinese state for its appalling abuses against the Uyghur people and actions in Hong Kong, but we need to find a way that does not fuel racism or make Chinese-British East Asians even more vulnerable or fair game to racists. I believe that we can and must do better.
First, we need a clear statement from the Minister that she condemns anti-Asian and anti-Chinese racism. It is a basic ask but it is a start, and something that we have yet to hear officially. Secondly, our community must be supported to tackle this unprecedented rise in hate crime. We need targeted support for anti-racism organisations working with the British East and South-East Asian communities. Thirdly, the Government need to work with media outlets to stop the lazy overuse of East Asian imagery in their reporting of covid-19, especially when it bears no relation to the story, and to hold social media companies to account when it comes to ridding their sites of racism and conspiracy theories. Fourthly, include our community in the conversation—give us a seat at the table. Whether it is about financial support, health or messaging on covid-19, the black, Asian and minority ethnic community has been left out of the conversation altogether.
Lastly, I ask the Minister not just to tell us that she is grateful for our contributions, our culture, our skills, our healthcare workers and our businesses. Please act on it. Act on it and let us end the virus of racism for good.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I say what a delight it is to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and how great it is to have a rugby league champion in the Chair?
That was a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who found the time and the passion to secure the debate. It is fitting that the debate is taking place this week, not just because it is looking at hate crime but in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement.
In the last couple of years we can all admit that bigotry has been emboldened, whether against the Jewish community, Muslim communities or the East Asian community here in the UK, who are the subject of today’s debate. This is not just about the UK; we have heard first hand from my hon. Friend about her experiences, but we know that the issue goes across many different cultures. She mentioned Mr Trump, and I want to touch on the background to the current trade war between China and the US. There are legitimate issues to be debated about trade and commerce, but that must never be confused with racism against Chinese people.
Some of the debate turns into the “Chinese Communist party.” We know that some Chinese people based in the People’s Republic of China do not have a choice about whether they are party members or not. It is not good enough to say the “Chinese Communist party”—we should just say “the Government”, in the same way that we might criticise another Government for other things. My hon. Friend mentioned some of the issues we are currently worried about in the People’s Republic of China—about Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet—but equally we need to talk today about the fact that many East Asians are under so much pressure.
I was delighted to go and see the chairman of our local mental health trust, Mr Mark Lam, an experienced computer technician at the height of his career who is giving his time and energy to lead the mental health trust at a challenging time. As a result of covid, there is a 20% increase in demand. At the end of the meeting I said that I was going to participate in today’s debate. He said that he has experienced anti-Chinese feeling a number of times. Many Chinese people in our communities, when they are asked, say that they have experienced a terrible sense of discrimination.
I am afraid it is not just words. There have been physical attacks, spitting, trying to run people over and a number of very violent and despicable acts. Today is our opportunity in Parliament to say that we do not stand for it, that we want equality and that we want the bigotry to stop.
My second point is about the lack of role models. I would love to see more Chinese people in our media, being our anchors and newsreaders, and in our soaps. Our soaps do an amazing job; I am thinking about “Hollyoaks,” as we have some Liverpudlians with us today. They tackle difficult social issues and I wonder whether this might be something for one of our dramas to take up, to try to challenge views and teach our community in a real way, showing the hurt and how the issue is holding back community cohesion.
My final point is about the local picture. One of the terrible results of the global financial crash was the cuts to local government. Local government used to provide a small amount of funding for a number of different services—a meals on wheels service or a day centre, for example. It was a way of mixing everyone up—“Come and have a meal together. Come and have a game of mah-jong or chess. Let’s talk to each other and get to know each other.”
Since the cutbacks to local government, I have noticed how lonely people are and how they are not experiencing the fun things about their neighbours. They are not trying each other’s food or going shopping as much. It is heartbreaking to see older people in particular sitting on their own outside a supermarket or in a café, when they could be with other people and getting to know one another.
I hope that some of the money coming out of the Treasury now can go towards local government and community cohesion and, in particular, that we will look at ways within the political parties to promote role models. We obviously have a role model here, in my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North—and the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) is a Minister in the Government, I believe. I am sure that there are others whom I have not remembered today. We have a few councillors, but we should be looking much more carefully at how we in politics can promote role models. It is the way we learned about Black Lives Matter: by listening to others. It is the way we have learned about racism against other Asian communities: by having role models in politics or other fields.
I hope that we can look not just at the geopolitics of covid and the role that important leaders such as the President of the US play. I hope that we can also look at the local picture, the fragmentation of our society, and the lack of services to bring people together. Finally, I hope that we can look at role models within politics so that we can promote diversity and in particular make a study of why we do not have more Chinese role models within our politics. I will conclude there because I am keen to hear other contributions. I thank everyone for taking part in the debate and I just wish a few more had joined us today from the Conservatives. Maybe next time.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on hate crime faced by Chinese and East Asian communities since the start of the pandemic—hatred stoked, as we have just heard, by people who should know better: Tory politicians and Donald Trump.
I am honoured to represent Liverpool, Riverside, which includes Chinatown, one of the oldest established Chinese communities across Europe. The trade links between China and Britain via the ports of Shanghai and Liverpool were instrumental in the establishment of a Chinese community in the city. The first ship arrived in Liverpool direct from China in 1834 and the first wave of Chinese immigrants arrived in 1866, with the establishment of the Blue Funnel shipping line, which ran a line of steamers directly from Liverpool to China.
Chinese sailors decided to stay in Liverpool and worked from a settled area in the city that was close to the docks. Boarding houses were first opened by the shipping company to accommodate its workers. It was there that the first Chinese settlers started their own businesses supplying services to their community. The British merchant navy recruited sailors from its allies across the world, and Liverpool became a reserve pool for Chinese merchant sailors, with up to 20,000 registered.
In 1906 Liverpool City Council commissioned a report on Chinese settlement. There were 49 laundries, 13 boarding houses and seven shops owned by members of the Chinese community. However, the Chinese community remains invisible in Liverpool, like so many others among our long-established diverse communities—lacking political representation, and neither being seen in shops in the city centre nor gaining access to key services such as adult health and social care.
The far right has used the coronavirus as an excuse to attack Chinese and East Asian communities, with hate crime increasing by a third since the lockdown was eased in May and figures significantly higher than in previous years. In Liverpool, community associations have expressed concern about the increased levels of bullying and intimidation and have started a low-level helpline, because unfortunately members of the community are very unlikely to report those incidents.
The Chinese community in Liverpool has been subject to racism dating back to the 1940s. In 1946, after the war, when so many Chinese seamen put their lives on the line to keep this country going and maintain the war effort, more than 1,300 Chinese sailors were forcibly repatriated to China. Over 48 hours the Liverpool constabulary implemented orders from the British Government to deport Chinese sailors in Liverpool who had travelled to England as part of the war effort. Liverpool families were never told what happened to those Chinese sailors. Their wives and children believed they had been deserted until the release of the declassified records 50 years later revealed the shocking truth. Surviving descendants, now in their 70s, felt cheated out of a relationship with their fathers and unable to connect with their Chinese roots; they felt abandoned, only finding out too late the horrendous events that led to their separation. It is important to raise awareness of the issue and educate the wider community about the shocking events of 1946. It is part of British history. I also call on the Government to make an unreserved apology for their part in destroying so many Liverpool Chinese family lives and to look at the racism that has increased as a result of the pandemic.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, on what I believe to be your first occasion in the Chair. I want to congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for securing this important debate on Chinese and East Asian communities’ experience of racism during the covid-19 pandemic, particularly this week, during National Hate Crime Awareness Week. It is important to take the opportunity to raise the importance of reporting incidents of hate crime when they happen, as that will help prevent them happening to others and help the police and other agencies better understand the extent of hate crime in a local area and, therefore, better respond to it. I hasten to add that all public services must also be properly resourced to do so.
A 2019 House of Commons Library briefing shows that police-recorded hate crime offences have continually risen since 2012-13. The rate of hate crimes against Chinese people between January and March this year was nearly three times that of the previous two years, according to data released by UK police forces to Sky News. The far right is constantly seeking to normalise racist attitudes and behaviours, and we have seen legitimate criticisms of the actions of the Chinese Government being hijacked by those people who want to sow division in society. Moonshot, which specialises in monitoring extremist content online, found that between February and April there was a 300% increase in racist and violent hashtags against China and Chinese people. They analysed more than 600 million tweets, of which 200,000 contained hate speech or anti-Chinese conspiracy theories. I urge the Government to address the horrendous abuse online in the upcoming online harms Bill. Facebook and Twitter must be accountable for what is published on their websites.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend agree that international students who are in the UK, who travel to many of our constituencies, are often subject to very bad racist abuse and that something needs to be done about that as well?
Rachel Hopkins
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. With the University of Bedfordshire in my constituency of Luton South, we welcome many international students from China and other East Asian countries. They are welcome in our town and we do not want the rise in hate crime towards East Asian and Chinese people to deter them from coming to the UK to study. It is a great opportunity, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point.
We are also increasingly, and sadly, seeing hard-right politicians and movements across the world using racist language. That has been mentioned already. It is a disgrace to hear Donald Trump call coronavirus the Chinese virus or the Chinese plague. However, racism towards East Asian, South-East Asian and Chinese people is not restricted to politicians abroad. It is a disgrace that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), the International Development Secretary, shared a racist meme. Racism is never a joke, and sharing that meme shows the judgment of the individuals running our country.
The Chinese state must be held accountable for its failings and human rights abuses, but the far right is being encouraged by media reporting that has provided ammunition to far-right activists seeking to normalise racism. In Germany, Der Spiegel magazine ran a cover image of a person in a protective red suit and gas mask, under the headline “Made in China”. In the UK, The Economist also ran a front page with an image of the earth wrapped in a face mask adorned with a Chinese flag. The Government must tackle hate crime by making social media and media outlets accountable for how they spread hate or fuel division. We need accurate health messaging that does not discriminate against a community.
Finally, building on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) about role models for young people, my final comments are on the importance of anti-racist education. I am a supporter of the UK’s leading anti-racist education charity Show Racism the Red Card and a member of the all-party parliamentary group for showing racism the red card. This Friday is Wear Red Day and I encourage everybody to show their commitment to anti-racism education and to tackling all forms of racism by wearing red on Friday.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I think this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and it is good to be here.
I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this debate. She spoke powerfully in what has been an excellent, if short, discussion. I echo the comment that it would have been nice if more of us were here. I do not say that to be party political. I have been in this place since 2017, and I actually think that Westminster Hall is probably one of the better places for discussing policy. It is a bit of a shame that numbers are limited, but none the less, what we have not had in quantity we have certainly had in quality.
I also place on the record my thanks to the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), who all made passionate speeches from the Back Benches. Their constituents can be incredibly proud that they came here today to stand up for social justice and against racism.
The covid-19 crisis has had untold consequences on all our lives, from the vast redundancies across the UK to the many families facing poverty and, of course, to the huge loss of life. However, another consequence has been the rampant and utterly unacceptable racism against Chinese and East Asian communities. In the first few months of the covid-19 crisis, racist offences against Chinese and East Asian people rose rapidly, including assaults, robberies, harassment and criminal damage. The hon. Member for Luton South rightly brought some of those numbers to the attention of the House, and it was right that, in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, she focused on international students. My own city of Glasgow is blessed with three universities, and in the past few weeks a number of people have arrived in our city. I have some anecdotal concerns from what I see on social media and the comments that people have overheard in the city centre. As we go into a new academic year, that could be a real problem. There is an onus on us all, as community leaders, to call that out for what it is: utterly unacceptable.
Members of the Chinese and the East Asian community have described the attacks against them, with restaurants and take-outs being vandalised and boycotted and victims being punched, spat at and coughed on in the street and even verbally abused and blamed for the coronavirus pandemic. With even the President of the United States dubbing covid-19 the Chinese virus, and his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, calling it the Wuhan virus, I make it clear that no one race or ethnic group is responsible for the outbreak of coronavirus, and that absolutely everybody has a right to be protected from targeted abuse. Indeed, President Trump’s foolish remarks are a total insult to the families of the 4,634 people in China who to date have lost their life as a result of coronavirus.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended that Governments adopt national action plans against racial discrimination, laying out specific approaches to combat racism and discrimination, from enhanced policing of hate crimes to public messaging and education programming encouraging tolerance. Like others, I encourage the Government to take action and adopt new action plans to address the wave of racism and xenophobia that has occurred as a result of the covid-19 crisis. I also echo the calls made by End the Virus of Racism urging the Government to condemn the growing hate crime and to give extra protections to targeted communities.
As was touched on by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the UK must acknowledge its painful history of racism, from the slave trade that originated at our ports, to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, to the hostile environment created by the current UK Government. That racism still exists in the UK. It is nuanced, it is striking, but it is still, none the less, completely intolerable.
Racism will not disappear overnight. We must all work actively to stamp it out from our society. The vile xenophobia against the Chinese and East Asian people is completely unacceptable, and I hope that all parties in the House will come together in unity to condemn racism in all its forms and to work towards tackling the issue head-on. One simple way of doing that, as the hon. Member for Luton North said, is to wear red on Friday, to at least make the point that we stand united on the most fundamental issue of humanity.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this very important debate and on her passionate, thought-provoking and groundbreaking speech, and I thank her for sharing her shocking childhood experiences of racism. That was a telling and very poignant part of the debate.
As hon. Members have so eloquently highlighted, one of the social consequences of the coronavirus pandemic has been the alarming rise in online hate speech against the Chinese and East Asian community. The pandemic has provided fertile ground for extremists. Conspiracy theorists have fuelled hatred and are exploiting people’s fears. Left unchecked, fake news about minority communities has circulated online, sowing the seeds of hatred. That causes division and damages community relations in our society and it has been allowed to grow to such an extent that some are emboldened to abuse and attack the Chinese and East Asian community. Those in positions of responsibility have done very little to call out the racism or to challenge the fake news and hate speech.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that those in authority, including police colleagues, could have better training on this specific sort of racism, given the pandemic?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on an issue that I will come to later in my speech. Training is absolutely essential so that people recognise and treat seriously any forms of racism, so that it is dealt with swiftly and so that people are not frightened to report it.
It is deeply disappointing to hear the President of the United States, Donald Trump, call coronavirus the China virus and give legitimacy to this racist trope. It is also deeply regrettable that nothing has been done to challenge this view by our Government. Nobody has spoken out against it, and that desperately needs to happen. I hope that the Minister will deal with that in her remarks.
The Government have a moral duty to keep our communities safe, and that includes speaking out against hate speech and dispelling falsehoods no matter where they come from. The explosion of hate speech on social media has been alarming. I know that the most mainstream platforms are taking steps to remove false information and hateful content. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned the 200,000 hashtags of hate speech and conspiracy theories against the Chinese and East Asian communities, which was quite alarming. Recently, the Select Committee on Home Affairs had a session in which it heard that Facebook had deleted 9.6 million hate speech posts in the first quarter of 2020; 9.6 million is an alarming number, and that is just the ones that it has removed.
The issue is not just content removal. That is not enough on its own. More needs to be done to dismantle the microtargeting of ads and the algorithms that recommend the next piece of visible content, which may be just as harmful. This rabbit hole is compounding the effects of online hate speech and fake news. The ads and algorithms make decisions for users about what they can see online, and essentially that amplifies the content, so that is an issue that also needs to be addressed.
We need wider regulation of social media platforms to tackle hate speech and its wider distribution. Although I appreciate that the online harms Bill will come before Parliament next year, action is needed now. I highly recommend the Institute for Strategic Dialogue’s impressive report, “The First 100 Days: Coronavirus and Crisis Management on Social Media Platforms”. That goes into detail as to how hate crime and hate speech are spread on social media platforms.
I mentioned earlier in my speech that online hate speech has evolved into physical hate crime, and we heard a number of examples from hon. Members in today’s debate. Figures from police forces across England and Wales have revealed that at least 267 offences against, I quote, “Chinese people” were recorded between January and March during the covid-19 crisis. That included assaults, robberies, harassment and criminal damage. The rate is nearly three times that of the previous two years. I believe that those figures are just the tip of the iceberg. In conversations that I have had with representatives from the Chinese community in London, I have been told that attacks are far more common. They are under-reported, because the community do not believe that the police take their complaints seriously. To allude to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the issue is about training as well.
The lack of vocal Government support and the severe cuts to policing over the last decade have left the community despondent. They feel that they have no empathy or understanding of the effect that such attacks have. I am pleased to see that the community are getting organised on this issue and demanding action. One group that they have formed is End the Virus of Racism. I congratulate it on calling for zero tolerance for racism and for the full protection of the law following the threefold increase in hate crime towards people of South-East Asian and Chinese heritage during the coronavirus crisis. The police must take hate crime seriously and listen to victims; otherwise, it will continue to be under-reported.
Catherine West
From his previous job as a lawyer, is the shadow Minister aware of a lot of cases that have been prosecuted, or is this an under-prosecuted area?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Where there is a lack of empathy, there is also a lack of cases that proceed to trial. I am not aware of the actual figures for this issue, but rape is also an issue where the lack of empathy with victims leads to fewer cases going to trial. The victims do not want to take it further because they do not feel they will be treated seriously. There is an excellent rape review by the Victims’ Commissioner for London, which I highly recommend.
I welcome the calls for greater research, a national strategy and a taskforce to scrutinise the data and address the impact on community cohesion—hon. Members also raised the need for more community cohesion. The increase in hate crime has fuelled a steep rise in demand for victim support and has put additional pressure on community groups, but at the same time their income has been slashed and their resources are more stretched than they have ever been. Any solution to hate crime must include the Government funding of those vital services. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) made a point about the need for helplines, and these communities need funding so that the helplines can function in this time of great need.
In July, the Commission for Countering Extremism produced an excellent paper entitled “How hateful extremists are exploiting the pandemic”. It highlighted how different communities were experiencing racism due to the pandemic. It said:
“Government needs to include clear plans to counter extremism in their response to this and future crises. It should also publish a new counter-extremism strategy urgently to ensure that it can strategically respond to the activities of extremists in our country. This strategy should include:…An assessment of how extremism manifests locally, the harm it causes, the scale of support for extremist narratives and how best to pre-empt extremist activity. This should also include a mechanism to provide bespoke support to local authorities most affected…An assessment of who is most susceptible to extremist narratives and a plan of what interventions they will put in place to engage and support those people…A commitment to ensure hateful extremism falls within the remit of the new online harms regulator and that existing laws on inciting hatred should be enforceable online…Plans to build an understanding of how conspiracy theories contribute to extremism. Including how they are utilised by extremists, what the scale, impact and harm is, and how to counter them…Separately, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government must drive forward a COVID-19 cohesion strategy to help bring different communities together to prevent extremist narratives from having significant reach and influence.”
That is from a Government-funded body.
Racism has no part in any civilised society and should be stamped out completely. To do that, we urgently need sustained action. We need to call it out, tackle it online and physically, and show solidarity with our communities that are experiencing racism. We need to ensure that complaints are properly dealt with and that our communities are supported.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister, when will the Government publicly speak out to condemn the anti-Chinese hate speech and the racism against the Chinese and East Asian community? When will she speak to her ministerial colleagues to ensure that more is done to remove online hate speech and algorithms that fuel hateful content? Will she speak to her colleagues to ensure that the police take the reporting of hate speech seriously and work to build trust with the communities affected? Finally, will she support the additional funding for community groups representing those affected by racism and hate crime, and those providing support services?
It is no surprise that the annual hate crime statistics, which were released this morning, show an 8% increase in reported hate crime over the past 12 months. Unless something is done now, there will be long-term damage to community relations, which will take years, if not decades, to repair. I urge the Minister to take action now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, on your first day in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing this vital debate, and hon. Members for their many contributions. It was powerful to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady, particularly when she was at school, and the frightening experiences that she was subjected to. Also, however, the account of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), including the experience of one of the mental health workers in her constituency, was very powerful, as was the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), in which she outlined some of the historic events in her constituency, which are still felt very acutely by the community there.
I am sure that some hon. Members will know that one of the most famous poems in the Chinese language is actually about this country. The poem “On Leaving Cambridge”, by Xu Zhimo, was written nearly a hundred years ago. However, it has stood the test of time, not just in the canon of Chinese literature but as a powerful symbol of the ties that bind our country with the Chinese-speaking world. These ties connect with every part of our national life, from the people we elect to this House to our educational establishments, and from the food we eat to our own language. Few communities can claim to have had such a powerful effect on our culture, and people of Chinese and East Asian heritage have been particularly successful at integrating into the fabric of our society. Equally, few countries can claim to have been as tolerant and as welcoming as the United Kingdom, a place where people of all ethnicities are free to lead successful and rewarding lives.
I deeply regret that the covid-19 pandemic has brought out the very, very worst in a small minority of our citizens. Chinese and East Asian communities, through absolutely no fault of their own, have had to contend with a significant and completely unacceptable rise in hostility towards them, as has already been outlined. According to police reporting, in the period following the start of the pandemic, Chinese and South-East Asian citizens accounted for 1% to 2% of all hate crime victims, but they accounted for 12% to 18% of the victims of hate crimes where covid-19 was mentioned.
As the hon. Member for Luton North said, people were rightly horrified at the dreadful assault on Jonathan Mok, a Singaporean student who was badly injured in central London. It is also very disturbing to read and hear about other such attacks. Although they are rarely as violent as the one I have just mentioned, we can all agree—quite clearly, there is a consensus in Westminster Hall today on this issue—that such incidents are abhorrent, and totally and utterly unacceptable in the United Kingdom in 2020.
I am equally concerned by reports of people experiencing lower levels of intolerance. Although those actions have not always been criminal, they are undoubtedly immoral, dehumanising and totally distressing to the individuals who have to hear and live with such comments. This type of prejudice has also had an impact on Chinese businesses, which had found themselves struggling for custom even before the lockdown began.
My Department works closely with Chinese and East Asian community organisations, and in those early weeks of the pandemic we engaged with communities where we could see that tensions were rising. We held community events and spoke to community members. They told us of a sudden change, and of increasingly negative social attitudes towards anyone believed to be Chinese. They reported the fear and anxiety experienced by people who had not faced such hostility before. They also expressed concern that their communities were not always well served by portrayals in the media, not least the labelling of covid-19 in some quarters as “the Chinese virus”, as has been outlined by a number of Members here today. I am totally against such labelling.
One of the comments by the hon. Member for Luton North was about the “cesspit” of social media. We are in agreement on that point. After this debate, I hope that the media will reflect on their use of images when reporting on covid-19. I absolutely understand the pain and anguish caused to individuals who are living in the United Kingdom. Obviously, as outlined, the online harms White Paper is coming, and one of the commitments in that is to form a communications campaign about hate crime. Part of that will involve working through some of those issues with the Society of Editors and the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
I want to be clear, as Members in the Chamber have said, that no single community is responsible for the spread of the disease, and no single person should face abuse for it, in any way, shape or form. We, this Government, condemn that completely. We condemned it at the time—the Minister for Faith and Communities did so publicly, and so did the Home Secretary—and I, today, condemn it again.
David Linden
As we reflect on the deeply special relationship that Britain has with America, will the Minister undertake to raise with the Foreign Office that strong representations should be made from Whitehall to Washington, DC, that that kind of language is unacceptable? Will that message be conveyed from London?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I speak regularly with my colleagues across Departments when dealing with a whole host of issues that affect the United Kingdom, in particular in my new role as in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have only been in post for about three weeks now. I will definitely pass that sentiment on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Catherine West
While the Minister is talking to her colleagues in Government, will she also speak to the Universities Minister to say that this debate has raised the specific issue of international students such as Mr Mok, whose case was talked about, and to ask for an action plan to deal with it?
Kelly Tolhurst
I commit to doing as the hon. Lady asked. It is important that we remain committed to, and steadfast in standing up for anyone who finds themselves a victim of hate crime or of any hate, because, sadly, our Chinese and East Asian communities are not alone in that experience. We know that bigots are only too happy to spread hatred against Jewish and Muslim communities and others if it suits them.
This Government have a zero-tolerance approach to those who commit such acts. The perpetrators of hate crimes in relation to covid-19 are being punished. The Crown Prosecution Service has prosecuted a number of people for crimes involving racist abuse on the basis of perceived Chinese ethnicity. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with people of Chinese and East Asian heritage, and this Government have shown that time and again, supporting not only those who have made these islands their home, but people who visit for tourism or access to our world-class education system, which we spoke about this afternoon. Also, our generous offer to those from Hong Kong eligible to come to make a new life here stands as testament to our solidarity. Although the level of hate crime towards people of Chinese and East Asian heritage appears to have reduced since earlier this year, the Government have no interest in showing complacency.
We will continue to ensure that victims are supported wherever possible and to bring people who carry out hateful attacks to justice. We already have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities from hostility, violence and bigotry and to deal with the perpetrators of hate crime. We will strengthen that framework through measures set out in our online harms White Paper and bring forward world-leading legislation to make the UK the safest place to be online.
We intend to establish in law a new duty of care on companies towards their users, which will be overseen by the independent regulator, and we will not stop there. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake a full review of the coverage and approach of hate crime legislative provisions. It has opened a public consultation and will report to Ministers early next year.
We will also consult on our hate crime action plan. It has guided our work over the past four years and has been well regarded, but now is the time to consider whether we can be even more ambitious. We will consult widely in the coming months to ensure that we build an effective new approach, which will benefit from the input of many of our diverse communities. I look forward to the Chinese and East Asian communities playing their part.
I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) about the police. He highlighted the annual statistics that were reported today. One of the elements that shows progress in this area is that we are seeing more of an understanding from the police of what hate crime is and the ability to categorise it, so that it is being better reported. I hope that we will continue to see that work in the statistics, but I totally agree with the comments that have been made: while we are seeing progress in this space, we need to continue with the work to make sure that the complexities are understood and articulated in the reporting, and that when individuals feel they want to report to the police, they are comfortable in doing that. I was pleased to hear that 87% of the Chinese community surveyed trusted their local police, in comparison with the national average of, I believe, just over 76%.
On spending to work with our communities, we have committed to spend through the faith, race and hate crime grant scheme, which enables local groups to bid for grants for work, including with schools and young people. That is a £1.5 million pot. We also have the integrated communities action plan, with more than 70 commitments within that plan, and we are working towards completing them.
Comments have been made about members of my party. I am not here to speak for individuals, and I am unaware of some of the details. One thing I am very comfortable to say is that the party I represent stands against any form of racism. I am very proud to be part of a party that holds that position, whether people agree or not. In my role as a Minister in MHCLG, I will do all I can to make sure that all communities in our country have equality and feel parity through the work we are doing. It is something that I have had experience of in other roles as a Minister in this Government over the past two years. I am looking forward to working with colleagues as we progress the action plans as we move through covid.
This week being National Hate Crime Awareness Week, it is a moment to reflect on the challenges that confront us and reaffirm our commitment to tackling hatred. I believe that today’s debate has been an important part of that, and we should all stand together to condemn hatred and bigotry in all forms, and focus instead on what ties bind us together. I end by thanking everyone for their contributions to today’s debate, and look forward to further conversations with colleagues as we progress some of the work I have outlined this afternoon.
Sarah Owen
Please forgive me, Mrs Cummins; I should have said that it is a great honour to be serving under your chairmanship. I did not realise it was your first day in the Chair, so thank you.
I will start by picking up on some of the Minister’s comments. First, I am grateful to hear her condemnation of hate crimes and racism against Chinese, East Asian and South-East Asian communities, and I know that the community will be really glad to hear it. As I said in my speech, it is a low bar just to ask for condemnation of racism, but it is a start, and I am grateful to the Minister for it. She was absolutely right to mention Chinese businesses: for many of these businesses, the pain occurred well before lockdown, well before other businesses started to see their profits decline and started having to lay off staff. That pain is continuing, and we need to do serious amounts of work to ensure that community, and that business community, is supported throughout this pandemic like so many others should be.
Picking up on the Minister’s second point about the online harms Bill, I am heartened by that Bill, because we have heard countless examples of why it is absolutely necessary. I said that social media is a cesspit; it genuinely is, and it needs cleaning up. One area that I would like the Government to concentrate on and look into through the online harms Bill is the comments sections of news outlets, which I know is an area that the Government have been resistant to include in that Bill’s regulations.
The Minister started by saying that this is a vital debate. It is a vital debate, and I am really grateful that hon. Friends have come here to represent their communities and provide support, but the Minister is here because she has to be. Where are her colleagues? There are six seats empty on her side; not a single Conservative, not a single Government Member, decided to turn up. I know that this is Westminster Hall and it is supposed to be less political, but what message does that send to our communities? It sends a damning message.
I wanted to pick up on some of the points that my hon. Friends have raised, because they are important to solving this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) spoke eloquently and passionately about the history. The Minister talked about our integration: it started in Liverpool, Riverside, the home of one of the oldest ethnic communities in this country. She also spoke about the importance of education about that history; I do not know how many people really understand or fully know the damage that was caused by those forced deportations of Chinese sailors, ripping the hearts out of families and entire generations. Having a helpline is fantastic, and it should be celebrated and supported, but again, the community is having to step up when the state has stepped back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was absolutely right to speak about the pain our community faces when it comes to mental health. We have all found this period really difficult, with loneliness, losses of earnings and of loved ones, and being separated, but add to that being blamed and being scared to go out of the front door. It is not just hate crime that our community has suffered: thousands of healthcare workers have come from China and all over South-East and East Asia, and those workers are the very people who we stood on our doorsteps and clapped for, yet we cannot say that we are going to protect them. More Filipino nurses, healthcare workers and carers have died in this country than in the Philippines during the pandemic.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins).
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Overseas Defence Operations
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill currently before this House will provide reassurance to service personnel that we have taken steps to help protect them from the threat of repeated investigations and potential prosecution in connection with historical operations overseas many years after the events in question. However, we are also clear that there should be timely consideration of serious and credible allegations and, where appropriate, a swift and effective investigation followed by prosecution, if warranted. In the rare cases of real wrongdoing, the culprits should be swiftly and appropriately dealt with. In doing so, this will provide greater certainty to all parties that the justice system processes will deliver an appropriate outcome without undue delay.
I am therefore commissioning a review so that we can be sure that, for those complex and serious allegations of wrongdoing against UK forces which occur overseas on operations, we have the most up to date and future-proof framework, skills and processes in place and can make improvements where necessary. The review will be judge-led and forward looking and, whilst drawing on insights from the handling of allegations from recent operations, will not seek to reconsider past investigative or prosecutorial decisions or reopen historical cases. It will consider processes in the service police and Service Prosecuting Authority as well as considering the extent to which such investigations are hampered by potential barriers in the armed forces, for example, cultural issues or operational processes. A key part of the review will be its recommendations for any necessary improvements. It will seek to build upon and not reopen the recommendations of the service justice system review by HH Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy. Work by the Department in response to the service justice system review is continuing to be taken forward separately.
I expect the review will report to me in around nine months’ time.
[HCWS507]
Culture Recovery Fund: Arts Funding
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday we announced 1,385 cultural organisations will share over £257 million from the culture recovery fund to help support arts and culture organisations through the coronavirus pandemic.
This represents the biggest award to date of the culture recovery fund and means we have now provided over £360 million to support cultural and heritage institutions across England.
This vital Government funding is a vital boost for the theatres, music venues, museums and cultural organisations that form the soul of our nation. It will protect these special places, save jobs and help the culture sector’s recovery.
These funds are supporting cultural beacons the length and breadth of the country—from the Beamish museum in County Durham to the Birmingham Royal Ballet and the Bristol Old Vic.
The theatre by the Lake, in Keswick, for example will receive over £800,000 in support which recognises its importance as the biggest employer in the area, the devastating impact coronavirus has had on it and theatres more widely, and the importance of safeguarding this wonderful cultural institution for the future.
Or, to take another example, Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Wakefield: this cherished organisation will receive £804,000 to help the park to adapt its buildings to new regulations and help it reopen safely. Yorkshire Sculpture Park shows work by British and international artists including Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth.
This is good news not only for these organisations but for towns, cities and workers in these sectors across the country—it will help to protect jobs and ensure our beloved local arts venue can remain afloat and support culture in many communities.
On top of this investment the culture sector has benefited from the job retention scheme, self-employment income support scheme, the bounce back loan scheme, a reduction in VAT from 20% to 5% for tourism and hospitality firms for six months.
I want to reaffirm that we recognise the crucial role that individuals play in making our arts and creative industries world-leading.
The culture recovery fund will benefit freelancers, because it will invest in organisations and help them to reopen, and restart performances which will provide more opportunities for freelancers to be engaged again.
It will also help many put on cultural activity within this financial year which would not have been possible without this funding.
Additionally, to complement this funding for organisations, this year, the Arts Council has made over £115 million of funding available for individuals, including freelancers, to apply to, including £18 million for the Developing Your Creative Practice programme which will open for applications this Thursday.
Regarding next steps, we are working flat out to support these sectors and to get the remainder of the funding and support out to those who need it most as quickly as possible.
There will be further announcements about hundreds of millions of pounds of allocations in the coming weeks to support the UK’s incredible culture, heritage, arts and creative industries.
The Government are here for culture. Help is on its way with more to come in the days and weeks ahead so that the cultural sector—the soul of our nation—can bounce back strongly.
[HCWS509]
Adult Skills and National Retraining Scheme
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Today, I want to update both Houses on further policy developments we are making as part of our efforts to help boost productivity, ensure that businesses can find and hire the skilled workers they need, and help people to fulfil their potential. The impact of the current situation and the longer-term challenges we are likely to face have underlined the ever-present need to support all adults in gaining new skills that employers value, whether to progress in work or to boost their job prospects.
Last month, the Prime Minister visited Exeter College and set out an exciting vision to make lifelong learning a reality, announcing new opportunities to help more people to realise their talents, develop new skills and pursue their careers. With that broader vision in mind, wanting to reduce complexity in the adult skills landscape and recognising the need to work closely with a wide range of key stakeholders and experts, we are integrating the national retraining scheme into the national skills fund. The national retraining scheme will no longer continue as a separate programme but rather its work and learning will be rolled into the development of the national skills fund. This will be reflected in wider communications around the national skills fund and our broader offer for adult skills. It will include the conclusion of the trials of the Get Help to retrain service, a digital platform that helped adults identify their existing skills as well as new training options.
The findings we have gathered by testing Get help to retrain have already provided useful insights for the National Careers Service. This will help inform the further development of the National Careers Service website for people considering a change to their career.
The understanding and insights we achieved through high levels of research and comprehensive user engagement while developing the national retraining scheme have also produced a strong foundation for developing the national skills fund and other adult skills reforms. As both Houses know, the national skills fund is a long term, substantial investment of £2.5 billion—£3 billion included devolved Administrations—that will drive adult retraining and support our ambitious agenda for reform to further education.
Our engagement with employers on the national retraining scheme ensured we were better sighted on the skills they need their workers to have, as well as the need for a more flexible approach to the delivery of skills. Greater flexible provision was a clear need for both the employers and the individual. Both of these factors have been central to the design and delivery of the bootcamps announced in the Prime Minister’s speech, which are a key element of the national skills fund offer.
The bootcamps will support local regions and employers to fill in-demand digital vacancies. The impact of the covid crisis has shown that digital skills are in demand now more than ever, so these flexible initiatives will be instrumental in giving all adults the skills employers need. We are planning to expand the digital bootcamps to more of the country from spring 2021, and we also want to extend this model to include other technical skills training.
The Prime Minister also announced, as part of his lifetime skills guarantee, that for all adults who do not currently have an A-level equivalent, we will be fully funding their first full level 3, focusing on the valuable courses that will help them get ahead in the labour market.
Through our development of the national retraining scheme, we have also undertaken qualitative research into online training tailored for adults’ needs. Our findings have shown that online training has the ability to deliver learning at a time and pace that would fit in with the busy lives that users have. It could also reach the more remote areas of the country where users might struggle to access provision at a time that works best for them. This has informed the development of the skills toolkit, which has recently expanded to provide access to even more high-quality, free courses, to help all adults gain the confidence and skills they need to move into new jobs, potentially in completely new sectors of the jobs market.
We remain firmly committed to working with industry, workers, and providers. That is why we plan to engage extensively with these groups right across the country through the upcoming consultation on the national skills fund.
Our strong evidence base, delivered through the national retraining scheme, is summarised in a key findings paper that will be published today at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-retraining-scheme. The paper sets out how the extensive learnings and evidence from the scheme will support our ambitious plans for levelling up across the country and help to ensure everyone can get the skills they need, at every stage of their life.
We will set out wider plans for adult skills later in the autumn and we will update the Houses in due course. In the meantime, we will engage closely with stakeholders as we continue to develop detailed plans for the national skills fund, including considering what role the fund could play in meeting more immediate needs in response to the covid-19 pandemic.
[HCWS506]
Rough Sleeping
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Today, I have announced additional support for rough sleepers this winter, giving local areas the tools they need to protect people from life-threatening cold weather and risks posed by covid-19.
During the pandemic, we have worked closely with local authorities and the sector to offer vulnerable people safe accommodation and support. That work is on- going and in September we had successfully supported over 29,000 people, with over 10,000 in emergency accommodation and nearly 19,000 provided with settled accommodation or move on support.
These efforts have been backed by significant Government support. We have given councils over £4.8 billion to help them to manage the impacts of covid-19, which we have been clear includes their work to support rough sleepers. Over the summer we worked with every local authority to develop a local, tailored plan to support rough sleepers over the coming months. This has been supported by £91.5 million of funding from the Next Steps Accommodation programme, allocated in September.
Today’s announcement further builds on this existing package of support over winter, setting out a plan that gives local areas a range of levers to support vulnerable rough sleepers as we approach winter.
First, there will be a new £10 million cold weather fund for local authorities to bring forward covid-secure accommodation this winter.
Secondly, we will be working intensively with the areas in greatest need, in recognition of the particular challenges they face.
Thirdly, recognising the vital role of the faith and communities sector, we are establishing a new £2 million transformation fund to ensure the voluntary sector can bring forward covid-secure accommodation.
Finally, we are publishing comprehensive guidance to the sector, produced with Public Health England, Homeless Link (the umbrella organisation for homelessness charities) and Housing Justice, to help them open shelters more safely, where not doing so would endanger lives. We know that some night shelters are planning to re-open imminently and our operating principles and additional funding package will help shelter providers and local authorities make any additional winter provision safer from the spread of covid-19.
Today’s announcement is on top of the £112 million rough sleeping initiative funding provided to local authorities in 2020-21, as well as the recently announced funding allocations to provide interim support and winter funding as part of the Next Steps Accommodation programme. We will also be bringing forward 3,300 longer-term units of accommodation this year. In total, the Government are spending over £700 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping this year alone. We remain committed to transforming the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society, and to ending rough sleeping for good.
In addition, the Government have injected over £9 billion into the welfare system, including helping people with housing costs by increasing local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile—putting an average of £600 into people’s pockets this year. We have taken action to protect tenants and support them to stay in their homes. Most recently, we have increased notice periods to six months meaning that anyone served notice today can stay in their home until mid-March in all but the most egregious cases, such as those involving antisocial behaviour.
We will set out further detail about how local areas can access this winter funding and support imminently, and I encourage all relevant partners and local authorities to consider how they can best use this funding to save lives this winter.
[HCWS510]
Space Industry Act 2018: Insurance and Liabiities
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I am today publishing the consultation on the draft insurance, liabilities and charging requirements to implement the Space Industry Act 2018. This consultation seeks views on the operability and effectiveness of the proposed liabilities, insurance and charging requirements to implement the Space Industry Act 2018, including the use of licence conditions to cover insurance requirements. It also seeks views on the draft Space Industry (Liabilities) Regulations and the associated guidance documents, as well as to gather new evidence and test the assumptions in the consultation-stage impact assessment.
The UK’s space sector is a unique national asset, and this Government are committed to growing this exciting industry. Our regulatory framework for spaceflight will support safe and sustainable activities that will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship in this vital sector, exploiting the unique environment of space, and providing a catalyst for growth across the space sector. Harnessing the opportunities provided by commercial spaceflight will also feed into our emerging national space strategy, the Government’s agenda to level-up the UK, and global Britain.
Government and industry have set a target to grow the UK’s share of the global market to 10% by 2030. To support this, our spaceflight programme aims to establish commercial vertical and horizontal small satellite launch, sub-orbital spaceflight and space tourism from UK spaceports. To expand the UK’s spaceflight capabilities, Government are funding a range of industry-led projects. Separately, we are investing in related facilities and technology. This will provide industry with new commercial market opportunities, grow our export share and help to build new UK supply chains.
Liabilities and insurance requirements
An important element of the Space Industry Act 2018 concerns operators’ liabilities arising from their spaceflight activity. Under UN space treaties, the UK Government are ultimately liable to pay compensation for damage caused by their space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight, and liable for damage due to its faults in space. This means that another state suffering damage can bring a claim against the UK Government under the UN space treaties. The Space Industry Act 2018 places an obligation on an operator carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the Government or listed person or body for any claims brought against them for loss or damage caused by those activities. It also includes liability provisions to provide the general public in the UK with easy recourse to compensation.
We recognise that this is an important issue for the UK space sector and understand that we need to create the right environment for the UK to be competitive and for our British companies to compete on the global stage. We have listened to the concerns industry has raised about liabilities and insurance and our consultation sets out approach to address those concerns, as well as other issues relating to insurance and liabilities. This follows a call for evidence on these matters published in March 2018.
We are proposing to limit operator liability and use the modelled insurance requirement approach, which is considered to be critical to enabling launch and unlocking the benefits of spaceflight.
The insurance proposals and liabilities regulations are part of the package of regulations needed to implement the Space Industry Act 2018 and to allow commercial spaceflight launches to take place from the UK. They supplement the consultation which was launched on 29 July 2020 on the draft Space Industry Regulations, which covers the other secondary legislation and guidance needed to enable commercial spaceflight in the UK.
Together with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and Civil Aviation Authority, we have legislated to allow for the regulation of a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies, including traditional vertically launched vehicles, air-launched vehicles and sub-orbital spaceplanes and balloons. It is our intention to merge the draft Liabilities and Space Industry Regulations once the consultations have concluded.
Next steps
The deadline for responses to the consultation is the 10 November, following which I will update the House and publish the Government’s response to the consultation.
[HCWS505]
HS2 Six-monthly Report to Parliament
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
This Government have committed to provide an update to Parliament every six months on the progress of High Speed 2 (HS2), of which this is the first. This report covers data reported by HS2 Ltd to the end of August 2020.1 have placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses. Phase Target cost Total estimated costs range Current forecast 1 £40.3 billion £35-45 billion £40.3 billion 2a Not set yet £5-7 billion Not agreed 2b Not set yet £32-46 billion 2 Not agreed Phase Spend to date 2020-21 Budget 2020-21 Forecast 1 £9.6 billion 3 £3.79 billion £3.46 billion 2a £0.4 billion £0.18 billion £0.16 billion 2b £1.0 billion £0.25 billion £0.23 billion Total £11.0 billion £4.22 billion £3.85 billion
Overview
After careful consideration of the independent Oakervee review and wider evidence, including the National Audit Office’s (NAO’s) progress update, the Prime Minister confirmed to Parliament in February 2020 that the Government would proceed with HS2. The Government intend HS2 to become the spine of the country’s transport network, bringing our biggest cities closer together, boosting productivity and rebalancing the economy and opportunity for people across the country. It will also help meet our commitment to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, by providing a better alternative to regional air and road travel.
In taking this decision, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Transport made clear the importance of a tighter grip by the Government on the delivery of the project and of the need for full transparency. That is why we have consulted the chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and Transport Select Committee in providing this report to Parliament, and I intend it to provide clear information about our progress.
In April, the full business case for the first phase of the scheme between the west midlands and London, HS2 phase 1, was approved with an increased budget and revised delivery into service date. This permitted HS2 Ltd’s main works civils contractors to begin construction of phase 1. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister mark this significant milestone officially by visiting Birmingham interchange a few weeks ago.
Authorising the main works signalled the Government’s commitment to invest in our economic recovery in response to covid. HS2 is central to our plans to build back better and will stimulate economic growth and rebalance opportunity across this country in the short, medium and long term.
HS2 phase 1 is just the first step in levelling-up our great economic regions and better connecting the north, the midlands and London. That is why we are progressing legislation to deliver phase 2a to provide a high speed line from the west midlands to Crewe, where trains will continue further north via the west coast main line. The phase 2a Bill is currently in the House of Lords. The Select Committee has finished hearing petitions and we await its report.
To deliver HS2 phase 2b and Northern Powerhouse Rail more effectively alongside other transport schemes, an integrated plan for rail in the north and the midlands is being developed. This will be informed by an assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission, expected at the end of 2020. The integrated rail plan will set out the form, scope and phasing of the phase 2b route. It will also inform decisions on how to improve links to and from Scotland to strengthen the connectivity of the Union.
Achievements in this first reporting period include:
Getting on with delivery by approving the phase 1 full business case and authorising the start of construction, supporting the industry and wider economy as part of the covid response. Indeed, HS2 Ltd and its supply chain supports over 13,000 jobs, including over 400 apprenticeships. At peak construction, this will increase to 30,000 jobs.
Getting a stronger grip on delivery to time and budget by establishing the ministerial task force for phases 1 and 2a, chaired by the Secretary of State for Transport, and attended by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, the Minister of State for Regional Growth and Local Government and myself. We have also strengthened the board of HS2 Ltd by appointing three additional non-executive directors.
Putting the people and communities impacted by the scheme at the centre of our work by reviewing the land and property acquisition programme, the approach to compensation and, importantly, how HS2 Ltd supports and engages with people along the route. The review will be published shortly.
Revisiting how best to deliver Euston station as recommended in the Oakervee review, with the aim of providing an improved design and better delivery strategy. This includes revised governance providing closer collaboration between HS2 Ltd and Network Rail, through the new Euston partnership board chaired by Sir Peter Hendy.
Developing the integrated rail plan for the north and midlands. This work focuses on reducing overall costs, identifying the correct schemes and sequencing to improve rail services and to determine how best to improve rail connectivity with Scotland. A separate ministerial task force is also overseeing preparation of the integrated rail plan.
Continuing the preparation of legislation for the phase 2b western leg into Manchester, reflecting the findings in the Oakervee review that phase 2b should be delivered in smaller sections with legislation brought forward as it is ready. This includes the design refinement consultation launched on 7 October. The integrated rail plan will set out the form, scope and phasing of the phase 2b route, across the western and eastern legs, and the Government will therefore consider responses to this consultation alongside the outcomes of the integrated rail plan.
Setting out our intent to establish enhanced reporting arrangements to demonstrate how HS2 Ltd is meeting the Government’s environmental priorities.
Programme update on affordability, schedule and delivery affordability
Earlier this year, the Government reset the funding regime for HS2, including a target cost and funding envelope for phase 1 and revised estimates for the wider scheme. The total funding envelope for phase 1 was set at £44.6 billion (2019 prices) and the estimated cost for completing the full network was revised to a range of £72 billion to £98 billion.
For phase 1, including Euston, HS2 Ltd projects an outturn cost at £40.3 billion (2019 prices) which is at the level of its target cost. This projection remains uncertain at this early stage in the project’s lifecycle, as with all major infrastructure projects, and does not yet reflect the impact of covid. HS2 Ltd is expected to provide its estimate of the covid impact within the next six months. Any cost changes will be contained within the funding envelope using the contingency already assigned.
Of the £40.3 billion, £9.6 billion has been spent to date, a further £11.5 billion is contracted, and £13.9 billion is yet to be contracted and remains an HS2 Ltd estimate. The target cost also includes available HS2 Ltd delegated contingency of £5.3 billion for managing the risk and uncertainty that are an inherent part of delivering major projects. HS2 Ltd is currently reporting cost pressures of £0.8 billion. If not successfully remediated, these pressures will be drawn against the company’s delegated contingency. These pressures are driven by:
Enabling works to prepare the line of route for construction. These have been underway since 2017 and in some areas have encountered more significant challenges than anticipated, such as the need to safely remove more asbestos than expected, resulting in increased scope and duration. These additional costs are likely to be in the order of £0.4 billion according to HS2 Ltd.
Euston station, where further development of the baseline scheme has identified a significant cost pressure, which HS2 Ltd is currently reporting as in the order of £0.4 billion. Further work is ongoing to validate these initial estimates and this could identify further pressure. As this remains at the design stage, work is under way to consider opportunities, efficiencies and scope reductions in order to redress these pressures and we will report further on this in the next report.
The total funding envelope for phase 1 remains at £44.6 billion (2019 prices). This includes further available contingency of £4.3 billion over and above that delegated to HS2 Ltd, which is retained by the Department for Transport and Her Majesty’s Treasury. I am determined to carefully scrutinise the use of contingency to ensure that it is sufficient to cover issues that may emerge later in the project and will provide updates to Parliament through these reports.
The overall phase 2a cost is currently estimated as in the range of £5-7 billion (2019 prices). This remains in line with the estimate set out at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement on 11 February and the NAO update of January 2020. Firmer ranges and a target cost will be confirmed, subject to the scheme being approved by Parliament and based on the scope and undertakings in the Act.
Updated cost estimates will be provided for the phase 2b links to Manchester and Leeds once the integrated rail plan is concluded. At this stage, ongoing design work suggests some further pressure on the most recent estimates but this depends in part on decisions on the route and sequencing, as well as decisions about the appropriate level of contingency to provide at this stage. We will provide further information as this work matures including as part of preparing legislation for the HS2 route from Crewe into Manchester.
Schedule
On phase 1, the delivery into service (DIS) range for initial services from Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street remains 2029 to 2033. HS2 Ltd continues to predict that it will provide services within this range but notes some pressures on the earliest date from covid impacts and delayed handovers from enabling works, which it is seeking to mitigate. Schedule estimates will be more reliable once the main works are fully mobilised next summer and once the rail systems elements have been contracted.
The overall response to covid by HS2 Ltd and its construction partners has been positive with the rapid implementation of safe working practices to protect the public and workers and the reopening of the majority of sites after a safety review. However, some works have been delayed and at some sites covid-safe practices have necessarily reduced productivity to a limited degree.
The range for initial opening of services from Euston remains 2031-2036, subject to further work on the study of design and delivery options.
Schedule ranges for phases 2a and 2b will be established once their scopes are finalised.
Delivery progress
The main works civils contractors are currently taking possession of sites along the line of route on phase 1 and mobilising their workforces and equipment, including the delivery of tunnel boring machines. Significant works are already under way at several sites.
The three other phase 1 stations, Birmingham Curzon Street, Birmingham interchange and Old Oak Common, have now received schedule 17 planning consents. Procurement is under way for the construction of Curzon Street and interchange stations and design refinement is underway at Old Oak Common ahead of approving the start of construction.
The procurement of rail systems packages for track, catenary, power, control and communications systems has begun. Contracts for two packages, slab track and cross passage doors, have been awarded. The procurement of the rolling stock supplier continues and will be awarded in the summer of next year.
The timeline to achieve Royal Assent of the phase 2a Bill by the end of the year is challenging, but remains feasible subject to Parliament’s will.
As noted above, preparations are now under way for a hybrid Bill for the western leg of phase 2b (Crewe to Manchester). A consultation on design refinements to support future use of HS2 infrastructure as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail was launched on 7 October. At the same time a route wide update, decisions on changes previously consulted in 2019, and revised property safeguarding were published for the western leg.
Community and environmental impact
Since my appointment as Minister for HS2, I have sought to increase the focus on managing HS2’s impact on communities along the line of route and on the natural environment.
Securing the land and property needed to construct the line of route across all phases is vital to the programme’s success and is often the first impact that we have on line of route communities. A range of statutory and non-statutory property compensation schemes are available that seek to compensate affected parties fairly while protecting the public purse.
Our policy is to provide fair compensation for those directly and indirectly impacted but the process and disputes for claims can inevitably be traumatic for some. I therefore commissioned a detailed review of the acquisition and compensation process to ensure that there is a renewed focus on those who are being impacted by the new railway. The report will be published shortly and we will move to consult where appropriate on the proposed reforms.
Some £3.6 billion has now been spent acquiring land and property and in the order of 1,250 properties have been acquired to date across the three phases of HS2. The majority of this is from phase 1 where £3.3 billion has been spent to date.
I want to make sure that HS2 Ltd and its contractors are as sensitive as possible to the impact of construction on communities where impacts will unfortunately be unavoidable. HS2 Ltd needs to ensure that communities are properly informed and consulted and that the impacts are minimised to the extent that is reasonable. I intend to engage closely with Members of Parliament and the communities that they represent and ensure HS2 Ltd is meeting the terms of its planning consents.
I also intend to increase our efforts to limit the impact of HS2 on the natural environment and to ensure its construction and operation is as low carbon as possible.
In the coming months, HS2 Ltd will establish a new environmental sustainability committee (as a sub- committee of the HS2 Ltd board), led by its Chair, Allan Cook. This committee will be charged with strengthening environmental sustainability reporting including the development and publication of an environmental sustainability report. HS2 Ltd intends to publish the first report next year.
HS2 Ltd has been working with Natural England over the summer to enhance plans to support delivery of the route wide, “no net loss to biodiversity” target. Following Royal Assent of the phase 2a Bill, HS2 Ltd will continue to explore opportunities to enhance its existing no net loss objective for that phase of the programme. It will identify and implement appropriate opportunities, where it is reasonably practicable, to move towards net gains in biodiversity. This will be supported by a £2 million biodiversity fund.
HS2 Ltd is also working in partnership with local communities to create new woodlands, diverse habitats and community green spaces beyond the construction boundary. Funding provided through the phase 1 £40 million community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund has seen over 126 projects awarded funding of over £7.7 million.
Forward look
For phase 1, the focus for the coming year will see the continued mobilisation of the phase 1 construction programme and commencement of civil engineering and tunnelling activities alongside further contract awards for stations, rolling stock and systems. I will continue to focus on the control of schedule and cost, while implementing the reforms on land and property acquisition, managing the impact of construction on local communities, and improving environmental performance and reporting.
Subject to Parliament’s will, the phase 2a Bill will continue through its final legislative stages to secure authority for construction of the route to Crewe and northern destinations via the west coast main line.
We will continue to define the scope and scheme for phase 2b as part of the work to conclude the integrated rail plan and to prepare a hybrid Bill for the western leg from Crewe to Manchester.
I will continue to engage closely with Members of Parliament and will provide my next report to Parliament in April 2021.
Annex A: Period Financial Report 1
Forecast costs by phase
Historic and forecast expenditure
1 All figures in 2019 prices and excluding VAT. Correct as of 31 August 2020.
2 Validation of the phase 2b cost range is ongoing and will be updated to support the bringing forward of separate legislation for the HS2 route into Manchester, in line with the conclusions of the Oakervee review. The range provided excludes scope intended to be funded by other sources such as Northern Powerhouse Rail.
3 Spend to date includes a £1 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property.
[HCWS508]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the Grand Committee will now begin. Some noble Lords are present, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear face coverings 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.
As noble Lords will know, the House agreed yesterday that the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill should be referred to this Grand Committee for debate before Second Reading. Today’s debate will proceed in the same way as a Second Reading debate in the Chamber, with the Minister opening and concluding the debate. However, the Bill will need to receive a formal Second Reading in the Chamber at a later date. I also flag up that two contributors to the debate today will be making their maiden speeches.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Tuesday 13th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 1 October 2020 (PDF) - (1 Oct 2020)
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill before Second Reading.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for the positive engagement and feedback they have provided thus far. From the conversations I have had with many noble Lords, I believe there is a genuine desire across the House to tackle the matters addressed by the Bill. It is my sincere hope that we can continue to engage in this way as the Bill progresses through the House. Should any noble Lord wish to discuss any part of the Bill between its stages, our doors are always open.
It is unlikely to have escaped noble Lords’ attention that this is a short Bill. While short and technical, it is an important piece of legislation that will avoid a state pension freeze and benefit millions of pensioners by granting the Secretary of State powers to implement an increase in state pension rates in the 2021-22 financial year. It will also allow for increases for the poorest pensioners who are in receipt of pension credit, as well as uprating widows’ and widowers’ benefit under the industrial death benefit scheme.
Each year, the Secretary of State is required by law to conduct a review of most state pension rates and certain other benefit rates to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings. If there has been an increase in earnings, there is a requirement to uprate these rates at least in line with that increase. However, if there has been no increase in earnings, there are no legal powers to bring forward an uprating order to increase these rates.
Since 2011, the Government have used average weekly earnings growth for the year from May to July as the basis for the review. The figures published by the Office for National Statistics earlier today confirmed that for the year from May to July 2020, earnings fell by 1%. Given this decline in the general level of earnings due to the coronavirus pandemic, the Bill temporarily amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to grant discretionary powers to the Secretary of State to increase pension and benefit rates linked to earnings even if there has been no growth in earnings. The provision lasts for one year only.
The Bill must receive Royal Assent by mid-November if it is to have any practical effect. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent by the time the Secretary of State conducts her review of benefit rates, the existing provisions will apply and state pensions will be frozen. The Secretary of State must complete her review before 27 November, which is a hard deadline for the IT systems across the DWP that implement the increases, to allow them to take effect in April 2021.
The Bill covers the basic state pension, the new state pension, the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, and widows’ and widowers’ benefits under the industrial death benefit scheme. These are the benefits that are linked in primary legislation to earnings. The Bill does not extend to benefits that are linked to prices. The Secretary of State will review those under the existing powers in the 1992 Act.
This is a technical Bill and, provided that it receives Royal Assent by mid-November, it will ensure that the state pension is not frozen in 2021-22. It will allow the Government to increase the level of the safety net for the poorest pensioners in pension credit and the rates of widows’ and widowers’ benefits under the industrial death benefit scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the two newly ennobled Peers to our proceedings in this Room and congratulate them in advance on their maiden speeches. This is a unique occasion for newly ennobled Members of the House to make their maiden speeches in these newly formed proceedings, but it will be something to tell their grandchildren or others who fit into that category.
I am walking on very thin ice, and indeed not just on eggshells but on broken glass in terms of the short contribution I wish to make. Twenty years ago, I was in some conflict with the then Chancellor because I backed the stalwart but ageing battleship that was Barbara Castle and my good friend, the late Rodney Bickerstaffe, then the general secretary of Unison, in publicly advocating the double lock on the state pension, at a time when I know noble Lords will remember the Government were stumbling into a 75 pence a week increase and all the controversy around that. Here we are, some 20 years later with a triple lock, but in very different circumstances. Twenty years ago, pensioner poverty was rife, which is why we are talking about pension credit. It was a really big challenge to ensure that those who had given their lives during the war were not disadvantaged, and major steps were taken to put that right.
However, here we are, on the back of numerous research projects, including by the Resolution Foundation, and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who has done so much on this, facing a very different situation. I realise that while we must pass this legislation as quickly as possible—as we would expect to do, because we are only putting right an expectation and implementing what was in fact in the Government’s manifesto—we will have to reassess how we deal with this in the future.
I deferred my retirement pension, but I now take it. For Members who have other ways of supplementing their pensions and are in a comfortable position, if not rich, it is very difficult to address these issues without being accused of hypocrisy. But the situation in relation to the young versus the old in terms of the balance between the generations has changed dramatically. It is difficult to talk about this. I was on the BBC “Politics Live” programme with Professor Karol Sikora at the beginning of September. He made remarks along the lines I have just touched on in respect of what is happening to young people. An avalanche of abuse was poured on his head, but because, thank God, I do not do social media, it took a bit of time for it to reach me. However, people did, some of them not realising that I am in the same age bracket as those who were writing to me.
I understand this because there are people who are still extremely badly off in retirement, but there are real challenges. Today we learn that out of the half a million people who have, we have been notified, lost their jobs through to August, three out of five were between the ages of 16 and 24. Older people have at least been protected to some extent from 10 years of austerity by other benefits, but not younger people. While we must go ahead with this legislation, all major parties—difficult as it is—will have to reassess their policies in relation to fairness between and within the generations. That will have to be done sooner or later, not least because of the enormity of the increase in debt and the investment that have been needed because of Covid.
I know what the politics are; I am not foolish. Older people vote in substantial numbers compared to the young. The answer is that young people need to learn the bitter lesson that, if they do not vote, they pass power to others who do.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a short Bill: I count 29 lines in it. I have looked through all the other literature provided to brief on it, all of which is considerably longer than the Bill. It is undoubtedly an important piece of legislation and, as a temporary measure, it probably is acceptable to everybody, because we are dealing with unusual circumstances. However, what happens if the temporary measures continue? It is quite possible, if we look in a glass-half-empty way, that the economy could be severely interrupted for a long time. It would be nice to know the Government’s thinking on this. Will we be dependent on something going well in the future or will we have to do this again if something goes badly? It is a technical point. I appreciate that nobody wants that to happen, but it is something that we should hear about at this time.
We could have put into this Bill something that suggested that the norm would come back. It has been tried in the Commons and it might be interesting to look at that again. The 2.5% increase means that many pensioners have an easier time. Pensioners with good incomes are not so vulnerable in other aspects of life, which removes some other costs, usually to the health service and other interventions. I hope that we can have some commitment, not only in this debate but during the passage of the Bill, on how this is going to be raised. There is no long-term benefit in having pensioners reduced to levels of poverty and needing other forms of intervention to maintain their status.
I now come to one of the more pleasant bits and welcome the maiden speakers. I do not envy the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, having to follow the noble Lord, Lord Field, on this subject. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, will be able to shake us up a bit as well, but the noble Lord, Lord Field, has something of a reputation here and we wait with bated breath for what he is going to say. However, I am sure that, if anybody can match him, it is the noble Baroness.
I hope that we will be able to get ideas about the ongoing thinking behind this. We also need to bear in mind, if a long-term strategy is agreed, all those who have not been able to put money into pensions during this interruption. This is the backstop. This is the thing that says that you will have some benefit. Most of those who have had the biggest interruption to their savings plans and patterns will be at the lower end of economic reward.
It will be interesting to get the Government’s long-term thinking on this. Are we dealing with this as a one-off blip or could it happen again and again? That possibly is there, even if none of us wants it to be. Having said that, I have no other objections and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us assurances that will make us feel a bit more comfortable about the passage of this unusual Bill.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I totally support the intention of this Bill, which ensures that the triple lock is maintained for pensioners. It is extremely important that older people who rely on their pensions do not fall into poverty, especially during this crisis which is hitting them so hard. However, older people who continue to work are not really pensioners; they are older workers. According to the May 2018 Office for National Statistics figures for December 2017 to February 2018, just under 1.2 million people over the age of 65 were in work. That is 10.2% of the entire age group.
The Equality Act 2010 includes provisions that ban age discrimination against adults in the provision of services and public functions. The ban came into force on 1 October 2012 and it is now unlawful to discriminate based on age. When someone receives a pension, they pay tax on any income above their tax-free personal allowance. They cease to pay national insurance on reaching the state pension age, regardless of whether they remain in employment.
The triple lock ensures that the state pension increases each year, using three different components—price inflation, earnings growth and 2.5%. The highest of the three, measured the previous September, is used to increase the pension each April. For the current financial year, UK Government borrowing could be anywhere from £263 billion to £391 billion, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. People who continue to work over the age of eligibility for a state pension do not need their pensions triple-locked. In today’s attitudes and legislation, these people are older workers not pensioners and, in my view, they should be taxed like other workers in our society.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who has done so much in our House on issues of longevity. I always listen to her with great pleasure. I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the Bill with characteristic grace and good humour. It is indeed a very short Bill.
Like others, I look forward immensely to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston. They are two very distinguished parliamentarians, who I know will add massively to the strength of our House. I have known the noble Baroness for a long time. I taught her company law and I recall that on one occasion, before either of us got very involved in politics, she said to me that I was a far better lawyer than a politician. I think that my repost was that she was a far better student than she was a politician. We both find ourselves in the House of Lords and I look forward to her contribution to our House immensely.
I believe that this Bill is necessary. It ensures that state pensions can potentially be uprated, despite the likely fall in earnings. It is matter of pride to me that our country and our Government believe in the pension triple lock—it is something that we should welcome, as indeed I do. I recognise that there is a great issue of intergenerational unfairness at present and I would like to say something about that, too. The Bill is necessary to amend legislation because of earnings falling, albeit by a relatively small amount, and it is necessary that the Bill gets Royal Assent, I understand, by mid-November, which I am sure will happen.
It is right to say, as others have, that many pensioners are well off now—the noble Baroness addressed this point. However, there are still some 2 million pensioners living in poverty—that is according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and the Government’s own figures are only just under that. Despite the financial security that many pensioners enjoy in retirement, there is still a real issue for many others. We should rejoice that pensioners are living longer, but we need to recognise that there are ongoing issues of poverty in retirement for many people.
I want to say a little about intergenerational fairness, which was addressed briefly also by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Many people at the young end of the age spectrum—16 to 24—will be massively disadvantaged through this crisis. They have seen their education missed, disrupted apprenticeships and lost jobs, and they will continue to do so. According to a report this year by the Social Metrics Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lady Stroud, an estimated 8.5 million people of working age are living in families in poverty. Can the Minister say something about that? I know that it is something that the Secretary of State will come to, but can my noble friend say something about the timing and the likely thinking, because there is a much greater issue here than the important points about pensions that we are addressing. Yes, this Bill is important and it is right that we focus on it today, but, for the next 10 years, the issue will be the fairness that we need to apply to the younger generation, who are likely to have to pay the bills of this crisis and who have seen their education and jobs disrupted. I shall certainly support the Bill, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about the broader picture of benefits for those at the other end of the age spectrum.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I add my words of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, and look forward to their maiden speeches.
I welcome the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill. Pension credits are vital for the welfare of low-income retirees and it is right that measures are taken to support them in this challenging time. However, there is certainly scope for going further. Accusations relating to intergenerational fairness are not entirely unfounded. While I am for uprating the basic state pension, providing a guaranteed rise of 2.5% at a time when millions have lost income due to the pandemic, I realise that it will raise questions over whether this Government represent the entire country or just those who are older.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the situation is perilous for those on the breadline. The Government’s failure to guarantee the permanence of the April 2020 universal credit uplift will be devastating for those formerly employed and now relying on universal credit. Across the country, arrears are building up, and immediate action will be required to prevent low-income families being burdened with unrealistic debt.
While the pandemic has affected everybody, when it comes to income, it is not retirees but low working-age households that have been most affected, whether through cuts in income or redundancy and rising living costs. I hope that the Government make the right decisions and stay true to their levelling-up agenda by being a national Government who choose to represent all age demographics.
Faith groups have been working hard to raise awareness of the financial difficulties endured across the country. For example, the recent Reset the Debt report by a coalition of four national Christian denominations drew attention to the increasingly unstable position that those made redundant due to Covid-19 now find themselves in, with many through no fault of their own sliding into debt spirals and homelessness. Their call to reset the debt through a Jubilee fund is the sort of innovative policy required so not to condemn generations to imposed poverty. I join my Church of England colleagues, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Portsmouth, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in its “keep the lifeline” campaign in urging the Government to make permanent the universal credit uplift that occurred in April this year.
I understand that difficult economic decisions will need to be made. However, given the uncertainty that we face, cutting back on economic support before the crisis is over will only exacerbate the situation and do so quickly. The Treasury has been taking bold decisions and will need to take more that will entail spending additional revenue in the short term to give those chances on the line a chance in the long run.
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I want first to say a huge thank you. I was told before I came to this place that the welcome would be warm, and it most certainly has been, both from before taking the oath and in the lead-up to today’s debate. People said, “What’s on the tin you’ll find in the box”, and I certainly did—until the last part of taking the oath, when my eye caught the screen. It said, “Motion of Regret”. I hoped that that did not apply to me, but, if it does, I hope that the execution may be delayed a little so that I might make a contribution today.
I want briefly to touch on the three themes that most concern me at the moment and that I know very much affect your Lordships. I thought that I would be standing today, but, sitting here and thinking about my parents and the difference between my life and theirs, which was brought about largely by the great Attlee Government, I cannot but think what a springboard to freedom education was. I say to my noble Peers—I will get under my belt how I refer to everyone shortly; I hope that you are all my noble friends today—that it is really important that we think about education. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has made such a contribution here. We should think about both the foundation years or early years and the possibilities the Government create for apprenticeships. I cannot see the Government being able to fulfil their one-nation policy unless we are much more successful on apprenticeships than we have been up to now. I am looking to my noble friend at the other end of the Room. I know about his interest and I hope that, like me, he will express a particular concern on this issue.
The second issue in a sense relates to the Bill and has been touched on by the right reverend Prelate who spoke before me and others. One of the most important things that the Government did as this terrible plague descended on us was to give people on universal credit a £1,000-a-year uplift. We could argue that that was making good cuts which the scheme suffered in its implementation, but, as two speakers have already said, it has made such a difference to people totally dependent on universal credit. When I was an MP, I saw the effect on breaking the avenue to destitution which many of our fellow citizens faced with that particular cut. My pledge is to work with as many of you here who wish to to defeat any government plan, should that be their aim, not to continue to pay the £1,000-a-year extra in universal credit.
Noble Lords have already commented on the different roles of social security. One is when we are dealing with a class of people who are poor, where one very much needs universal provision. As other speakers have said, a number of us, as pensioners, are now moderately well off, so should any increase above inflation-proofing not go to those groups who have suffered most from social security changes? That means people below retirement age and, strangely, those who do not have children. They are the group who have suffered most.
The third theme, on which a number of noble Lords have been very active, is modern slavery. Hobbes talked about life being “nasty, brutish, and short”. It is certainly nasty and brutal for people sold into slavery, though not always short. Noble Lords will know that your period of slavery comes to an end only when you cannot earn enough and you are thrown out. I hope that, as this House develops its programme over the coming months, we can look very carefully at how we need to strengthen the pioneering Act which the previous Prime Minister, Mrs May, put on to the statute book, to her eternal credit.
I have one last comment to make about modern slavery. People were kind enough to say that they expected some sort of fireworks from me today. Indeed, if this was not my maiden speech, I could have given a speech saying this, that or the other. But I have one last comment to make, if I may, about modern slavery and the brutality and horror of seeing people and knowing of people destroyed in this manner. One amendment that we might make, to give power to justices, is to think about statues for modern slave users in our society. My plea to Black Lives Matter, an incredibly important movement, is that it is very important to bring its campaign up to date, given the slavery that exists in this country here and now.
Maybe this is one way of concentrating the minds of employers who know so much about taking dividends but so little, it appears, about the conditions in which their workers earn their fortunes for them. We might put these individuals on a plinth to remind ourselves that, sadly, this evil of modern slavery exists in our society and that one purpose of this place is to put a lot of salt on the tails of those slave owners.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it is indeed a special privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead. It is very difficult to call him that; I have known him for 50 years and now I have to learn his new name. My noble friend is of course well known for his expertise and contribution in the area of poverty, whether in welfare benefits, food banks, education for underprivileged children, housing needs and so forth. He has also made an exceptional contribution to the welfare of the people of Birkenhead on all those issues and many others, as well as being an exceptionally effective parliamentarian over 40 years. The combination of those two contributions is remarkable.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Field, has also contributed on a considerable number of other issues over those years. I could probably keep your Lordships here all afternoon going through all the different issues that he has talked about and effected change on over the years, but noble Lords will glad to know that I shall mention just three.
With one or two other people, it was the noble Lord, Lord Field—Frank Field as he then was—who persuaded Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, to enable council tenants to buy their own houses or flats and become homeowners. For these deeply underprivileged people, to own a home was an incredibly important change in their lives and we should never forget it. If people remember, the issue at the time was that the noble Lord wanted these houses sold to the tenants but for the money to be used to invest in new social housing. The sad thing about that whole policy was that Mrs Thatcher agreed to sell the properties to their tenants but not to use the money to invest in social housing. Half the policy was wonderful but had the noble Lord, Lord Field, had his way, there would have been investment in social housing and then it would have been the perfect policy.
On a very different issue, the noble Lord, Lord Field, was one of the masterminds of the Modern Slavery Act. He chaired the committee that developed that policy and then led the charge in driving the Bill through the other place. We know that my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, were also key players in that reform. It is a radical, major issue, which will last for many decades to come—that is important.
The third, totally different, example, which illustrates the versatility of the noble Lord’s mind, was the adoption by the Queen, for her Jubilee year, of the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy—it was his idea and rather a wonderful one. We can expect the noble Lord to contribute on all sorts of issues to do with climate change and the planet—you name it and he will be up there. I think he will be an extremely active Member of your Lordships’ House and a formidable challenge to anyone who chooses to disagree with him. I have to confess that that might often—sometimes, anyway—include me.
I turn now to the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, which is what I am supposed to be talking about today. I thank the Minister and her officials for their very helpful briefing the other day. I understand that if wages fall this year, as they are expected to do, without this Bill, the Secretary of State cannot uprate a range of benefits, but I have a few questions for the Minister.
First, I believe that this year and next year should really be taken together. These two years are going to be ravaged by Covid-19, in very different ways. We know that this year average wages are likely to fall by about 1%. Indeed, we know that people on the Government’s employment support scheme will lose some 17% of their wages. I applaud the scheme—I am not being critical of it—but we have to be aware that a lot of working people, including many young people, will lose substantial percentages of their income. Millions of others will lose their incomes altogether. This year is not like any other that we have experienced in our lifetimes.
Next year, however, average wages are likely to increase by about 4%. These shifts in pay make a nonsense of the triple lock. Over the two years, we can expect average wages to increase by, let us say, 3%—a purely illustrative figure. However, if the triple lock is applied, my understanding is that with that sort of wage change this year and next, pensions would increase by 6.5%—more than double the wage increases, if I am right. No doubt the Minister is looking around for some information to prove me wrong. Maybe she will succeed but I stand by my figures for the next while.
Seriously, there is an important issue here, which a number of other Peers have mentioned: the difference between the old—like me; I claim my state pension—and the young. It is crucial that we do not lose sight of that; others have made the point far better than I could.
I understand that there is a dispute between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. The Prime Minister wants to stand by his manifesto commitment to hold on to the triple lock, which I can understand. But nobody knew about Covid at the time of the election, although we probably should have done. The Chancellor, rightly, wants to ditch the triple lock for the moment and I have to say that I think he is right. I just want to put that on record. We have a Chancellor who really knows about figures and I think he has got it right.
I agree with the flexibility introduced by this Bill but hope that it will be repeated next year. Unfortunately, it is not just one Bill covering the two years. I also hope that it will be used to increase the basic pension in line with average earnings, at most. The basic pension should not increase any more than wages; in the light of the fact that so many pensioners have done rather well in the last decade or so, even to increase pensions in line with wages at least needs thinking about. Also, I very strongly think that pension rates and other benefits for the poor should be increased even more than the increase in average wages. I hope that the Chancellor will treat the basic pension differently from the pension and other benefits for the most deprived, because we have to deal with the most incredible inequalities in our society and that is one way in which to do it.
I turn to a slightly different issue. I hope that we will consider in Committee the problem of the 4% of UK pensioners who currently do not receive the pensions to which they contributed over their entire working lives. This is the 4% who do not live in the EEA or in a country covered by an agreement that requires us to update their pensions. If they are in other countries, their pension is frozen at the level it was when they moved from the UK or first claimed their pension. You could say that that is nothing to do with this Bill, or that this is an opportunity to do something about this rather tragic little group. These are people who may have moved to Canada, or somewhere, to be near their daughter because they are frail and have stayed there. They may still alive 15 years later but have had no increase in their pensions. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill but with one or two provisos, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Field, on his excellent maiden speech. He has made an outstanding contribution to the public debate on social security and pensions. His interrogation of the players on the funding of the BHS pension scheme is the stuff of legend. I am so glad that he is now such an asset to this House. I also look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart.
I support this Bill because it allows the Government to increase the rate of particular pension benefits from 2021-22, if average earnings do not increase. References to uprating benefits in the 1992 Act are to prices or earnings, depending on the benefit. The triple lock is a Government manifesto commitment and, therefore, subject wholly to their discretion. But that the Bill is needed is a stark reminder of what is happening to earnings, particularly in the private sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts average earnings will fall by 7% this year, which is not surprising, and that earnings could see an 18% increase next year which, if correct, would put the triple lock under an intense spotlight.
Covid-19 has undoubtedly weakened the economy and Brexit will present further profound changes for business. Yet 10 years after the financial crisis in 2008, median real earnings were still 3% below their 2008 level and there was record low productivity growth. Either way, such outcomes will raise the heat of the debate on the uprating of benefits. Is it now the Government’s view that their commitment to the triple lock and uprating of state pensions in its current form may not hold, year on year, over the next few years?
Recent pension debates have focused on auto-enrolment. I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to maintaining workplace pension contributions throughout the different job support measures that he has introduced, including in Kickstart, which is targeted on the young unemployed. That shows real commitment. But the reality is that the state pension will remain the dominant source of retirement income for millions of pensioners now and long into the future. It is important that the uprating of the state pensions does not become a political football and that its very long-term strategic role is not lost: that of setting a firm foundation on which ordinary people can rely—I stress ordinary people—when saving from their wages into a workplace pension to build a better retirement income.
DWP statistics revealed that in 2018-19 benefit income, including state pension, was the largest component of the total gross income for pensioners, and that increases considerably as pensioners age. Average incomes of single pensioners were slightly lower in 2018-19 than in 2009-10. Pensions Policy Institute figures reveal that those with below median retirement income receive on average half their income from the state pension alone, excluding other benefits. The new state pension is currently worth 24% of national average earnings, 2% less than the basic state pension peak of 26% in 1979. Those eligible for state pension prior to the 2016 introduction of the new state pension do not benefit from the triple lock applied to their full state retirement.
I give that setting because a cohort of retired people are clearly better off, and that has to be addressed, but it should not affect the perceptions of the financial position of pensioners as a whole. For the top fifth of pensioners, the largest source of income was their occupational pension and they received a larger percentage of their income from earnings. Intergenerational concerns may in many cases be better addressed through the tax regime and the national insurance rules for those working over the state pension age, rather than weakening the state pension as a firm foundation for saving by millions of ordinary workers. That could be regressive, hurting those on lower and moderate incomes the most and having the least impact on those who rely so little on it because they have such a large alternative source of income.
The DWP Secretary of State said that the Bill would allow
“potential increases for the poorest pensioners who are in receipt of pension credit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/10/2020; col. 559.]
There are some 1.5 million claiming pension credit; many women do so but many poor pensioners, sadly, do not even claim. Many will be feeling isolated and vulnerable and the winter months are still to come. In my view, the Government should significantly uprate pension credit, which is wholly targeted on the poorest pensioners. There are precedents for applying higher cash increases to the guaranteed pension credit, and I hope that the Government will set another such positive precedent. What are the Government’s thoughts on the uprating of pension credit?
Can the Minister also give some indication of the Government’s timeline and intentions for the annual uprating of other social security benefits, given that people have economic anxieties and there is rising unemployment—we have just heard the figures today—along with falling earnings and hours of work? The Government temporarily boosted universal credit for families during the crisis, but they risk undoing this protection for the poorest families at the time when they need that boost the most. The benefit cap meant that 124,000 families on universal credit did not receive the full £20 per week benefits increase; now thousands will see a fall in their benefit as the grace period runs out. The Resolution Foundation’s forecast is that the poorest families will suffer a huge 7% fall in income if the £20 per week increase is removed in April. The Government simply cannot go on claiming that we are all in this together when retaining the benefit cap in these dire circumstances. A review of taxes for the wealthy was taken off the table but removing the £20 from April was nailed to the floor. That certainly is not “all in this together”, so it would be of value if the Minister could give some indication of the intentions on the uprating of other benefits.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, like others I speak in support of the Bill, but first I must say that we are looking forward very much to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, in a moment? Before I talk about the Bill, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, on his excellent maiden speech. He made a number of telling points, including on the importance of education and apprenticeships, on modern slavery and on the need for us to be one nation. We should thank him for all he has contributed to the thinking on poverty, financial fairness and the benefits system over so many years. It is very good indeed to have his experience and expertise in this House.
As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said, this is a technical but important Bill. It is particularly important for pensioners on low incomes and even more so for those in receipt of pension credit. I assume it was an oversight that this situation might arise. The context is a serious one, as we have heard, because many poorer pensioners may have been very dependent upon small amounts of investment income which they have seen reduced to very low levels by declining interest rates. Holding down their state pension as well would not be right.
As we have heard, this is a one-year adjustment. However, there are some implications, a number of which we have heard about already. If earnings bounce back for 2022-23, there would have to be very careful consideration of whether that annual rise should be tracked. One approach would be another one-year adjustment that could then be based on a two-year period with a baseline from before the outbreak of the pandemic. That might eliminate unintended consequences. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that, and to know when the draft order will be laid to increase pension benefit rates by such a percentage
“as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”
I am aware of the timescales for ensuring that the IT system works, but the earlier the percentage is known the better it would be for our consideration. The timing of that decision should bear in mind the need for financial fairness across society in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a decision is pending on the universal credit uplift, which is due to end in March. A report published recently by Citizens Advice has found that three-quarters of the people it gives advice to on debt problems and who receive universal credit and working tax credits would not be able to cover their costs if the uplift were discontinued. I submit that that would not be fair.
We have heard from a number of speakers about the importance of intergenerational fairness. I subscribe to the opinions expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bourne, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others. I say to the Minister that we will need a national debate on how we address the fragility of our benefits system, which has become so exposed by the coronavirus pandemic. The financial well-being of society should be an ambition that demonstrates that it is truly inclusive. The next few months need to be used to review and reform.
One of the things that we now need to consider is universal basic income. I have watched pilot schemes for it and I have sometimes wondered whether it would work effectively in a UK context. It might, but that is part and parcel of what I am saying to the Minister: we cannot move from a decision on pensions and a different decision on universal credit uplift when we now need to look very carefully at the whole structure of our benefits system in a post-coronavirus position.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the warm, albeit socially distanced, welcome that Members of this House have extended to me. It is an honour and a privilege to be here, but there is also a duty associated with our presence here.
It was a joy to have as my supporters the noble Lords, Lord King of Lothbury and Lord Owen. There were loyal friends to my late husband, Derek Scott. It was the closest I could get to him being there and sharing the occasion. I think he would have been proud of the three of us.
It would be amiss of me not to mention some of those who have gone before me. My old constituency of Birmingham Edgbaston has the proud record of having been represented by women for longer than any other constituency in the country. Dame Edith Pitt was elected in 1953 and was succeeded in 1966 by Dame Jill Knight, who entered this House in 1997 as Baroness Knight of Collingtree. She retired in 2016 after 50 years of parliamentary service. When I stepped down in 2017, I was succeeded by Preet Gill, the first woman Sikh Member of Parliament.
The last time I spoke in the other place I referred to Nancy Astor, the first woman to take her seat in Parliament, who, on leaving, reflected that she would miss this place more than the place would miss her. That is true for all of us, but some leave a deeper footprint than others. In 1938, Birmingham Edgbaston was represented by the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. I have occasionally reflected on what he would have said had he been told that, 60 years later, his constituency would have been represented by a German woman socialist, born near Munich, and that it all came about by peaceful democratic means.
Last but not least, I come to this House after having shared a significant part of my life with my late husband, Derek Scott. He started public life as one of the first of the political special advisers to the late Lord Healey when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Callaghan Government, and served as Prime Minister Tony Blair’s economic adviser during the first term of the 1997 Labour Government. He foresaw many of the economic and political difficulties associated with the creation of the single European currency and the contradictions in the UK’s membership of the EU. He did not live to see the 2016 referendum, but his thinking and reasoning shaped many of the arguments.
I gave my first speech in the other place during a debate on social security. I told the House then that I entered politics in no small part because of my concerns about pension provisions in general and the unfair treatment of women in particular. In those days, it was not clear who owned the surpluses accumulated by occupational pension funds. I was about to write a PhD thesis at Birmingham University about the discretionary investment powers of pension fund trustees. I was ably supported in this endeavour by some excellent law teaching, which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, reminded us about at the beginning. He was an absolutely brilliant company law teacher.
As I started this work, I met Jeff, now the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He told me about the fate of pensioners of Lucas Industries. The company had accrued large surpluses, but, rather than increase the benefits paid to its pensioners, it raided the fund. A group of pensioners took the company to court. They not only lost their case but were told that if they appealed against his decision he would award costs against them. One day, I drove up to Fazeley, picked up the court papers and hoped to be at least able to incorporate their story in my PhD. Alas, the PhD was never completed. I became the university’s MP instead. The first committee I served on was on pre-legislative scrutiny of pension splitting on divorce, which the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, may well remember, because I seem to recall he was the Pensions Minister at the time. Whenever challenged about my PhD, I say, “Never mind, I put it into law.”
That makes this Bill a very good occasion for me to be allowed to give my maiden speech. The Government are right to uprate certain benefits for the 2121-22 tax year, even if earnings do not increase. As several speakers have said, one year may not be sufficient, and there is a real question about the intergenerational fairness of some of our arrangements. However, I urge the Minister to make sure that whatever mechanisms we set up, people who pay their contributions have a right to know what they can expect and to have a level of certainty about the deal the state enters into with them. We should never forget about the poorest pensioners, but we should also not forget about women. At the time when I first entered politics women were handicapped by not being able to affect their pension entitlement other than through earned income. Some of that has changed but it is not sufficient, as the WASPI women would be the first to tell us.
I thank the Committee for listening to me and giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston. I am sure noble Lords will join me in congratulating her on her excellent maiden speech. I know that we can look forward to many more thoughtful, powerful and productive contributions from her in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, will leave a footprint in this House—fear not. Her battle for the position of women in politics, business and pensions will continue. The noble Baroness has had such a distinguished career in public service: 20 years as MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, including as Health Minister and on the Joint Intelligence Committee. Now, as chair of Wilton Park, she is dealing with conflict resolution, a skill that I hope will prove particularly valuable in the context of some of the conflicts we encounter in this House—on Brexit, for example. As a non-executive director in the Cabinet Office, she is and will be a real asset to the House. I am delighted to see her here.
It is a pleasure to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, whom I met and became friends with through her dear late husband, Derek Scott, with whom I worked on pensions policy in No. 10 when he was the then Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser. Her law degree and her near-PhD on pension issues have definitely stood her in good stead. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, Derek was personable, intelligent and with a really good sense of humour. All three of us were vehemently opposed to Britain joining the euro. Indeed, his warnings about the dangers of monetary union to European financial stability and the costs of bailing out weaker members such as Greece proved prescient around the time of his tragic death aged just 65 in 2012. I have no doubt that Derek would be so proud of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and all that she has achieved—as, of course, are her sons, Ben and Alastair, and her wider family. I look forward to many more contributions from the noble Baroness, as do all noble Lords, I am sure.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, whose maiden speech we have also heard today. I look forward to many more contributions from the noble Lord, not only on education, apprenticeships, modern slavery and national unity but on today’s subject: pensions and social security. He is, as many others have commented, a legend in his field.
The Bill before us today is vital to protect pensioners. Clearly, using earnings growth for the period May to July 2020 would make it impossible to uprate many important benefits that pensioners rely on. It is right that the Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion to increase the state pensions by an amount considered “appropriate” in light of the economy and other matters. It would be wrong to freeze state pensions in the current environment, especially when so many older people are struggling with the effects of lockdown, restrictions on their daily lives, or having to spend more on care, for example.
The UK state pension is already the lowest in the developed world relative to average earnings. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and have called, as he has, for a double lock, increasing by the best of prices or earnings. In fact, as others have said, the triple lock is not just problematic for intergenerational fairness; there is an element of intragenerational unfairness. The triple-lock construct is not entirely suitable for the purpose of preventing poverty in later life. It is more of a political construct than a rational economic policy tool to protect later life. The 2.5% is arbitrary and, in particular, does not apply to pension credit, which has to be increased only in line in with earnings, rather than the triple lock. The triple lock protects only the full basic state pension of £134.25 a week and the full new state pension of £175.20. It does not apply to SERPS or the state second pension. So it benefits the youngest pensioners most, rather than the oldest and poorest. I urge my noble friend the Minister to reassure the Committee that the pension credit will not fall behind the new state pension in any way. I also urge the department to look again at how we protect the oldest and poorest pensioners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned the issue of frozen pensions: the 4% of UK pensioners who have no right to an increase in their state pension. I know that this is a difficult issue for the department but it might be one, in the light of the pandemic and of Brexit, that we wish to reconsider.
I also ask my noble friend to look at other benefit upratings which are particularly important. One that I have commented on before is bereavement benefits; in particular, having an allowance for children that lasts longer than 18 months and disregards their parental status.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to consider particularly the position of women, the disabled and the lowest earners; in particular, the older women trying to live on far less than the full pension, even though they are entitled to a share of their former spouse’s pension after either divorce or bereavement. Could my noble friend update the Committee on the work being carried out in the department to identify what has gone wrong with the system which is meant to ensure that women receiving below the minimum have their pensions increased when their spouse reaches his state pension age, and whether remedial measures are about to be put in place?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, and the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, on their excellent maiden speeches. The latter in particular brings years of experience and expertise on social security issues to your Lordships’ House. Moreover, he gave me my first job at the Child Poverty Action Group just short of 50 years ago—I would probably not be here otherwise.
I realise that this is a technical Bill relating to pensions uprating, but given that it is entitled the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill I wish to address the uprating of benefits more generally. The Minister ended Second Reading in the Commons with a claim that the Bill provides pensioners
“with financial peace of mind in the face of the … pandemic”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/10/20; col. 571.].
This is of course welcome, but arguably people of working age, especially those with children, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, are in even greater need of such peace of mind. Children are already at greater risk of poverty, including deep poverty; many families face a very uncertain economic future and will be suffering acute insecurity and anxiety. At the very least, they need to be given some peace of mind through assurances about the social security support that will be available to them.
As a former Work and Pensions Secretary, Stephen Crabb observed in a “ConservativeHome” blog—I must admit that is not my usual bedtime reading:
“What was missing from the Chancellor’s”
Winter Statement
“was any mention of the crucial role being played by Universal Credit during this crisis and the bigger role it will inevitably need to play in the months ahead.”
Echoing organisations on the ground, in the early stages a Daily Telegraph article suggested that the social security system could come to play a similarly vital role to the NHS in seeing us through the pandemic.
It is thus essential that the system is adequate to the task, including a level of benefit that, to quote the Lords Economic Affairs Committee,
“provides claimants with dignity and security.”
The committee also warned:
“The significant cuts to the social security system over the last decade mean that a catch-up increase in funding is needed urgently”.
Those cuts included the freeze in most working-age and children’s benefits. Given that the Conservative manifesto proclaimed the ending of the freeze, I hope the Minister will be able to give a firm assurance that, rumours to the contrary notwithstanding, there will be no further freeze of benefit during this Parliament. Any further cuts would mean not just more extensive poverty, but more intensive poverty, as more families are pushed further below the poverty line.
The committee also called on the Government to
“commit to making the increase in the standard allowance permanent”,
given the evidence it had received about the inadequacy of UC. Indeed, the very fact of that welcome uplift was tacit admission that the level of benefit was too low if people who lost work because of the crisis were to cope. Despite the uplift, Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculations showed that the real value of out-of-work support is still well below what it was in 2011-12, especially for those with children. The Minister will be well aware of the widespread support for retaining the £20 uplift, expressed in a letter to the Chancellor from around 50 children’s charities and others, and by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. According to the IFS, its withdrawal could mean 4 million families losing an average 13% of their benefit overnight.
The Resolution Foundation argues that to withdraw the uplift risked undoing the valuable protection it had provided for some of the poorest families when they will need it most, given, it said:
“It is inconceivable that the labour market will be in full health by April”.
It calculates that it would mean support for unemployed people falling to its lowest level ever, relative to average weekly earnings. Research by Save the Children published last week and by Citizens Advice today underlines the vital role it has played and the devastating impact its removal would have on families struggling to stay afloat. Last week the Prime Minister thrice avoided giving a straight answer on this question. I hope that he and the Minister will read a letter sent to him by Davine Forde, written from lived experience and pleading with him to maintain the uplift. It is on the JRF website.
Those pressing for retaining the uplift argue also for its extension to legacy benefits, claimed in particular by sick and disabled people or carers. The original argument that this could not be done because it would take too long to implement is well past its sell-by date. I hope the Government will now listen to the case made by SSAC and the Work and Pensions Committee, among others, for ending what is tantamount to discrimination. As a lone mother on ESA told Save the Children, “Having an extra £20 sounds so little but it means a lot”.
There is growing evidence that low-income families with children are bearing a disproportionate burden of poverty and hardship during the crisis; this shows up in Trussell Trust data on increased food bank use. Studies by Save the Children, CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and the Church of England reveal a significant deterioration in families’ living standards, aggravated in some cases by the benefit cap, referred to by my noble friend Lady Drake, which hurts children disproportionately. Yet last week when I asked the Minister—not for the first time, as she pointed out—why there has been no additional social security support for children, answer came there none. Calls for a real rise in children’s benefits, be it child benefit or means-tested support, are growing. I ask yet again: why are children, the age group at the greatest risk of poverty, being ignored and why is there still no review of the benefit cap?
I have emphasised the social case for protecting families through the social security system, but there is also an economic case, as made by organisations such as CPAG, JRF and the Resolution Foundation. It was expressed well in Stephen Crabb’s blog, which I referred to earlier. He said that
“investing in social security can be an effective stimulus, with those at the bottom end of the income distribution allocating more of their budget to core bills and essentials, and therefore being more likely to spend additional income than wealthier households”.
I would add that they are more likely to spend that income in the local economy. This needs to be understood as part of the levelling-up agenda. Indeed, according to the Resolution Foundation as many as one in three working-age families in so-called red wall constituencies stand to lose if the uplift is withdrawn.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this argument and that she listens to what we say on these matters. I therefore urge her to take the message back to her colleagues in the DWP and Treasury that if the Government are genuinely concerned to provide those least well placed to withstand the financial impact of the pandemic with “financial peace of mind”, they must commit now to maintain the £20 uplift, extend it to legacy benefits and improve support for children through a real increase in financial support and the suspension of the cap.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, on their maiden speeches. I am particularly pleased that they both support issues relating to poverty, women, children and modern slavery, as these issues are very close to my heart.
Coming on to the Bill, it is important as it gives support to some of the most vulnerable in our society: those relying on state pensions to survive, with many of them enduring hardship. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock is admirable, ensuring that they stick to their manifesto commitment to an increase in pensions by the rate of wage increases, inflation or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. It is also admirable in helping those in our society who are not able to go out to get a better job or work harder for a pay rise.
Pensioners can often see their income decreasing when costs, prices and basic needs rise faster than their income allows, especially those in receipt of pension credit. We have seen pensioner benefits decrease in all sorts of ways, such as the move to make the BBC responsible for its licence fee, which has now resulted in many pensioners losing their entitlement to it. I support the Bill for those reasons, and—here I declare an interest as chairman, founder and a trustee of the Loomba Foundation—because it ensures an increase in pensions for widows and widowers who have lost a loved one in an industrial incident and are entitled to survivor benefits.
The Bill is needed because the 1992 Act does not allow for the circumstances we are now facing. The Government at the time did not foresee a time when wages might not rise, so the 1992 Act is, in effect, useless in providing for pensioners facing today’s world, as it does not permit an uprating if wages or prices do not increase—an increase that would stop many pensioners falling below the breadline. It demonstrates that the Act is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
We have had a review of working practices and how the gig economy is driving the way that workers are paid and, in turn, how they pay their taxes. The 1992 Act was introduced when the economy was in a very different place. Now, as we see huge changes in how people work, maybe it is time to consider a review of pensions and to align them better with the way of the world as it is now. In the future, many people might find themselves without recourse to a state pension in their old age, as they will have spent their working lives living on meagre earnings, unable to pay into a pension, with no employer pension, and not entitled to the state pension either.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I too offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, on his excellent and thought-provoking maiden speech. As your Lordships know well, he has made a huge contribution to pensions and benefits matters over the years and comes highly regarded on all sides of the House.
I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord said about the importance of education and apprentices. In an age when statues wobble on their plinths, I thought I would mention to your Lordships that I have been invited to Royal Air Force College Cranwell on Friday to attend the installation ceremony of a statute of my grandfather, about which I am most honoured and proud. One hundred years ago, my grandfather devised the Halton apprentice scheme, which was approved by Winston Churchill. It started in 1920 and provided a technical education to many who joined the Royal Air Force from poorer homes. Many subsequently became air marshals or industrial leaders. Through this and other means, the Royal Air Force became an agent for social mobility throughout the interwar years and later. I am well aware of the huge importance of providing apprentice schemes, especially in technical subjects.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, on her most impressive and interesting maiden speech. She, too, has had a distinguished political career and has made a great contribution to social security issues. Those of us who supported the decision to leave the European Union are hugely encouraged that there is a highly regarded new noble Baroness and new noble Lord who can help explain to other noble Lords what the upside is for an independent Britain after Brexit and help your Lordships’ House to send out a more optimistic and outward-looking message to the public.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this very necessary Bill today. The triple lock, a clear and widely publicised manifesto commitment, promised that the state pension and certain other benefits would be uprated by a minimum of 2.5% each year, whatever happened to wages or inflation. The Bill demonstrates the Government’s action in doing what they said they would do, and I welcome it.
The coronavirus has caused untold damage to many sectors of the economy, especially the hospitality and leisure sector. The Government have done much to help those businesses stricken by the pandemic but there remains much more that they must do. In particular, the arbitrary nature of the allocation of grants under the Arts Council’s cultural recovery fund raises questions of fairness and would seem to conflict with the need to maintain a fair, competitive playing field between similar music festival businesses which have lost 100% of their income this year. I declare my interest as a director of such a business. However, that is not a subject for debate today.
I welcome the support given by the Bill to pensioners. It will give this large section of our community peace of mind as we move into winter against the background of an increasing rate of Covid-19 infection. A consequence of rising longevity, which is to be celebrated, is that more pensioners wish to work either full or part time. The more secure financial platform that this measure creates for them will encourage them to engage in economic activity after retirement, and that will assist the recovery of the economy from its current parlous state.
Do the Government intend to introduce a similar Bill next year? Could they not have taken the power to do the same thing next year in the unfortunate event that wages do not bounce back from the current levels and we do not see the creation of new jobs as people change their working patterns and new types of businesses emerge to replace those whose survival is now compromised? Of course, we all hope that wages will bounce back strongly in 2021, and I ask the Minister to tell the Grand Committee what the Government’s plans in relation to the triple lock will be in those circumstances.
Several noble Lords mentioned the problem of the very low take-up of pension benefit. Apparently more than 1 million people are entitled to this benefit but do not take it up, against the background of 2 million living in poverty or on wages lower than the living wage, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. What steps are the Government taking to increase awareness of this benefit and to assist those who should be taking it up but need help in doing so?
Lastly, why have the Government not chosen the Bill as the means of correcting the anomaly that the pension payments of 510,000 pensioners have been frozen simply because they have moved to a country with which the UK does not have a reciprocal agreement requiring an uprating of benefit? It is shocking that Australia and Canada are among those countries, given our historical and kinship ties with them. This is especially regrettable against the background of our anticipated accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which should increase trade and investment involvement with those countries. I commend the activities of the End Frozen Pensions pressure group for bringing this unfortunate anomaly to your Lordships’ attention.
I look forward to the wind-up speeches and the Minister’s reply.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard, particularly as he discussed the unveiling of the statue of his grandfather. We in Uxbridge regard ourselves very much as an RAF town, so I wish him well for that event.
When I put my name down to speak in this short and important debate, little did I realise that I would be fortunate enough to be able to listen to two eloquent and informed maiden speeches from esteemed colleagues from the other place. Sometimes it is an advantage to be low down the speakers’ list. Proceedings in our House will be massively enhanced by these two parliamentary greats.
I was always impressed by the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, and I was not disappointed today. I know that she represented this country in fencing, so I advise noble Lords not to mess with this particular lady.
The noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, is one of those people who always makes me feel completely inadequate whenever he speaks, but he also puts into action his words and his incredible thinking. It has been mentioned that the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy was one of his ideas, and that is just an example of his versatility. I am looking forward to working with him on many common interests, but not least on modern slavery. To be a member of his triumvirate of inquiry into modern slavery, albeit a rather junior one, together with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was a seminal moment for me.
This Bill is to be welcomed. Ensuring that those who have paid all their lives for a pension should be given a fair basic income is something that I hope we can all subscribe to, and that is certainly what I have heard so far today. I am pleased to support this measure.
Today is one of those occasions when I very much regret that I am not speaking to your Lordships in person. The reason for that is that it is difficult to convey while seated in my home my passion for a cause that I feel strongly about, and an injustice against our fellow citizens that can be righted within this simple measure. The Minister may well know what is coming, as I wrote to the Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, last week, outlining my intention to raise this issue, and hopefully to table an amendment in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has already raised it, as have my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Trenchard, but I make no apology for continuing the theme. This is the issue of frozen pensions for nearly half a million UK pensioners living abroad. Across the world, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, British state pensioners, are being discriminated against simply because they chose to retire to the “wrong” country.
There are 120 countries throughout the world where UK pensioners receive only the amount that was the pension at the time of their leaving the country. Eighteen of those countries have 1,000 or more affected pensioners. This is not a new issue, and it has been rattling around Governments of all persuasions for many years. A whole series of Pensions Ministers, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, when he held the position, have had the same brief from the department. I am sure that whenever the Minister’s civil servants hear of anyone raising this, they simply go to the file marked “usual issues”, blow off some dust, and pull out the identical brief. I know the arguments behind the answers to this injustice; I have heard them many times. Many Members of the other place and your Lordships’ House have raised this issue over the years. Notably, in a passionate and eloquent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised it recently in a debate about the Commonwealth.
We will not cease raising the issue until this wrong is righted, but just in case it is needed, let me repeat the situation. All British pensioners who have made national insurance contributions during their working lives are entitled to a British state pension, regardless of where they choose to live. Crucially, however, 4% of those recipients are denied their full pension because of an illogical government policy which prevents their pensions being uprated in line with inflation. The UK state pension is payable overseas but is uprated only if the pensioner resides in the European Economic Area or a country with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement which legally requires uprating. Otherwise, the state pension is frozen at the level it was on the date the pensioner left the UK or first drew their pension. Falling in real value year on year, this plunges hundreds of thousands of pensioners into poverty, including thousands of UK veterans. They include people such as 95 year-old World War II veteran Anne Puckridge, who served in all three Armed Forces and who receives a meagre £72.50 per week of the £134.25-per-week state pension she should rightfully have. This is all because she moved to Canada—a Commonwealth country—at the age of 76, to be closer to her family. It also includes another wonderful lady, whose case I have raised before in your Lordships’ House, Monica Phillips, who emigrated to the UK in 1959 as part of the Windrush generation. She worked in the UK for 37 years and was a devoted public servant. In 1996, Monica returned to Antigua to look after her ailing mother, and as a result her pension was frozen at £74.11 per week. The arbitrary nature of this policy is illustrated by the fact that Monica’s sister, who remained in Leicester, receives a full uprated pension.
Perhaps there is a popular misconception that those retiring overseas are all wealthy, but the fact is that there are many who are suffering pensioner poverty. The Government will trot out that they now make people aware that their pensions will be frozen when they leave, but many who retired years ago maintain that this was never mentioned. Of course, many feel that they still have no option but to go abroad regardless because of their family commitments. So why do I hope that the time to rectify this blot on the good name of the UK is now? In the withdrawal agreement Act, passed in January 2020, the Government rightly committed to continuing to uprate the pensions of UK pensioners who moved to the EU before 2021 in line with inflation. Surely it is time to treat all our pensioners equally, regardless of where they reside. If the concept of reciprocity is still so much an idée fixe in our Government’s mindset, then perhaps we should now broach this in every trade deal we are striving to conclude, especially with our Commonwealth partners. That is also true of our oversea territories, as it is only Bermuda and Gibraltar which receive uprating.
We have heard about the situation which the pandemic has created. Let me remind the Government that this is worldwide. If it is about cost, I will not mention how we have managed to find billions when we need to. There is, however, a matter of raw politics: in February 2018, the Government restated their commitment to ending the current 15-year time limit for British expats registering as overseas electors. Perhaps that, combined with other factors, means that UK citizens will be eligible to receive their proper pension, as we want.
I pay tribute to those who have worked tirelessly to raise this issue, and particularly to the International Consortium of British Pensioners and stalwart campaigners such as John Duffy and Jim Tilley. The latter was a good Uxbridge man before he left for Australia. I am not expecting anything to happen today, but I can assure those many UK pensioners living around the world who contributed to this country that I and others will continue to fight for justice and restore the country’s reputation for fair play.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is good to follow such an eloquent and powerful plea by my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He has in fact invited me to go to Uxbridge since I recently pointed out some of the failings of its eateries. I also thank the Minister for her eloquent and helpful introduction, and join in the congratulations to the maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—with whom I fenced on occasions on the issue of Europe, but I am glad now that it was not real fencing—and the noble Lord, Lord Field, who like me is a ’79er, having entered the House of Commons in 1979. It is great to see him now here in the Lords. Both made excellent maiden speeches. I also declare an interest, not on this occasion as a former chair of Age Scotland but as a recipient of the retirement pension—I think others here might have a similar interest in that as well.
For once, I wholeheartedly support what the Government are doing. Some people have been a bit equivocal about it, but I am not in any way. In fact, I was very disappointed that the House of Lords Committee on Intergenerational Fairness recommended getting rid of the triple lock. I think it was a terrible mistake, and I have expressed my concern to the four Labour members of the committee, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who like me used to work for Age Concern—for making that recommendation. I do not know about the noble Baroness, but I actually declare my pension in my income tax return, along with my occupational pension, and pay tax on it, so there is a clawback on that. But basic pensioners, who rely on the state pension, are those we are concerned about.
When one looks at the situation for the United Kingdom, one finds that we are the worst of the developed countries in the OECD. The OECD average pension is 63% of average earnings; in the European Union, it is 71%; in the Netherlands, it is 101% of average earnings, but in the United Kingdom, it is 29%. The triple lock has edged it up over a period, but it is still very low as far as the European comparisons are concerned.
I understand that people are concerned about children in poverty; I have heard that from my noble friend Lady Lister and others. Of course there is a huge problem there, but is it not wrong to penalise the already poor by taking money away from them, only to give it to those who are even poorer? The poor will get poorer. I do not disagree with all the requests to consider uprating other benefits, so what do we do? How do we pay for it?
During the pandemic, the poor have been getting poorer, while UK billionaires have seen their personal wealth rise by £25 billion. Hedge funds have done well; Jacob Rees-Mogg will tell you that. Some shares have gone up; people have made a killing there. The personal wealth of the UK’s top earner, Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos, is between £18 billion to £20 billion, but what has he done? He has moved to Monaco so that he can avoid paying tax. These billionaires have a responsibility, and it is about time that we pinpoint that and say it even more loudly.
Philip Green and his wife Tina have a yacht in Monaco. Again, they are avoiding tax. Their company is registered in the tax haven of Jersey so they can avoid paying a fair share of tax. They have a £100 million yacht on which they can sip champagne with Jim Ratcliffe, because he has gone out there now as well. Jim Ratcliffe can admire the birthday present that Tina bought Philip: a pure-gold Monopoly set. On that Monopoly set are the premises that Philip Green owns. This is conspicuous consumption gone absolutely mad.
Let us think about that. Let us think about taxing people who can afford to pay tax, and not take away from the little bit more that pensioners are getting, slowly but surely taking them towards the European average.
Finally, I have a few questions for the Minister about the Bill, which, as I say, I support unequivocally. The briefing says that the pension will be “potentially increased”. Can she make it absolutely clear that that potential will become a reality? I assume that it will, because otherwise why put it into the Bill? However, it would be nice just to have that confirmed.
The triple lock, as others have said, is based on the rate of inflation, the rate of earnings, or 2.5%—whichever is the highest. Can we assume that the increase will therefore be at least 2.5%? Again, some people have assumed that in their speeches, and it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that.
I am really pleased that the Conservative Government have done this. The Labour Government did it in the early 2000s, with the economic problems that we had then. I hope that we will do a lot more in relation to the take-up of pension credit. I was going to raise that point again, as others have raised it. However, as the Minister knows, I have a Parliamentary Question coming up specifically on the take-up of pension credit, so I will leave that for now and ask her a few questions on that occasion. Meanwhile, I give her my unequivocal support on this rare occasion.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome the two new Peers and congratulate them on their excellent maiden speeches. The reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Field, to the poorest—those on the avenue to destitution—resonates particularly at this time. The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, clearly has huge experience and knowledge, not least about pensions and social security, so I am sure they will both make very important contributions to the work of the House.
I support the Bill and the Government’s commitment to retaining the triple lock. It is good to hear today just how many noble Lords support the principle of the triple lock. There has been quite a bit of discussion, and quite a lot written, about intergenerational unfairness, with calls to abolish the triple lock, including by this House’s Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness, so for many there is a feeling that this might be under threat.
The triple lock introduced in 2010 was, as I understand it, to address the 30 years of decline in the state pension value. As my former colleague Steve Webb said recently, that job is not yet done, and other noble Lords have testified to the fact that the state pension in this country falls well below what is considered to be a minimum income.
There are many reasons to support the triple lock, most particularly for the oldest and the poorest pensioners. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, makes a good point when she says that it may not be the ideal way to help the oldest pensioners, but if it were to be abolished the oldest and the poorest pensioners would suffer and, according to the Pensions Policy Institute report for Age Concern, the number of pensioners in poverty would rise by 700,000.
The triple lock is also particularly important for women. Two-thirds of pensioners in poverty are women, and the retirement income of low-paid women would drop by 7% if the triple lock were to be abolished. Many retired women did not have the opportunity to build up their own pension as a result of caring responsibilities, and many retired divorced women did not get a share of their husband’s pension as part of their divorce settlement. I therefore also make the point that if the triple lock were to go, younger people would have to find something like £540 a year to avoid poverty in old age.
It would benefit none of us to see the triple lock abandoned and the loss of value to the state pension institutionalised again, as it was in the 30 years running up to 2010. As others have said, it would be a race to the bottom. Some of the reasons given for reviewing the triple lock include the whole argument about intergenerational fairness, which a number of noble Lords have discussed today. Raising the income of pensioners, many of whom are well off, may be seen by younger people to be very unfair, and it is true that many pensioners are well off, provided for by generous private pension schemes and having profited from property prices soaring since they bought their first house.
It is certainly true that circumstances have been much more favourable for those pensioners than for many young people today, but if this is seen as intergenerational fairness there are progressive ways that can deliver the principle of fairness. Several noble Lords have talked about tax, and pensioners with high income can be taxed in the same way as high earners so that people pay according to their means. So perhaps we should look at a fair tax system rather than cutting benefits to pensioners, regardless of whether they are rich or poor.
Another argument I have heard is that everybody should be seen to pay equally for the cost of the pandemic. Of course they should, yet if the triple lock were to be abandoned, the poorest pensioners would suffer disproportionately. Low earners would also suffer if the triple lock were removed. Today’s low-earning young people will have to raise their own income for old age if the state pension has lost so much value that it offers no security to future generations.
Another argument I hear is that the country cannot afford it. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others about the UK pension scheme being one of the least generous in the developed world. I understand that, in the UK, we spend 5.9% of GDP on pensions. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, with the triple lock this will rise to 8% by 2057-58, whereas Germany currently devotes 10% of its GDP to pensions.
It would also be a pity if this debate were to become a culture war, one that pits older against younger people, because that really does not help anyone. Today’s young will be tomorrow’s old and they will be in a similar position of valuing the triple lock for their old age. How we provide income in retirement should be considered to be a policy issue, and the idea that a decent state pension is unaffordable has been demonstrated to be a false one, as other countries have shown.
There is no doubt that many of those suffering from the loss of jobs in the pandemic are young people, and it seems that we are going to have to support them, as we should, but this should not be done at the expense of the many poor and impoverished pensioners. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, the state pension is the dominant source of income for millions of pensioners, while other noble Lords have pointed out that the uprating of other benefits is also long overdue. I hope that the Minister will address this in her summing up.
It is hard to see who would benefit from scrapping the triple lock other than pension fund managers, as people make their own provision for retirement. The losers are very clear: the poorest pensioners, oldest pensioners, women pensioners and today’s low-paid workers, who will be tomorrow’s pensioners in poverty if the value of the state pension is allowed to fall in future years. I support the Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and it is a real pleasure to have had two maiden speakers with us today. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is quite right when he says that they will certainly have a tale to tell those who come after them, if only that they made their maiden speeches in a Perspex cubicle; no one could accuse them of being in this for the glamour.
The noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, spoke movingly about modern slavery as well on the issues for which he is best known. He has a track record that goes back many decades in the field of social security and poverty, subjects that are dear to my own heart, and I look forward to joining him in future debates on those topics. Having heard of the range of issues and debates that have motivated the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, I look forward to hearing more from her, too, in the years ahead. Like her, I abandoned my PhD when I came into this House, and I never really got over it either. As mine was in theology, how that is relevant to a Bill about social security uprating is less immediately obvious than it is with hers. I look forward to getting to know both noble Lords in person at some point.
It is a sign of how bad things are that we have this Bill at all. It is needed only because earnings are falling. That simple fact speaks to a wave of anxiety crashing across the UK, as families face falling incomes as a result of being furloughed or having their hours cut, and that is on top of the growing number of those who are losing their jobs, as today’s employment figures show. But the Bill is necessary, as the Minister has explained since, when earnings are negative, there is otherwise no legal power to increase the state pension or the other benefits listed. The last Labour Government had a similar problem following the global financial crisis and brought forward similar legislation, so we on these Benches support this move.
However, some important questions have been raised that need to be answered. First, the Bill is permissive rather than prescriptive. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that it will
“allow the Government to meet its commitment to the Triple Lock.”
First, can the Minister tell the House if the Government do indeed intend to increase the state pension under the triple lock? Secondly, are they still committed to the triple lock for the rest of this Parliament, an issue raised by my noble friends Lady Drake and Lord Foulkes? There have been rumours and briefings to the contrary, so it would be good to know. Since the Conservatives sought election on the promise of the triple lock, it is not unreasonable for the public to want to know if they intend to stand by that manifesto promise or not.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Secretary of State uprating discretion for just one year, a point flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others. The pandemic may continue to create challenges in how we calculate upratings because of earnings volatility. At one stage, the Government were sure that wages would bounce back from the fall caused by furlough and short hours and that we would see a significant one-off jump in earnings in 2021, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The latest growth figures from the Bank of England are rather less optimistic, but the fact is that we do not know. Can the Minister tell the Committee: did Ministers consider some sort of smoothing process such as applying the principles of the lock over two years instead of one, or will we find ourselves back here at the same time next year? It would be good to know that the Government are doing some longer-term thinking on this issue.
The issue of pensioner poverty has been mentioned by various noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Bourne, and others, along with the position of women, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. The number of poor pensioners had fallen significantly, largely due to the introduction of pension credit, but this is now a fresh cause for concern. Government figures show that 1.9 million pensioners are living in relative poverty. Are the Government as committed to pension credit as they are to the state pension, a point flagged up by my noble friend Lady Drake? If the answer is yes, are they therefore committing to an increase in the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit under the triple lock as well? If they do not, the benefit of the increase in the state pension could be enjoyed in full by many Members of this House, but not by the poorest pensioners in the land who face having it clawed back from pension credit.
The issue of take-up was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and others. Pension credit is a vital safety net for poorer pensioners, and it is a passport to other benefits like housing benefit, council tax benefit and now free television licences for those aged over 75. But the last published figures show that only six in 10 of those eligible are claiming it and only 70% of the total amount of pension credit that could be taken having been claimed. A senior DWP official told the Select Committee in the other place
“In the UK, 16 per cent of pensioners are in poverty … if all those pensioners claimed pension credit, housing benefit and the council tax reduction, especially the council tax reduction, that would reduce the 16 per cent to almost zero.”
What do the Government plan to do to increase the take-up of pension credit and those benefits to which it is a gateway?
Just as the case for pensioners was made passionately by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others, so too the value of working age and children’s benefits has been pressed by many noble Lords. I do not want to get into the middle of an intergenerational war because there are a lot of issues at play here: poverty, fairness within and between generations, the interaction of public provision and private savings, the respective roles of tax and benefits and, I would add, the importance of not doing anything to undermine the contributory nature of our social security system. But the underlying problem is that, because of years of cuts, our system was creaking when this pandemic hit, as my noble friend Lady Lister demonstrated very clearly. Many people claiming benefits for the first time have been shocked to find out how low they are. I have had people who have lost their jobs ask me how they are meant to live on £95 a week universal credit. I sympathise, but then I have to tell them that if they were getting income support or ESA, they would be getting just £74 a week and that if the Chancellor goes ahead and scraps the universal credit top-up, and if they have not found a job by next April, their benefit will be cut by £20 a week, which will have a huge effect, as noted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Field, and others. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Drake for highlighting the fact that, thanks to the benefit cap, 124,000 families on universal credit are not getting the full £20 a week increase and thousands more will see their benefits fall as the grace period runs out.
The Secretary of State has discretion on uprating most working-age benefits. After years of freezes and below-inflation rises, last year they were uprated by CPI, except of course for the bereavement support payment, a payment flagged up by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Along with her, I have regularly urged the Minister to look afresh at the Government’s reforms to bereavement support. We are awaiting the September figure for CPI, and that will be the usual measure, but the August 12-month CPI rate was 0.2%, down from 1% in July. The largest contribution to that fall came from recreation, culture and falling prices in restaurants and cafes arising from “Eat out to help out”, followed by air fares and clothing prices. These are irrelevant to benefit claimants. They cannot afford to eat out even with Rishi’s help, and they are certainly not flying anywhere. If the CPI is zero, would Ministers really freeze benefits once again? If the CPI is as low as 0.2%, will the Secretary of State use her discretion to support those of working age in the way she is using it to support pensioners? However, I accept that those are matters for another day, and I hope that the Minister can tell us when that day will come.
For today, I welcome this Bill. It is important to ensure that the Government can fulfil their promise to pensioners. For them to do that, the Bill is necessary and we are pleased to support it. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. This House has a great deal of experience in pensions and social security, which has been well demonstrated today. I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Field, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, on their excellent maiden speeches. There is no concept of regretting having them in this House. The House is further enriched by their experience, wisdom and integrity, which I can say is bombproof. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness bring with them their expertise and involvement in DWP matters, though not exclusively. That is widely respected and acknowledged. I look forward to working with them both, although I accept that that will be very challenging.
The debate today has covered a wide range of subjects, and I will try to do justice to as many points as possible. If I do not answer all questions, be assured that it is not because I do not want to; it will be because I have run out of time. My officials and I will go through those questions that I have not answered and write to each noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, kicked us off with the intergenerational fairness point, which is understandable, and nearly all noble Lords have referred to it. We have recently seen rises in the living standards of pensioners, but we must remember that not all pensioners are in the same position. Over 1 million current pensioners rely solely on the state for their income. While the majority of pensioners have a fixed income, particularly those who rely on the state pension, people of working age are able over time to improve their incomes through work. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, reminded us that today’s working-age people are tomorrow’s pensioners, and future generations of pensioners will also benefit from the way in which the state pension is uprated today.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why working-age benefits are not increased by the same levels as pensions. As required by law, the Secretary of State will review working-age benefit levels as part of an uprating review in November and assess whether they have retained their value in relation to prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned the triple lock. For 2021-22, the Bill makes technical changes, which will ensure that state pensions can be uprated, even though there has been no growth in earnings. This will allow the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment to the triple lock. All noble Lords asked why we should not do that for two years. Let me be clear: for 2022-23, we are dealing with a huge amount of uncertainty. No one can predict with confidence what earning trends will be over the course of next year, which will be the relevant index for uprating decisions for the following April. Of course, we hope that earnings will increase as the economy recovers, and the Secretary of State will look at this issue when she conducts a statutory annual review of earnings, prices and benefit rates in 2020-21. That will also be the process by which annual uprating decisions will be made in future years, and any decisions will be taken in the context of the wider public finances.
I turn to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. She asked whether workers aged over 65 should pay national insurance and tax. This is now a matter for the Treasury rather than for the DWP, but I reassure the noble Baroness that we are very much in favour of people working for as long as they can, because it is good for their health and well-being. As my noble friend Lady Altmann knows well, that is why we have the strategy on fuller working lives. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the way she champions more mature workers—I must not say “older” because I would probably get in trouble. I thank her for all she has done in that field.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth mentioned the Social Metrics Commission. Work to develop the experimental statistics has been suspended in the current circumstances, and the DWP’s focus is on activity that supports making payments and critical service lines. In the current uncertain climate, we are unable to predict when our work looking at poverty measures will resume.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Drake, and my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked what we were doing in relation to working-age benefits. As I have said, and I say it again to confirm, as required by law, the Secretary of State will review working-age benefit levels as part of her uprating review in November. However, we have done a lot in government to support people at this difficult time, including the plan for jobs, increasing the universal credit rate, investing over £9 billion of extra support to protect people’s incomes, removing the seven-day waiting period and relaxing the universal credit minimum income floor. The Government are committed to doing all that they can.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned the deep poverty issue that came out in various reports. This Government are helping those who need support the most. I do not want to repeat myself, but I say again: we are putting £9 billion into the welfare system.
I refer to the letter that 50 charities wrote to the Chancellor asking for the £20 uplift to be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits. Many people have championed retaining the £20 extra, and we are not a bit surprised by that. DWP Ministers have worked closely with our Treasury counterparts throughout the pandemic response and will continue to do so.
I pay tribute to faith groups, which do the most amazing work with the most vulnerable, especially in this difficult time.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Field, made about modern day slavery is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a major priority for society and this Government. His points are well made, as are those of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
The noble Baroness raised the point about the standard minimum guarantee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—she is my friend—raised it, too. It is right that we protect the incomes of the poorest pensioner households receiving the standard minimum guarantee. That is why in previous years, when the triple lock has applied to the state pension, we have increased the standard minimum guarantee by more than the percentage increase in average earnings to ensure that they see the benefit of the cash in the increase in the state pension.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, challenged us by asking what we would do next year if there was a spike in earnings. We are dealing with a huge amount of uncertainty, so no one can predict with confidence what earning trends will be over the course of next year. Of course, we hope that earnings will increase as the economy recovers.
My noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised the issue of uprating pensions overseas, and I have to say that they made their points very well. The policy on this issue is a long-standing one of successive Governments. The current policy has been in place for around 70 years and, while noble Lords will be disappointed, there are no plans to change this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the issue of pensioner poverty rising and asked why we had not done more to support the poorest pensioners. The Government are committed to action to alleviate levels of pensioner poverty. For current pensioners, that includes the contribution of the triple lock, the new state pension and pension credit.
Noble Lords asked how we intend to uprate pension credit. Without this Bill, the core component of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will be frozen in 2021-22. The decision on how to uprate the standard minimum guarantee will be made during the Secretary of State’s uprating review, which I have already referred to. Noble Lords will understand that it is not right to pre-empt the outcome of the review. I can also tell noble Lords that the department and the Minister for Pensions are doing as much as they can to raise awareness of pension credit. If any noble Lords have ideas for how we can improve that, we are very open to receiving them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked for a comment on the report from the Resolution Foundation. We have provided an extra £9.3 billion in welfare support to help those most in need, as I have said. We have already taken steps to ease the burden of universal credit debt payments, including reducing the maximum deduction from 40% to 30% of a standard allowance, and from October 2021 we will reduce this further to 25%. We will also double the time available to repay advances to 24 months.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to an uprating order introduced in the Commons in January. The figures will be announced to Parliament in late November after the Secretary of State’s review of benefit rates. The noble Lord raised the much-debated subject of universal basic income. This Government do not believe that a universal basic income would provide the right sort of support. Universal credit targets those in the greatest financial need. I confirm yet again that there is no intention to introduce universal basic income.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston, raised the issue of the gender gap in pensions. Reforms to the state pension have put measures in place to improve state pension outcomes for most women. More than 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 more per year by 2030 as a result of the recent reforms.
My noble friend Lady Altmann questioned whether it was fair that a higher rate is protected by the triple lock under the new state pension. She talked about the difference in uprating treatment between those under the new state pension and those under the old one. It is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two systems in this way. The new system has been designed so that no more money is being spent than under the previous system. Care has been taken to ensure fairness to both groups while delivering a sustainable system for the future. Although some people may get a larger amount uprated by the triple lock, they will not have access to other elements of the previous system; for example, a lower state pension age and the ability to build a higher state pension through the additional state pension.
My noble friend also raised the issue of state pension underpayments. We are aware of a number of cases where individuals have been underpaid a category B or basic state pension. We corrected our records and reimbursed those affected as soon as the underpayments were identified. We are checking for further cases and, if any are found, awards will also be reviewed and any arrears paid in accordance with the law. I urge anybody who believes they are being underpaid their state pension to contact the DWP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked what the Government’s child poverty strategy is. Supporting people financially through these difficult times is currently our main focus. Our long-term ambition remains to build an economy that supports employment and ensures opportunities such as the apprenticeship scheme that the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Field, referred to. We want people to be able to enter into work and to progress where possible, with welfare system support in their time of need. We are actively reviewing all measures at our disposal to identify how best to support people in the economic recovery. As we move to the next phase, we will continue to review our priorities. We will monitor the evolving economic and labour market situation to identify the most effective way to help people stay in or close to work, both now and in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others talked about the benefit freeze. The Secretary of State will review all benefit levels as part of the uprating in November. The noble Baroness has been tenacious and has shown great energy in talking to us about the benefit cap. We had an all-Peer session yesterday on this. We made it very clear that both the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Welfare Delivery stand ready to engage further. To clarify the Government’s position, we believe that, where possible, it is in the best interest of children to be in working households. The benefit cap provides a clear incentive for parents to move into work, and a child living in a household where every adult is working is about five times less likely to be in relative poverty than a child in a household where nobody works.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the assessment the Government have made about the call from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and Save the Children to increase the child component of universal credit and tax credit. The Government have implemented an unprecedented support package, including the job retention and self-employment income protection schemes, to help families cope with the financial impact of Covid-19. We will continue to monitor the evolving economic and labour market situation to identify the most effective way to help people stay in work or close to work, both now and in the future.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for raising the issue of television licences for those aged over 75 during the pandemic. The Government are deeply disappointed that the BBC has chosen to restrict the over-75 licence fee concession to those in receipt of pension credit. We recognise the value of free TV licences to the over-75s and believe that they should be funded by the BBC.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked why the pattern of countries where the uprated pension is paid is not consistent. Despite appearing random—with some uprated and non-uprated countries in close proximity, for example—the uprating policy is determined by the differing social security arrangements for the countries concerned. For example, Canada has a bilateral agreement with the UK that does not cover uprating. The UK sought a reciprocal agreement, including uprating, with Canada but this was rejected as legislation prevented Canada paying its pensions overseas.
On pension credit take-up, my noble friend Lord Trenchard raised the point that it is all very well increasing rates of pension credit, but asked what we are doing to ensure that more pensioners are in receipt of it. This is why, in February, we launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness of pension credit.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his unlimited support for the Bill. I am sorry that I am unable to confirm about the 2.5%, as he would like me to. I hope he will forgive me for that on this occasion.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked what support we are providing to older workers. We have taken legislative steps to support older workers to remain and be retained in the labour market by abolishing the default retirement age. We have strengthened things through the Fuller Working Lives partnership and appointed Andy Briggs, CEO of the Phoenix Group, as business champion for older workers. We are providing new targeted support to help people who are unemployed and have not reached the state pension age.
On the state pension being the lowest in the EU, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that fullfact.org investigated that claim and concluded that
“differences between their pension systems means it’s not a fair comparison.”
That makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between pension schemes in different countries, because there are so many fundamental differences in how they are run.
I have two points to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the state pension. Again, we are dealing with a huge amount of uncertainty. We are unable to predict with confidence what earning trends will be and therefore what changes might be made. She raised the valid point that if every pensioner claimed the benefits they were entitled to, this would reduce pension poverty rates. Yes, and we encourage everyone to claim what they are entitled to, including their council tax reductions.
The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to maintaining pensioners’ incomes in these difficult times. Provided it achieves Royal Assent by mid-November, it will ensure that state pensions are not frozen in 2021-22. It will also allow for the uprating of the safety net in pension credit and widows’ benefits in industrial death benefit. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the Committee and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, if I might be permitted a personal comment, I add my congratulations to those made in this debate to my friends of long standing, the noble Lord, Lord Field, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, on their maiden speeches in this House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to wipe their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Hoey
Introduction: Lord Moore of Etchingham
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? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Housing: Rent, Evictions and Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 18 March about the complete ban on evictions and additional protection for renters affected by COVID-19, what progress they have made to ensure that “no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home”.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I point to my relevant residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. There has been a six-month stay on repossession proceedings and we have established an unprecedented financial package. This includes spending over £39.3 billion on the furlough scheme and boosting the welfare system by more than £9 billion. There are now new court arrangements and notice periods of six months, except in the most serious cases, to help keep tenants in their homes over winter.
Baroness Grender (LD) [V]
Does the Minister accept that this is a promise that cannot be met if mandatory evictions have resumed and infections are rising? What protects tenants in tiers 1 and 2, such as Michelle in Nottingham, who says:
“Rent alone each month is £575. I lost my job in March due to the virus and am now trying to survive on universal credit but I’m getting into debt with bills and barely have anything left for food”?
How do we now keep her safe?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that there has been an unprecedented level of measures to support renters and we will continue to do what is needed to keep as many safe as possible, but it is fair to say that there will be cases where renters will have to potentially seek other places to live.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am glad that housing associations have said clearly that they will not evict anyone suffering because of this crisis and are supporting residents in accessing financial help. What will the Minister do to encourage landlords to act with compassion in the coming months? Does he accept that, with a record 8 million people in England in housing need, the best way in which to protect renters in the longer term from unaffordable housing costs is to build homes for social rent?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I commend registered social landlords for their leadership but point out that in the wider sector, according to the latest data, 89% of tenants are paying their rent in full, only 7% are in rent arrears and 4% have arrangements in place with their landlords. The vast majority of landlords seem to be acting sensibly.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the welfare of tenants should be safeguarded fairly without destroying the financial viability of innocent landlords, who have an interest in maintaining good tenants. With rent arrears above £400 million and to avoid a future homelessness crisis, have the Government considered developing an equitable solution for both tenants and landlords by providing a financial package to pay off rent arrears built up as a direct result of the coronavirus?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have pointed to the unprecedented support that we have given to renters, including raising the local housing allowance, which is also important. The housing benefit bill and universal credit housing element total well over £20 billion. However, we need to get the balance right between the rights of renters and protecting and safeguarding the interests of landlords.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend rightly refers to the recent generous increase in the local housing allowance, which will help tenants struggling with their rent. However, the increase runs out at the end of the year and, unless further action is taken, LHAs will revert to the previous, less generous levels in 2021. Does my noble friend agree that that would be a retrograde step, leading to an increase of some £54 a week for some tenants? The right thing to do would be to keep the 30th percentile at current market rents.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes reasoned points. The increase to the 30th percentile of the local housing reliance will remain in place for the duration of the year, until March 2021.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, in 1942 William Beveridge fought five giants—squalor, want, ignorance and the other two. He might now have added a sixth: homelessness. In order to fulfil a sacred duty—“sacred” is a word used by the Chancellor—we have to make sure that every person has a home. Homelessness exists outside the time of this virus. There are 57,000 homeless families in the UK, of which about 6,000 are in Wales. Should we not be ashamed of ourselves if we are not able to tackle this with the same vigour with which we tackled squalor, disease and ignorance in the past? Will the Minister assure me that he will make every possible effort to give this homelessness problem, not only in the short term but in the long term, his absolute first attention?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the mission to end rough sleeping is at the heart of what this Government are trying to achieve. I point to the Everyone In programme, led by Dame Louise Casey, and the Next Steps programme, which have given significant support to ending rough sleeping. This is our endeavour as a Government.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, we all understand why the Government are seeking protection for renters affected by Covid-19. As others have mentioned, should there not also be some form of protection for landlords suffering as a result of Covid-19? A lot of landlords are elderly people and their source of income may be the rental from one property. We have to look at both renters and those who are renting.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are seeking to get this balance right. I thank my noble friend for raising the importance of protecting the interests of landlords in the relationship between landlord and tenant.
Lord Bird (CB) [V]
My Lords, if we take the bigger issue behind the discussion about evictions, Britain is the only one of the G7 countries that is removing support during the period of Covid-19, ending it at the end of this year. Can we not take a leaf out of the IMF’s recommendation that we spend, spend, spend and keep the receipts? Will the Minister ask Mr Boris Johnson to save our children and our children’s children from homelessness and degradation? This Government have a responsibility if only to follow what other G7 countries are doing. Those countries are carrying on their support way beyond the period at which this Government are stopping.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this Government are spending to a considerable and unprecedented degree. We must remember that, at the end of this pandemic, it will be our children and our children’s children who will pay back the debt.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register. It has been a year since the Government closed the consultation on their new deal for renting, which was to lead to a Bill to end evictions for no reason. The Government are now saying that they will bring forward the promised renters’ reform Bill only when
“there is a sensible and stable economic and social terrain on which to do it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 950.]
How do the Government define
“a sensible and stable economic and social terrain”?
What are they measuring and how will they know when the conditions to move forward with the Bill are met? If the noble Lord cannot say today how these criteria will be defined and met, will he write to let me know?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, our focus has obviously been on supporting renters during the pandemic. I will write to the noble Lord on that matter.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, the cost of temporary accommodation for homeless people is already in excess of £1 billion. This can only rise as hardship increases. Have the Government made any assessment of whether it would not be better value, as well as more humane, to put the money into helping people to stay in their own homes using, for example, a scheme similar to that in Spain?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for this helpful policy point about the Spanish experience. I shall write to her on that matter.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Many landlords have mortgages and ongoing repair costs. What measures are proposed to protect them from the hardship imposed on them by those tenants who are financially able but who have decided that they are not willing to pay their rents in the knowledge that they can shelter under the new government umbrella from any immediate consequences?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that is precisely why the evictions moratorium had to end. We have to protect landlords from egregious rent arrears as well as from cases of abandonment, fraud, anti-social behaviour and, in the social sector, domestic abuse. That is why the judiciary called for a start on proceedings, to focus on the most difficult cases first.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that the Procedure Committee has recommended that supplementaries should not last longer than 30 seconds. During the last Question there were examples of questions by Members from nearly all parties and groups that went on for longer than that. It would be of benefit to all noble Lords if Members restricted their supplementaries to 30 seconds.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the passage of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, what progress they have made in introducing the changes required (1) to divorce procedure, (2) to court information technology systems, and (3) to online information and guidance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government are working to an indicative timeframe of autumn 2021. We are currently working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to identify amendments to court rules. This will determine how certain key aspects of the revised legal process will operate in practice. Changes to court IT systems and online information and guidance will follow in due course.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is the Ministry of Justice planning to use the online form to signpost potential divorce applicants to relationship support and other help, so that some may be diverted away from the process and marriages might be saved?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assure the House that the Government will look at a signpost service from GOV.UK webpages, which will often be the first port of call for those thinking about divorce. The Government will also look for opportunities to bed, within the divorce application process, appropriate information and links about support services, such as mediation, and marriage and relationship support.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
How many measures drawing attention to available help when dealing with marital difficulty will have been received by, first, the applicant, and secondly, the respondent, in the course of a divorce application at present?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Currently, both petitioners and respondents receive up to four notifications during the divorce process. Each of these contains get-help signs linking to support services. When revising the system for processing divorces to implement our reforms, we intend to do all we can to make signposting to support services as effective as it can be.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister add to the support that will be given online the importance to the children of both parents in most cases?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assure the noble and learned Baroness that, when the Government look at making these reforms, children will be foremost in their mind.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what proposals the Government have to ensure that legal advice is available, particularly for those engaged in partnership separation who have children?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will give the same answer as before: children are extremely important. In future, before people look into divorce, all the advice will be online and support will be there.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
Can the Minister assure the House that guidance will include the need for all discussions, telephone calls, emails, Facebook or WhatsApp messages and other modern means of communication to be properly recorded, so that the court can be assured that issues of finance and children have been fully explored and fairly agreed, and not imposed by a dominant partner—or, worse, by a trained and expert lawyer acting on behalf of the other party?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Family Procedure Rule Committee is looking at all these issues that relate to reform and the implementation of the Act.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say when the Family Procedure Rule Committee expects to resolve the issue of how the respondent to a divorce application gets the full 20 weeks’ notice, or as close as possible, before a conditional order is issued?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The 20-week rule is an important part of the Act and the Family Procedure Rule Committee is going through all the issues required. I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly when this will happen, but it will be an important part of the procedure that will come into being in autumn 2021.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, during the debates on the passage of the then Bill, it was acknowledged that the most divisive, bitter, wasteful and expensive element of a divorce is the financial settlement and that the law on this needs reform. Without this, the new divorce law will not achieve its stated objective of no fault. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave a commitment on 16 March that the law on financial provision will be reviewed. Can the Minister update the House on its progress?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, did say that. The Lord Chancellor has set up a working group to assess any evidence to change the law on financial provision for divorce. This review will be led by evidence, which is yet to be gathered, on whether there are problems with the current law. The Ministry of Justice is considering the membership and terms of reference of that working group.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—the Lord Chancellor made a commitment that the Government will
“work harder to co-ordinate, to bring together the strands of policy that sit with various Departments and to ensure that we have a family policy that is fit for the 2020s”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/20; col. 902.]
Can my noble friend report on what progress has been made in fulfilling that pledge?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Ministry of Justice is involved in ongoing work with other government departments aimed at strengthening families and providing more joined-up support for those facing or experiencing relationship breakdown. The first meeting of that cross-government group took place earlier this month. The noble Lord may also be aware of the £2.5 million in the Budget that the Government are investing in research on how best to integrate family services, including family hubs.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I am sure that many people already hope to avoid the horrible blame game of the present divorce system, waiting for the new system to be in place. The Minister said that autumn is the target, but that has always been the case. Can the Minister indicate whether that target will be met, because many people depend on it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I assure the House that we are on target for autumn 2021, and I feel confident that we will get there.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I find the sources of help signposted on the government website, particularly those provided by Relate, very clear and sensitive. But in almost every case depicted, there is an assumption that those who have started proceedings will want to continue with them. Will the Minister ask Relate to look again and take into account the fact that some people want help to stay together, in their relationship? That should be properly recognised on their website.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I hope I heard what the noble and right reverend Lord said. The 20 weeks are there specifically to make time for people to reconsider if they want to. All relationship or marital support will be online, so they can stop the proceedings if they need and want to.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, family courts have complained about trivial applications because of unresolved issues between divorcees. As a spouse can divorce their partner unilaterally, and the spouse has no opportunity to raise issues in a non-adversarial divorce process, what steps will the Government take to ensure that these conflicts can be addressed, or else there will be a large increase in applications?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the so-called unilateral divorce by one spouse has effectively been available for nearly 50 years. It is only the basis of the divorce that can be contested, not the application itself. Interestingly, only 2% of divorce petitions are contested. By reducing the potential for conflict between divorcing parents, our reforms should make the escalation of trivial disputes into applications less, not more, likely. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has worked with Cafcass and OnePlusOne to develop the Co-Parent Hub, offering a one-stop shop for families, including alternative dispute resolution options.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the third Oral Question.
Housing Delivery Test
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the efficacy of the Housing Delivery Test.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The housing delivery test plays an important role in providing transparency about where housing is or is not being delivered. It helps to identify the reasons behind underdelivery through action plans, which are required when delivery falls below 95%. Through these, we can see that, on the whole, authorities are taking the right steps to identify the causes of reduced housing delivery and are working proactively to address these issues.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister. I understand what he said, but what powers do the Government believe that a council has for the delivery of a scheme once planning permission has been granted? This annual test not only monitors but also judges and punishes a council for the developer’s failure to deliver. Should this inequitable test finally be scrapped altogether or, given the uncertainty that the pandemic is causing in the construction industry, should it at least be suspended for this current year?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, speaking as a former council leader, I know that planning permissions are only extant for a certain period. The policy appears to be working. We have seen an uptick in the numbers of homes built; there have been more than 241,000, which is a greater number than before the introduction of this housing delivery test.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, how much will Her Majesty’s Government be relying on algorithms in the present climate, and how much importance do they give to including indoor and outdoor sports facilities and village halls?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I think that my noble friend is referring to the housing needs formula. This takes affordability into account and is capped to limit increases for areas. That is a sensible way to build any foundation for this test.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, having worked for a large construction company, I know how easily housing output can be affected by varying demand, the weather and the economy. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that the housing delivery test of achieving at least 95% of local authority need is nothing more than an aspiration to give an illusion of control over the unpredictable?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the vast majority of councils—two-thirds—are building the homes that their areas need, and only 54 of over 300 authorities have below 75% deliveries. The test is working, and we will continue to maintain close communication with those authorities where it is not.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to put a similar question to the House to one that was put by my noble friend Lord Kennedy on 18 March. Over a quarter of a million planning applications have been approved by local authorities, with not a brick laid. That is the problem—getting these homes built. Can the Minister suggest how this impasse can be breached?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Getting developers to build out is a problem. Having been a local authority leader, the noble Baroness will know that you can tell those developers who are intending to build and those who are intending to hold, but planning permissions do not last for ever, and that is the main sanction that we have at the moment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register. In my council of Kirklees, the government-agreed plan is for 1,750 new homes each year. The latest figures show that there are 7,518 with live planning permissions that have not been built. Does the Minister agree that the failure to build in this typical example lies with developers and that this factor should be included in the housing delivery test?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, another fellow former council leader raises a very important point. It is reliant on the market and developers to step forward and build the homes that this country needs, and that is taken on board by this Government.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, the ambition of the White Paper Planning for the Future, to streamline planning permission and impose building targets on local authorities fails to address the existing slow build-out rate that occurs once planning permission has been granted. Will the Government add provisions to ensure that local authorities have adequate scope to alter centralised algorithmic targets in accordance with local supply capabilities and build-out rates?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we had a far stricter central approach under the old unitary development plan in the first decade of this year. We then had the era of local plans without any central holding to account. This is a balanced approach to ensure that the country gets the homes it needs.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, many councils are likely to face speculative development, as they will have been unable to deliver on housing numbers in their area, for reasons entirely out of their control. Do the Government have any plans to introduce flexibility in the housing delivery test for the 2021 figures to ensure that councils are not unreasonably penalised?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I note the concerns of my noble friend. Some authorities are raising the issue regarding the housing delivery test. It is important to keep the planning system moving as much as we can so that it is able to play its full part in economic recovery, but we will continue to monitor the situation and review whether any actions are needed.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as others have pointed out, planning permissions do not equate to delivery of new housing. The traditional housebuilding process is slow and, as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, pointed out, prone to being prevented by the weather and other vagaries. Does the Minister agree that we need far more prefabricated housing, and can he say what the Government will do to encourage it?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to point to the importance of modern methods of construction, whether they be non-volumetric modular housing, volumetric modular housing or design for manufacturing and assembly. We need to learn from the Victorian era, when they used pattern books and a systematic approach; these will help in these difficult times.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register. Over 100 local planning authorities did not meet their targets in 2019, so is the Minister confident that the targets are accurately set?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the housing delivery target is based primarily on the housing needs assessment in the local plan. Where the plan is over five years old, we look at the housing needs formula. Only eight councils are below the 45% delivery rate, where a presumption of sustainable development is enforced.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, on a more positive note, how can we better incentivise and help small builders and those building their own homes, as my sister did in Vermont with the help of her local school? Many small schemes could go ahead during the Covid period, providing new homes and giving a welcome boost to struggling local economies.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising the importance of getting small builders to build us out of this problem. Our reforms in Planning for the Future will make it much easier for people and communities to build and design their own homes, with a streamlined, clear and accessible planning system without delays and the associated costs, permission in principle to expedite the route to development, and local authorities identifying suitable sites for self and custom-built housing.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Covid crisis has laid bare the repercussions of poor-quality housing, with hundreds of thousands of families living in overcrowded, cluttered, low-quality and poorly insulated homes. Several councils have raised concerns with the Government about the impact of the slowdown on the building sector and on homes, and the consequences of permitted development, which I have raised before. They are unlikely to make any significant differences to the needs of those in social housing who have family needs. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not inflict fines and punitive measures on local authorities, but instead support their endeavours to meet local housing needs with resources and support?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the worst that can happen through the housing delivery test is a presumption of sustainable development. No fines can be incurred. The affordable homes programme will mean some £12 billion going towards building the social homes that this country much needs. On housing quality, as Minister for Building Safety and Communities, I am pleased to say that we are going through the pre-legislative scrutiny of the building safety Bill to ensure that we can drive that volume while ensuring that we have the safe and good-quality homes that we need.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Covid-19: Great Barrington Declaration
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Great Barrington Declaration on the (1) physical, and (2) mental, health impacts of COVID-19 policies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the analysis of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office for National Statistics and the Government Actuary is clear. Mitigations have prevented more than 500,000 deaths and the associated heartache. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, it is right to look at alternatives, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question. However, having looked at the Great Barrington declaration, we have decided that the idea of a great prevention is bad science and bad economics, and it is impractical. It would be an indefensible moral decision for any Government to take.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the scientists from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard who are behind this declaration should surely be listened to as much as, for instance, the discredited Professor Ferguson or indeed SAGE. We know that NHS waiting lists are at an all-time high and that 3 million cancer screenings have been missed. We know that the average age of those dying from Covid is 82.4 years—higher than from other causes—and that a total of 313 people under the age of 60 and without comorbidities have died in English hospitals from Covid. Current policies are not working. Will the Government stop digging, get out of their hole and go back to first principles to determine the objective of their Covid policy, and then change tack to achieve that objective?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords to keep supplementary questions brief.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I note that the 16,000 scientists supporting the Great Barrington declaration include “Dr Brian Blessed; doctor in winged flight, Z-cars and booming laughter”, “Dr Johnny Fartpants” and “Dr Johnny Bananas”. The serious point, however, is that the idea of “focused protection” is both unethical and impractical. Even if it was not, growing evidence of the impact of long Covid on the fit and young is mounting every day. On herd immunity, we currently have 8% sero-positivity, but we would need 70% for herd immunity, and it is completely improper to ask the young of Britain to suffer the risk of long Covid in order to achieve that. Winter is coming, and cold temperatures and more inside activity will raise prevalence. The great protection is simply not a conscionable option.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Government please look at the Equality Act when they are considering something like this? Take the case of a young disabled person who is very vulnerable; would taking any action like this be a breach of that Act?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Although I have not had legal advice on this, I feel sure that he is on the right track. The great protection would condemn anyone with asthma or a learning difficulty, in old age, or with any major disability or immune challenge to be locked up while society turns its back. That is not a decision that this Government are prepared to make.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, an exit from the pandemic will be achieved only when an appropriate level of population immunity is achieved, either by natural infection or vaccination. Given that the Government’s strategy is to rely on vaccination to deliver population immunity, what estimates and advice are Her Majesty’s Government receiving about the realistic timeframe, from now, in which an efficacious vaccine will have been given to sufficient numbers of people to establish that population immunity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right in his analysis. The briefings from the Vaccine Taskforce to the Prime Minister are encouraging. One of the striking things about the updates is not only the promising nature of the Oxford vaccine, which is progressing very well, but the substantial pipeline of a dozen or more other vaccines that are coming through. Six of those have already been contracted by the Vaccine Taskforce on four different vaccine platforms. I am afraid that I cannot provide a firm schedule as such things are not in the gift of Ministers, but I am informed that progress is substantial.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who I forgot to call before.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that this so-called declaration is principally the work of the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank funded by the Koch foundation and best known for its denial of climate change? As the Minister said in an earlier answer, a large number of the signatories are completely bogus. Does he agree that we should have nothing to do with fake science, which provides cover for a cull of the elderly and the disabled under the guise of herd immunity and promotes an American far-right agenda?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there is some shared interest with those who drafted the Great Barrington declaration. They quite rightly make observations about the impact of the pandemic on education, and we are providing £1 billion to support those whose education has been hit by Covid. They make observations about support for those who are shielding, and we have written a new letter to 2.2 million people who are undergoing shielding. However, the noble Lord is entirely right: this is Johnny Bananas science, and we will not support it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister and I are in complete agreement about this. The scientific understanding of Covid-19 suggests that having had the virus does not guarantee immunity. In fact, cases of second infections are emerging around the world. Does the Minister agree that, until we have a vaccine, this proposal is both dangerous and uncertain, and begs the question of who decides who needs to lock themselves away, and for how long?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. Not only is the evidence of reinfection mounting—a source of huge disappointment, frankly, but something that we have to realistically face up to—but the evidence of long Covid is also mounting, with nearly one in 10 young people infected with Covid reporting some kind of ongoing illness, and many reporting extremely worrying neurological, cardiac or renal damage. This is not flu; this is not a complex cold; this is not a posh version of a duvet day. This is a very serious infection that leaves a long effect on those who are vulnerable, and even on the young and fit. We should be very wary of it.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, what we need is some stability. Yesterday, as picked up by the media overnight, Lancashire and the borough of Pendle—here I declare my interest—were put into tier 2, which was welcomed locally by people and businesses. We now hear of discussions that, by the end of the week, we might be downgraded to tier 3. This is neither stability nor understanding. What on earth is going on? Is it a shambles?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the council in Pendle which, as those in the Chamber know, has done an enormous amount to fight Covid infection and has been exemplary in its approach to containment. However, it is a sad truth that the infection is spreading, particularly among the young, and making its way through the generations. You have only to look at the hospitalisation rates today to see that we will have a serious problem as the lag is complete; in a few weeks’ time, those rates will go up. The Government are taking prompt action, which is tough and unpleasant for those involved. I deeply regret the possibility that Pendle may be hit by harder restrictions, but this is a reasonable approach and it is done to save lives.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will people be healthier this winter locked up on Zoom, playing computer games and watching Netflix, or out in the fresh air, on the rock, hills and footpaths of England in a socially distanced manner?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right to champion the role of fitness, exercise and fresh air, and this Government are doing an enormous amount to try to keep sports going during current arrangements. He is entirely right that for families, young people and those used to the outdoors, the prospect of being locked up presents a huge challenge. No one is under any illusion: the prospect of a long winter under restrictions is deeply challenging and unpleasant. However, I celebrate and totally endorse his advocacy of fresh air and exercise.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, comment on Barrington has been destructively dismissive, so at present it seems to have little chance of acceptance. However, should the new three-tier strategy falter, will an alternative other than national lockdown be adopted which does not decimate the economy? If NHS pressures were thereby increased, have enough personnel been identified to staff the Nightingale hospitals fully, and continue other NHS work, and will they be ready for action if required?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right: the impact on the economy of a full national lockdown has been learned already. We know what that looks like. It is a very tough decision and it is my hope and expectation that the British public and the health system will respond to the challenge they face and will step up. I would like to guide the noble and gallant Lord to the publication by the Government Actuary’s Department, the Office for National Statistics and the Department for Health and Social Care Direct and Indirect Impacts of COVID-19 on Excess Deaths and Morbidity. It spells out in very clear terms the economic and mortality effects of letting the disease rip. Those costs are simply unconscionable.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time has elapsed for this Question.
Business of the House
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with on Wednesday 14 October to enable motions to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020 to be moved, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
This Motion will allow the House to debate the three statutory instruments relating to the new local Covid-19 alert levels tomorrow. The debate on them is taking place in the House of Commons today. This will mean that the debate will take place before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have reported on them. The House as a whole should be very grateful to the members and staff of the two committees for the work they have done in recent weeks to turn around reports on the various health protection SIs as quickly as they have done. On this occasion, following discussions with the usual channels, it was felt that the wide-ranging nature of the new regulations warranted full debates in both Houses at the earliest opportunity. The Government will, of course, take note of anything that either committee has to say about the SI when they report on them. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I am a state of some confusion. I thought we were considering the Business of the House Motion relating to the consideration of Commons amendments in the hybrid House. Has that happened already? In that case I am a day late to make comments I would have made to the noble Lord. I have no comments on this Motion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for raising this. I am surprised; I thought the Leader was in the House today, and I hoped she could come to the House to raise this. I have one question. It is absolutely right that we should have the discussion first. These are made affirmative orders and the longer we wait to debate them, the more ridiculous it becomes.
I asked this through the usual channels, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord would respond. Once we get the reports from the committees, will there be an option for the House to debate them if we think it is appropriate? I would welcome it if he could comment on that because I think that would be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Other than that, I have no comment and we will support the Motion before us today.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am always delighted to answer questions from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, either in or out of the Chamber; I have done it for many hours in the past and, no doubt, I will continue to do so again in future.
As far as the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, are concerned, first, the Leader of the House is off to a Cabinet committee, which is why I am here on her behalf. I am happy to say that we will look carefully at what both committees have to say when they report. The structuring of the timetable for the business of the House is of course a matter for the usual channels. We will discuss that with the usual channels when those reports come out, so I do not rule out further debate or rule it in. We will take it as it comes and we will discuss this with the usual channels, as indeed we did on this Motion, and I am grateful to the usual channels for their usual constructive approach. It is worth mentioning that we have made a lot of procedural changes in a very short space of time and it has been done on a consensual basis so far.
Trade Bill
Tuesday 13th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead 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-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (13 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
We come to Committee on the Trade Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. 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 invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect 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.
We start with the group beginning with Amendment 39. A number of noble Lords spoke to this group on Thursday in Grand Committee, but this Committee of the Whole House is a new Committee on the Bill. I now call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to move Amendment 39 formally, so that I can put the question for the first time, and I will then call the first speaker on the speakers’ list.
Amendment 39
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Conditions for trade deals: Sustainable Development Goals
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(2) Any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2 shall only be eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(3) Within 12 months of making regulations under section 2(1) or ratifying a future trade agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing how those regulations or trade agreement is making a positive impact towards the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for bringing forward both amendments in this group. I also thank my noble friend Lord McConnell for adding his name to Amendment 39, on sustainable development goals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding her name to Amendment 97 on agreements in relation to the least developed countries. All speakers last week expressed support.
We need to make sure that developed countries are not the only winners from trade, and certainly not at the expense of developing countries. We need to be mindful of the effect on those less developed so that they are encouraged and not inadvertently harmed through any unintended consequences. The winners from trade should be people and the planet. Any trade deal should help tackle inequality and the environmental challenges we face. Trade should not mean ignoring our commitments to the sustainable development goals and to a sustainable trade policy, especially now, as all nations seek to recover from Covid-19. The scheme of preferences may not be sufficient.
The pandemic has exposed global inequality and is projected to push millions of people into unemployment and poverty, even at the risk of starvation and death. It is more important than ever to bring a renewed impetus to achieve all the sustainable goals. This has been reflected in more and more councils across the country passing commitments in support of the SDGs. My noble friend and colleague Lord Collins is conducting a review on reform of the United Nations to consider how best to improve its workings to meet SDGs better. So far the UK has not been on a trajectory to meet any of the goals that the Government have committed to. No progress has been made on this since 2011.
The issue is important; the benefits of trade need to be shared with everybody, both here in the UK and in developing countries around the world.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to Amendment 39 on Thursday and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, today. As I mentioned last week as we debated Amendment 12, our continuity programme is fully compliant with environmental obligations, such as those found in the Paris Agreement on climate change. So, too, is it fully compliant with the UN sustainable development goals.
I welcome and support the objectives of the SDGs, and I assure your Lordships that the work of my department is always in alignment with important multilateral commitments. As our continuity programme seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, it follows that it is absolutely coherent with existing international obligations, including the UN sustainable development goals, and it will remain so. On that basis, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 97 would oblige the Government to lay before Parliament a further assessment of the impact of our free trade agreements with the least developed countries and lower-middle-income countries before commencing the substantive provisions of the Trade Bill, and again every 12 months afterwards. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are determined to continue playing their role as an engaged partner to the developing world. We have signed continuity agreements with the CARIFORUM states, the Eastern and Southern African states, the Southern African Customs Union bloc and others. Discussions with further developing countries continue, and my department hopes to make good progress in delivering continuity before the end of the year.
In terms of questions that were raised on Thursday relating to communication and transparency, we are committed to providing Parliament with updates on our trade programmes with the developing world, which we are delivering through our parliamentary reports, where that is relevant, a regular and productive dialogue with parliamentary committees at ministerial and official levels, and a report which the DIT will make to Parliament. I remind your Lordships that we are seeking only to replicate the provisions of the EU’s agreements with developing countries.
Ultimately, we do not believe it is proportionate or sensible to provide reports every year, when our objective is continuity with the status quo. As our continuity agreements clearly safeguard such international commitments and the Government are wholly committed to the preservation and improvement of the environment, I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken within this group, even with the slightly disjointed timing of breaking within the group. I wish to comment on a couple of things that the Minister said before I sit down. In so doing, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for the support of his party. These are cross-party efforts.
My noble friend Lady Northover, in her excellent contribution, said that our ability to negotiate around the world is helped by our good standing in the world. I think that is absolutely right. She referenced the Fairtrade Foundation, and our support for fair trade and the work of the Fairtrade Foundation is a major way to communicate how we see our trading relationships around the world. We on these Benches agree with free and fair trade—not no trade, which I think was the thrust of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in this group.
My amendment is not a Trojan horse for those who seek to make the case against global trade; rather it is to put markers down that our trade should be of the highest ethical approach. That is why I was so glad to hear the contributions of my noble friend Lord Chidgey and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who both displayed real dedication on this topic. I pay tribute to my noble friend for his leadership of the All-Party Group on Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referenced the fact that we should see our trade holistically: that is a very good way of describing it. We do not negotiate in isolation; often, we have bilateral trade negotiations but increasingly, as with the least developed countries, we are negotiating with regional groupings. They have their own development priorities, which we also support.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked where we are on the current trajectory. There was not a lot of information from the Minister on that. I can quote to her from the reply that Theo Clarke MP and I received from Greg Hands and James Duddridge on 16 September. We had written a letter in our capacity as co-chairs of the All-Party Group on Trade out of Poverty. The annexe to that letter, in reply to our request for information of exactly the kind the noble Baroness asked for, was rather depressing. The Minister said:
“The Government aim to see good progress”.
I think we all wish to see good progress. However, in regard to the SACUM EPA, which he referenced, of South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Eswatini, Lesotho and Mozambique, only South Africa and Botswana have ratified; the others have yet to ratify. There is a mixed situation on the Eastern and Southern Africa EPA, with Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and Comoros. They are eligible to join the EPA but have not yet joined; therefore, it has not been agreed with us.
On the east African community, which I singled out in my speech, with regards to Kenya, the only information is that these are discussions that are ongoing. The Government said,
“You will understand that it would not be appropriate to give further details on the status of these discussions before they have concluded”,
but Kenya has been dropped from the ongoing engagement. I am not sure if it is in order to notify to the clerk at the desk orally instead of emailing him that I would like the Minister to respond to this, but I would like information about Kenya. The reason I think Kenya is so important is that it is where Theresa May, as our Prime Minister, chose to visit to announce that the UK would be the biggest investor in Africa in the G7 by next year. That target has been dropped, with little explanation as to why. The target is now:
“We want the UK to be the investment partner of choice”
for Africa. It is rather symbolic that, despite that announcement made in Kenya, it now looks unlikely that there will be an agreement with Kenya at the end of this year.
On the final regional grouping, of Ghana, Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire, discussions are ongoing. It does not paint a very strong picture about how ready we are to trade on an EPA basis rather than a WTO basis on 1 January. The Minister also did not respond to the very good question my noble friend Lady Northover asked: if that is to be the case, will the Government ensure that we stand ready to support all those countries, so that there are no additional costs for trading with us on WTO terms?
On the previous group, I was interested in the response of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, to his noble friend Lord Lansley. The committee was told, on the point about having sufficient time to scrutinise some of these agreements, that there would likely be a cliff edge if some of them were made close to the end of the year, so that there would be insufficient time to allow an extended period of scrutiny by the committee. I was under the impression that, if we have reached agreement in principle under the WTO, we can provisionally apply agreements. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify, and correct me if I am wrong, that there will not be a cliff edge, but that we will be allowed some proper time.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have taken note of a number of questions raised by the noble Lord and I think it best to address them in a letter, so I shall write to him, while liaising with my noble friend Lord Grimstone.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 42. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 42
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Free trade agreements: impact assessment
(1) Before making regulations under section 2(1) an appropriate authority must produce an impact assessment of—(a) any costs to businesses arising from any additional regulatory requirements in connection with exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom in the course of a trade, business or profession; and(b) any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting or importing goods and services to or from Northern Ireland in the course of a trade, business or profession.(2) Prior to the ratification of any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2, an appropriate authority must produce an impact assessment of—(a) any costs to businesses arising from any additional regulatory requirements in connection with exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom in the course of a trade, business or profession; and(b) any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting goods and services to Northern Ireland in the course of a trade, business or profession.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause requires an impact assessment is made of any additional costs to businesses arising from exporting goods and services from the United Kingdom, and within the UK’s internal market.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, has said on a number of occasions: trade agreements mean little if businesses cannot operationalise them and use them to export more and import better. We on these Benches agree: we believe that the UK should be in a position for prosperity if we can have the right trading relationships around the world. To do that, we need to know what kind of barriers exist, what levels of bureaucracy have been put in place and how the Government are supporting businesses to overcome them.
Paragraph 21 of the political declaration attached to the withdrawal agreement with the EU says that,
“the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation”.
Paragraph 22 goes on to envisage “ambitious customs arrangements”. Our motor industry, held up by the Government and others as a success story—rightly so—has called repeatedly for full implementation of the Union’s customs code and for the UK to take a different approach from the one that it has so far in ensuring that businesses have as little bureaucracy and as few barriers to trade with the European Union as possible. The SMMT, representing the industry, brings to stark attention, in its January briefing, what we face at the start of 2021:
“Basing the new UK/EU trading relationships on the provisions permissible in a free trade agreement will significantly change the administrative processes related to the movement of goods between the UK and the EU. There is a risk that the trade agreement between the UK and the EU results in increased friction at the border. Delays to the arrival of components at manufacturing plants are measured in minutes. Every minute of delay could cost approximately £50,000 in gross value added to the industry, totalling over £70 million per day. For automotive manufacturers, border delays are unacceptably disruptive, and if the sector in the UK is to remain competitive, these must be avoided.”
Frictionless trade had been the mantra, we recognise that, but now it looks as if we are going to be having it on truly Newtonian levels. The Government have, however, not chosen to carry out impact assessments on their border operating model, on the new measures to be put in place, or indeed on the costs to businesses that are going to be exporting and importing. Instead, they have chosen some business estimates of costs and ignored others.
Officials, not Ministers, confirmed that the Government’s most recent estimate on the likely necessary bureaucracy at our border ports, first published by HMRC in December 2018 and confirmed by the Government, is that there would be an additional 215 million customs declaration forms for businesses importing and exporting goods. That would apply regardless of whether Britain and the EU conclude a trade deal this year with the aim of removing all tariffs and quotas, so that is likely to happen. Can the Minister confirm that that is the latest estimate and tell us whether the Government have asked HMRC to update any of the cost estimates in light of the publication of the new border operating model, and whether that is the basis on which we should go forward? If it is then, although we were told that there would likely be a net £9 billion saving from leaving the European Union, there would also be a £7 billion cost to exporters and £7 billion to importers annually, and an extra £1 billion at least for cost of preparation plus commitments for ongoing costs. But there is no impact assessment on the business burden itself.
I do not wish to relitigate any of the arguments about European Union membership—and I knew that would get some smiles from the Benches opposite, but I genuinely do not—but the question is not whether we go back; it is about how many barriers there are for us to go forward. These are legitimate questions, because on top of this, George Eustice, the Environment Secretary, told MPs last Tuesday that it was estimated that up to 300,000 export health certificates would be required from 1 January next year for agricultural goods—a five-fold increase on current levels. There is a genuine concern about the burden on rural businesses from the processing costs for official veterinarians to carry this out—if they are actually available. Do the Government have contingency arrangements for the turn of the year if there are difficulties in securing these certifications?
As our amendment relates also to burdens for Northern Ireland—and there will be ample opportunity to debate the internal market legislation that is coming—I want to refer to one element of the Northern Ireland trading relationship that has been highlighted recently by the Food and Drink Federation. The federation has said that, regardless of the protocol being implemented in full and regardless of the internal market provisions—wherever they might be in due course on the customs process—there are likely to be costs on goods travelling into Northern Ireland that must comply with EU rules governing customs, VAT, plant and animal hygiene, and product labelling. This is linked with 1.5 million tonnes of food and drink travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland each year. The Government have indicated their willingness to provide some funding for businesses from Northern Ireland to offset some of the costs for this, but can the Minister explain to us what the current level is?
This is all building to the necessity of asking the Government to report on what barriers and costs exist. We have received some indication from the border operating model to which I referred. We already know, from the document that was published last week—the 271-page border operating model—that this is going to add huge burdens at our borders. We know that there is a six-month deferral for our border processes because they have not been ready and that this is not going to be all that is necessary for this. However, what we did learn last week was that businesses are going to need permission to move their vehicles to Kent. The Government are going to require a statutory Kent access permit for businesses seeking to export from anywhere across the UK if they wish to exit from Dover. Therefore, not only do we now have a debate about unfettered access to Northern Ireland: there is not even going to be unfettered access to Kent on the M20 for those wishing to export.
We know from Michael Gove’s Statement in the House of Commons whose fault this is likely to be; rest assured, it will not be his. He said:
“Every business trading with Europe will need to thoroughly familiarise itself with new customs procedures and, whether they develop their capacity in-house or work with a customs intermediary, enhanced preparation is vital.”
This is two months away. He went on to say, referring to businesses, that,
“just 24% believed that they are fully ready.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/9/20; col. 961.]
Therefore, in addition to the grants of support and in addition to what the Government have indicated is going to be necessary for intermediaries, we know that there are insufficient numbers of those to support businesses.
I asked at Second Reading about the number of intermediaries recruited after the Government’s undertaking to help our exporters, but the Minister did not reply. I wrote to him, and he kindly sent me a thorough reply but without the information about how many intermediaries had been hired. Can he answer that today with up-to-date information?
Finally, businesses have been calling for some clarity on this additional bureaucracy, these new barriers to export and the new burdens on importers. If businesses are going to be taking up the greater exporting opportunities that might present themselves, they need to know in advance, with a degree of certainty, what kind of barriers and burdens they face. That is why these amendments are important. I hope that the Government support the principle of them: to have as much information out there as timely and accurately as possible. It is not just for 1 January that we need to prepare; it is ongoing. That is why I hope that the Government will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I was quite surprised to find the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, concentrating on the costs involved in the border between the UK and the EU. When I put my name down to speak in this group, I thought it was about assessing the costs of our trade with other countries. Let me be clear: I am always in favour of ensuring that the Government identify the costs and burdens on business in all of their activities, so he will not find me opposing his amendment on that ground at all.
However, his amendment is very unclear, because it is not clear what the counterfactual is: costs compared with what? In the context of his subsection (1), which is about the rollover agreements, are the costs compared with the current status quo—that is, in the implementation period—or with trading on WTO terms after 1 January, or with something else? It is very unclear. In the case of subsection (2), presumably the cost will be compared with trading with those other third countries on WTO terms because that would be the counterfactual. It seems to be highly unlikely that we would enter into a free trade agreement with another party that involved costs additional to those trading on WTO terms, so the noble Lord’s amendment does not entirely make sense.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall be brief, as my noble friend Lord Purvis has already made a characteristically clear and robust case for impact assessments as set out in Amendment 42, to which I have added my name.
Given the highly complex and as yet unresolved nature of the situation in Northern Ireland as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, does the Minister not agree that impact assessments would be particularly helpful to the business community there? An evidence-based approach would provide an opportunity to highlight any particular concerns and any additional costs that could have such a negative impact on Northern Ireland businesses, not least because of the highly complex supply lines there. Impact assessments would provide a greater understanding of the facts and allow for more effective planning and preparation, as my noble friend Lord Purvis has said.
The Minister will know that, in May, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group submitted more than 60 detailed questions to the Government, following its analysis of the impact of the changes facing Northern Ireland businesses at the end of the transition period. However, 17 of these questions remain unanswered. Can the Minister say when he expects answers to be given to these remaining questions, most especially given that we are now just over two months away from the end of the transition period?
The Government published a detailed, 60-page document setting out the possible economic advantages of a trade deal with the United States. A detailed analysis was presented in May this year on the likely impact of a trade deal with Japan. Yet in March this year, Michael Gove told the House of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union that there would not be an impact assessment on the UK-EU trade deal currently being negotiated. Can the Minister therefore explain what criteria is used to decide whether or not to carry out an impact assessment on any future trade deal? Can he say whether the Government intend to publish an impact assessment on the EU-UK deal and, if so, when will it be done? Will particular attention be given to the very specific set of circumstances facing Northern Ireland?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for giving me the opportunity to probe one particular aspect under this amendment. I also note my regret that, despite the rather energetic notes my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie took when I asked about the rollover agreements with the economic partnership agreement countries, I have not had an answer to my question. I would be most grateful if I could have an update from my noble friend on that point before Thursday.
On the existing impact assessment and the EU agreements we have, it is worth noting that they account for only 15.7% of our trade. They are quite limited in size.
This is an interesting amendment because, at the virtual Conservative Party conference that we held last week on 4 October, we heard, apparently for the first time, the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right honourable friend Elizabeth Truss, announce that the International Trade Committee in the other place will receive a signed deal in advance of it being laid before the CRaG procedures and—this is what is new, certainly to me—an independently verified impact assessment on environmental, social, animal welfare and economic issues before the committee consults with industry experts and produces a report.
I want to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether this is new. When will the first such impact assessment be laid? Can he explain who will do the independent verification of such an impact assessment? I for one would certainly welcome such an impact assessment, as I am sure industry and consumers would, but I am slightly baffled as to who would do the independent verification. I would be very keen to learn that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for putting forward this amendment. We should also be grateful to other colleagues in the Chamber for asking key questions on this.
Bad trade deals produce clear winners and losers. Surely our task is to make sure that British businesses, including those in Northern Ireland, do not lose out in trade agreements and face unnecessary costs. British businesses have faced an incredibly tough year; the pandemic in particular has seriously impacted on UK trade. We have seen big falls in exports and imports in the three months following April 2020; the ONS found that trade exports fell by £33.1 billion in those three months, while imports fell by £29.9 billion. These were the largest three-monthly falls since comparable records began in 1997. Trade will be vital for businesses in the post-Covid recovery period. The Government should make sure that businesses do not face unnecessary costs arising from trade agreements.
I am glad that the Minister has said previously that the Government have committed to publish their negotiating objectives alongside an initial impact assessment. Can he confirm that a full impact assessment for each agreement will be published by the Government at the end of negotiations? Will this full impact assessment be reviewed by an independent body? Will the Government act on any findings that come as a by-product of the review?
There are clearly major problems for Northern Ireland. Does the Minister expect different costs for businesses exporting or importing goods and services to or from Northern Ireland to result from an EU-UK FTA and any rollover agreement for the Japan agreement? Other businesses in the rest of the UK will clearly be affected by this.
The amendment’s explanatory note also refers to additional costs to businesses operating within the UK’s internal market. Labour firmly believes that there is a need for a strong internal market so that businesses can trade freely across the UK’s four nations, which will be vital for our economy and shared prosperity. This will be discussed at length in the Internal Market Bill, which has some important implications for this Bill.
I hope that the Minister is following these debates closely. I hope that we can be reassured that the impact assessments will be transparently conducted and published, and that the Government will take note of their findings. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I accept that there are costs both ways, but we need transparency. That transparency will enable our businesses to trade better, more freely and more competitively.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. As I told the House on the first day of Committee, and as we have touched on since, our continuity agreements seek to replicate the effects of EU agreements, and the 21 agreements that we have already signed show that we are not diverging or introducing new obligations. These agreements are continuity by name and continuity by nature. We therefore do not think it proportionate to produce impact assessments for trade deals that only maintain the status quo. I emphasise that point because I will come to other free trade agreements later.
This is not to say that we intend to deny Parliament information on these agreements. That is why the parliamentary reports that we have committed to publish alongside signed agreements contain detailed information about the volume of trade, the composition of imports and exports, and the wider economic impact of those agreements. As I have said, we will continue to lay these parliamentary reports voluntarily, with Explanatory Memoranda, alongside each new continuity agreement. The recently signed new agreement with Ukraine will of course be treated in that way.
New FTAs are not included in the scope of the Bill—neither are the EU arrangements—but we have committed to publishing in advance of opening negotiations initial economic scoping assessments for the new FTAs setting out what impact we believe the agreements might have. At the end of negotiations, we will produce an impact assessment for the final treaty, alongside an Explanatory Memorandum, prior to it being laid before Parliament for scrutiny under CRaG. The Government believe that this strikes the right balance.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked what kind of independent assessment will be made of these assessments. I am pleased to say that those assessments will be made by the Regulatory Policy Committee. I can also let the House know that the International Agreements Sub-Committee has already received these assessments in relation to the Japan FTA, which we signed a few weeks ago. These agreements and reports have been made available to the IAC on a confidential basis. We committed that the committee would have these agreements to review in good time before the CRaG process started; I am pleased to say that I had a good meeting with the IAC yesterday where we talked through these processes. I look forward to receiving its report in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked various questions relating to trade with the EU, particularly on customs arrangements and other contingency arrangements, including Northern Ireland matters that will arise at the end of the transition period. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on these matters.
Given these reassurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, of course I look forward to receiving another letter from the Minister. I hope that he can, at least in this one, give me what has so far proved to be very elusive: simple information in answer to straightforward questions on the current level of intermediaries recruited to support our exporters on the new border operating model. The industry had indicated, which Michael Gove had agreed with, that we require an estimated 50,000. HMRC said at the end of July that 600 had been recruited. All I have been asking is what the current level is—I do not think it is unreasonable for us to know. The border operating model itself explicitly encourages our exporters to use intermediaries because the customs procedures under this model are complex and burdensome. That is the point. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who gave the context of the real pressures on our businesses exporting.
Let me address the specific and very reasonable questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The amendment explicitly states that the costs to businesses are linked to additional regulatory requirements in regulations made under these orders. It simply is not the case that these agreements stay permanent once they have been made. Often, regulations will be required to be made in the lifetime of these agreements. I would hope that the Minister could confirm that any regulations brought forward would ordinarily have an impact assessment on the cost to businesses associated with them. The whole thrust of the last few years has been about not bringing in regulations without an impact assessment on business. That should be a straightforward thing for the Minister to confirm.
The second subsection of the proposed new clause is about new agreements, and again it is for any additional requirements to implement those agreements. There is not the necessity of a counterfactual, because they are to do with how the Government assess any additional costs to businesses from any new requirements on businesses. The reason I did major on the border operating model was this: it has of course become necessary because of us leaving the European Union, but it is a new border operating model for all exports, not just for exports to the European Union. The Kent access permit is not just for anybody wanting to export to the European Union but also to make sure that we have all of these in place. Therefore, it is right to ask what the cost will be for businesses doing that. It is also a simple fact that if they are likely to be necessary for the Kent access permit to be in place, then that will have an impact on our ports of exit for anybody exporting to any third country around the world. It is inevitable that there will be a spillover impact of any exports. I think it is justified to ask the question: what is the estimate of the cost for businesses?
Finally, I turn to what the Minister said, which was linked to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the impact assessments to be carried out on the new agreements coming forward with Japan and Ukraine. That is welcome, and I do welcome it. I was grateful for the Minister notifying me of the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, which outlined that they would be in place. I welcome them, but the Minister will not be surprised that I think they are insufficient, as we have debated in Committee up until now. But I am grateful that this is on the record and that the Minister confirmed it.
Can the Minister also confirm that they will not simply be an economic impact assessment but a regulatory impact assessment? That is the point of the amendment in this group. It is not just whether it would be considered that there would be net economic benefits for the country, but what the net business costs are for exporters and importers, because they are not necessarily the same. Therefore, sector by sector, it will be helpful to know. If we do not have that information, we will struggle to answer the real point of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: how do we get net benefit for our businesses in exporting, and how are we making them more competitive with others around the world if we do not have that level of business impact assessment for the regulations implementing our trade agreements?
If the Minister wishes to come back on that point, he may. He has indicated already that he will write to me, and I welcome that—if it can be done as quickly as his previous letters, I would appreciate that. I am not yet satisfied before I receive that letter, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 46. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 46
“Trade agreement with the EU: mobility framework
For the purposes of facilitating the continuation of trade with the European Union, the Secretary of State must take all necessary steps to secure a mobility framework with the European Union that enables all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the purpose of the provision of trade in goods or services.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause places an obligation on the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to secure a mobility framework with the European Union.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 46 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State takes all necessary steps to secure a mobility framework with the European Union. It is strikingly similar to one that your Lordships voted to include in the last version of this Bill. I am a little disappointed with the Government, and a little sad that they did not see fit to incorporate that amendment into the body of the third version of the Trade Bill, because the House had spoken very clearly on its preferences.
I am surprised also because the Secretary of State has been voluble about the role of services in the UK’s trading future. She claims that we are the world’s second largest services exporter—I certainly do not dispute that—and Europe’s pre-eminent destination for tech investment. We rely on people to develop those services; we rely on people to take those services out and sell them around the world; and we rely on the reciprocal movement of people around the world in order for services and our services industry to thrive. This is true in a huge number of sectors, not least in areas such as the performing arts and culture, which I know will be addressed by other speakers. And yet, the message sent through the narrow criteria of the immigration Bill is really the opposite.
We live in difficult times for employment, and the statistics today from the ONS around unemployment are extremely worrying. However, I will focus on the central skills environment. Other data reported by the ONS—last Thursday, I think—finds that between 2017 and 2019 there were 32.3 million people employed in the UK workforce, of which 11% were non-British nationals, among which about two-thirds were from the EU and one-third were non-EU nationals. Within that, 12% of key workers in the health and social care sector were non-British nationals. I should remind your Lordships that this sector is desperately seeking to recruit more people; there are literally hundreds of thousands of vacancies.
As your Lordships know, the immigration Bill ushers in a new skills-based work migration system, which comes into force after the transition period. This points-based system will require applicants to reach 70 points to be able to work in the United Kingdom. Points will be awarded based on qualifications, salary on offer, ability to speak English and whether the relevant sector is suffering from staff shortages. The salary threshold has been lowered to £25,600. I would point out that this is still well above the sum earned by many non-EU key workers, particularly in and around the care sector. One thing the Covid crisis has demonstrated is that salary is not the best indicator of people’s value to our communities.
The Migration Advisory Committee is already seeking to widen the lens of migration into this country. Its latest report says:
“Senior care workers and nursing assistants are among the occupations that should be added to the”
shortage occupation list
“to relieve pressure when freedom of movements ends … Other occupations which should be added to the UK-wide list include butchers, bricklayers and welders … The MAC has also recommended additions to separate lists for all of the devolved nations … This includes extra fishmongers, bakers and horticultural workers for Northern Ireland, childminders and nursery nurses for Scotland and health professionals for Wales.”
This is a valiant effort by the MAC but, looking across the Floor to the government Benches, it is hard to believe that, when noble Lords signed up to become members of the Conservative Party, and when they handed over their membership fees, they did so in order to elect a Government to micromanage the number of fishmongers in Belfast. Is this really an approach that a Conservative Government should be even thinking of? Would not a mobility framework be better at this than trying to track and trim every sub-level of trade and profession in every region and to try to manage their supply.
I am sure that the Minister will say this Bill is only about continuity agreements. That is not strictly true, as we know, because the Government have added amendments that address the wider trade agenda. If we look at the continuity agreement with Switzerland, for example, we find that a new element has been inserted—not quite the continuity agreement. The Swiss citizens’ rights agreement is a mobility framework that provides Swiss nationals and their family members living in the UK at the end of the implementation period with the right to continue to stay in the UK. It seems that the Government are amenable to the concept of mobility frameworks in continuity agreements—at least when it comes to Swiss bankers and gold traders.
I will turn to other deals. What about the deal with Japan? I know that details are still being filtered out around this, but the EU-Japanese deal—which our deal replaces—has a mobility framework. According to the European Commission, the agreement includes the most advanced provisions on movement of people for business purposes that the EU has negotiated so far. It covers categories such as intercorporate transfers, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and the EU and Japan have agreed to include spouses and children to accompany service suppliers or those who work for a service supplier. So we know that the European Union is amenable to negotiating such deals. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK-Japanese deal also includes a mobility framework?
I do not think that either Minister, in their heart, wants the sort of migration environment proposed by the Government. In fact, I think that they understand the stifling nature of this. But it is probably too much to expect the Minister to admit this. However, I ask him to please tell your Lordships whether the UK-Japanese trade deal contains a mobility framework such as the one in the EU deal that it agrees to replace. We know that the UK does mobility because the Swiss-UK deal has added mobility to its scope—and we know that the EU does mobility through its Japanese settlement. Why not put these two together? Why not introduce a bit of consistency? By accepting this amendment, the Minister would acknowledge that mobility frameworks are to our mutual advantage, and he would be opening Her Majesty’s Government to the possibility of an EU mobility framework. I beg to move Amendment 46.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in speaking in strong support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will concentrate on the work aspect of this amendment, in particular in services and the British industry side of any reciprocal agreement that might be made. I acknowledge also the importance of study.
One would not think that, as individual groups, lorry drivers and lawyers necessarily have a great deal in common. But they do. They are both part of our huge services industry—our largest sector, providing 80% of the UK’s GDP and, according to the ONS, £95.2 billion-worth of exports to the EU, from the UK, in 2018. Looking back at the debates early last year on the almost identical amendment in the previous incarnation of the Trade Bill, it is clear that little has really changed in terms of the arguments that need to be made, or indeed with the extent to which the Government have addressed, or rather not addressed, the concerns of the sector. What has changed are the circumstances of Brexit, so that, if anything, the need for a mobility framework as 2021 rapidly approaches has become even more urgent.
Services depend inherently on a mobility framework. As our closest customer geographically, Europe is hugely important as a market and always will be. Yes, we can try to develop our services trade elsewhere, but putting impediments on our trade with Europe will inevitably result in a significant net loss when that trade starts to fall off, as indeed it has already as a result of a future mobility framework not already being in place—and this effect was observable before Covid. It should not be a case of either European or global trade, although that is sometimes the impression given. If anything, there is an argument that causing such impediments with Europe will detrimentally affect such trade with the rest of the world, such are the connections between countries and blocs of countries globally.
The loss of free movement on 1 January 2021 will directly impact on the effectiveness of this sector and consequently on the livelihoods of its many and various services providers, including IT, engineering, aviation, translation, and creative services. Many of these workers are self-employed and resident in both the UK and the EU. A survey by British in Europe found that 58% of respondents felt that their livelihoods would be affected by their loss of mobility rights. This finding was backed up for creative services by the Arts Council survey quoted last week on Report of the immigration Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which stated that the continuation of short-term mobility was a top priority—even more important than the loss of EU funding.
The UK-EU cross-border services working group, for whose briefing I am indebted, has identified four key areas of concern for services. The first is GDPR, including the need for an adequacy agreement. The second key area is recognition of professional qualifications. Thirdly, and at the top of the list, are mobility rights and associated concerns, including the right to render services, the right of establishment and the right to travel at a moment’s notice between the UK, EEA countries and Switzerland—including, crucially, movement between Schengen territories. Fourthly, and importantly, there is the confusion and anxiety caused by the lack of an adequately defined single framework, which is increasingly deterring European clients. British workers urgently need these matters resolved and need guidance from the Government, which they are currently not receiving.
It is curious that the professed desire of the Government is to develop our tech industries, but these concerns have not been addressed and the industry overall has not been consulted. It must be emphasised that, in normal circumstances, on-site presence is an integral aspect of the services sector. In an earlier debate, I quoted an IT worker saying, “We freelancers export ourselves.” Creative services, particularly the performing arts, necessitate a mobility framework, because touring above all is such an integral aspect of that work. Among the raft of concerns, industries such as the performing arts and media and events, share the concern about the need to move equipment across borders, again at a moment’s notice. In other industries, we should also not forget the servitisation component of manufacturing.
As Committee has made clear, trade is not just about trade; it is about the policies that define it and the effects it may have, such as on people’s health and the environment. It is also—and this is particularly true about services—about other things in a more integral way, such as cultural exchange and soft power. The ambassadorial aspect of these industries is something that we are in great danger of sacrificing. Such aspects of services, apart from the financial worth, are both essential and invaluable, and will depend on an effective and appropriate framework.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which seeks to secure the continued success of the UK’s trade in goods and services with the EU, and to preserve the mobility framework that will be vital in achieving that aim. I will also focus on services, because they have undoubtedly been the Cinderella of the Brexit story or, as Sir Ivan Rogers memorably described them last year, the dog that has failed to bark.
I wondered then whether it might be that trade in goods has predominated because the at-the-border issues they involve are easier to grasp than the behind-the-border issues of domestic rules, regulations and qualifications that underpin trade in services. It might be because of the confusing range and diversity of sectors that shelter under the umbrella of services, from IT to hairdressing, education to tourism, architecture to the arts, as well as health, insurance and financial services. Or it might be because the biggest service earners—the financial and insurance services—are heavily skewed to London and the south-east: 48% of the £128 billion those two service sectors contribute to the UK economy is generated by London alone. That uneven geographic distribution and economic contribution does not sit easily with the language of levelling up, and supporting bankers and brokers may not be much of a vote winner either.
However, like it or not, this country has long been predominantly a services economy. In 2019, services contributed around 80% of UK economic activity, and they account for about 30 million jobs. The EU single market is the primary destination for UK services exports, with the UK running a trade surplus with the EU in services. This dominance of the EU for our services exports is not surprising. One of the best-established empirical results in international economics is that bilateral trade decreases with distance.
There are five modes of services traded across borders: remote, in the supplier’s country, in the consumer’s country, via fly in, fly out, and as an integral component of a traded good. That last mode of attached or embedded services—perhaps the long-term maintenance contract for a machine, for example—has been a great big growth area for the UK in recent years. The majority of Rolls Royce’s revenues come not from the sale of the aircraft engines and other goods it produces but from the accompanying services that are sold as part of the package.
In each mode there is an inextricable link between services and mobility. Service provision, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, requires people on the ground. Services provided in this country—higher education or tourism, for example—depend on inward mobility. Services provided in other countries, including those all-important embedded services, require outward mobility. Some of our most important and successful service industries are heavily dependent on EU workers: financial services, education, health, road haulage, and, as I often remind this House, the creative industries. The Royal Institute of British Architects estimates that one in four architects working in the UK is from the EU. In tourism, 10% of workers are EU nationals, as is 6% of the NHS workforce, and we have discussed over and over again the importance of EU migrants to our care sector.
Even before Covid, the loss of free movement post Brexit threatened the sustainability and success of the UK services sector. Covid continues to have a devastating effect on parts of the sector that rely on human gatherings and interactions: hospitality, air travel, restaurants, hotels, as well as arts and entertainment. Only last week, the Lords Economic Affairs Committee heard devastating testimony about the effects of the pandemic on the UK’s cultural and creative industries. However, according to research from the LSE, Brexit will deliver a double shock to the economy. Business conditions will worsen for those sectors that have been able to better weather the Covid storm—IT, financial and legal services, for example—because of the barriers it will impose on the continuation of trade, whether or not there is a deal. These of course include the end to the reciprocal mobility that has underpinned the UK’s status as a world leader in services provision.
Sir Ivan Rogers, in the same speech I referred to earlier, suggested that the UK services industry’s needs have been sacrificed to the primary goal of ending free movement, and it is hard to disagree with him. This amendment seeks to preserve a mobility framework with the EU. In doing so, it would help preserve one of the UK’s most successful sectors, and along with that the jobs, revenues and opportunities that it provides.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I had initially intended to take part in the debate on this amendment solely for the purpose of probing whether study, which is mentioned in the amendment, can logically be regarded as necessary for trade in goods or services. I had not expected this debate to go into our border control policies, with yet more angst over not having the same rights to travel throughout the EU as exist even today.
I would just say to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who seems to think that Conservatives might be upset at restrictions on movement, that we voted, both in the referendum and in the last general election, to take control of our borders—that is what the people voted for. That has consequences. Noble Lords who are trying to constantly recreate what we have had in the past as members of the EU do themselves no service. We have to change what we are doing going forward. That is not to say that we cannot have sensible arrangements with both the EU and other countries to facilitate the trade in goods and services, which I fully support. However, we should not be constantly harking back to life as it was when we were a member of the EU.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important impendent indeed, and we have cause to be grateful to all those who put it on the agenda. I have never understood how you can have an effective free market of any kind without the free movement of people. It makes a nonsense of it. In that sense, the arguments have been very well rehearsed in this debate. I would just like noble Lords to know that at least one of us on these Benches—I am sure there are many more—is very much behind the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the narrow words in the amendment on
“the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the purpose of the provision of trade in goods or services.”
I make a plea to my noble friend Lady Noakes that we are trying here to grapple with reality.
I declare an interest. I practised law for approximately three years in two separate law firms in Brussels. I want to extend the same opportunities that I had to this brave new world now that we are outside the European Union and permit our qualified solicitors, barristers and advocates to do the same. What worries me is something that has been shared today in the report looking at reciprocal rights published by the EU Committee, The Future UK-EU Relationship on Professional and Business Services. I will quote from it and make sure that Hansard gets the right reference so that everyone can find it. The report summarises the default position that has been adopted; I know that this does not fall within the remit of this Bill but our free movement with the EEA does. The committee notes that the default position of the Government is mutual recognition; that is fine, but it is not happening on the basis of reciprocity.
I want to use this opportunity to probe my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie: when he comes to reply, can he update the House as to where we are on the reciprocal arrangements, particularly with the EEA countries, under the rollover agreements? My understanding when the relevant statutory instruments went through this place was that we were, quite rightly, allowing qualified lawyers from EEA countries to carry on practising here but our qualified barristers, solicitors and advocates were not given the reciprocal arrangements. That is just plain wrong.
I recall that, at the time, a number of professionals, particularly lawyers, qualified under other jurisdictions, such as Dublin, and I was shocked to see how the cost of requalifying went up incrementally to accommodate their rights to do so. The report is very timely and highlights the fact that mutual recognition is not as reciprocal as one would hope with the EEA countries. I hope that my noble friend will put my mind at rest, as this is an area—the free movement of services—where the World Trade Organization’s record is not particularly good; it tends to be patchy. As other noble Lords have alluded to, today’s report states:
“Professional and business services are an important part of the UK economy”,
accounting for 12% of our gross value added. Others have spoken about different aspects of the economy; I just ask my noble friend that question about the professional services provided by lawyers.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak from my background as somebody who has worked in logistics. I will not enter into the economic or moral arguments, although I have strong views on both. My life has been spent moving people and freight by planes, ships, lorries and trains through airports, stations and other facilities.
Last week, the Government published a large document with detailed instructions as to how this was to be carried out in future. I received part of it last night and read some of it this morning. It is very complicated and is aimed at an industry used to carrying out instructions if they are communicated in fairly simple terms and in a logical and timely fashion. The document does not pass either test; it has been published within a few weeks of our leaving the EU and, as I said, it is complicated. It has to be understood by a lot of people low down the food chain—not lawyers but lorry drivers or people operating fork-lift trucks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak to offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 46 and closely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords presenting it, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
I was going to be brief but I really want to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said. She suggested that the amendment seeks to recreate what was lost. No, it is trying to save what is threatened: the businesses, livelihoods and professional lives of people who have, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, alluded to, spent many years studying—and invested their time, energy and finances—to develop lives that are now under serious threat.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in her useful setting out of the different ways in which the exchange has happened, spoke about where services are an integral component of a good being sold. We think of companies that have offered long-term service contracts for goods sold into the EU and EEA and the difficulties that they might experience in continuing those service contracts unless we have the kind of mobility framework offered here. We are now on a rescue mission.
I do not think anyone else has referred to this in detail but we have to go back to what we will be missing if we do not have the opportunity for EU/EEA citizens to come into the UK under this kind of mobility framework. There is the important area of language studies. Sadly, we have seen some documentation since the vote in 2016 showing that interest in language study, at least in our schools, has actually fallen. If we are to continue to operate in this world, where we are going to have much more complex relationships with other countries in Europe than we do now, we will desperately need those language skills. The reciprocal side of this is of course that Britons have the very valuable skill of being native English speakers that they can take around the continent and beyond.
We need to have quality of language teaching and development of language skills in the UK. Most of the teaching assistants in our schools are native speakers from other parts of Europe. These are crucial issues, so I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too support the amendment. It is very important, and noble Lords who have spoken have made some very good arguments in favour of it. As we all know, free movement within the EU has been very important for education, services and other businesses as well as for people getting to know each other. It could easily and should still happen after Brexit, but that needs the Government to support the idea positively and proactively even after we have left.
Transport is of course part of mobility. It must be cheap, reliable and accessible. Although Covid-19 has caused a massive reduction in demand, it is still there and it still needs to be there. However, the situation regarding the Government’s support is still very confusing and uncertain for services and their users. I have been trying to get answers from the Government for several months on how much in loans, guarantees or grants they have given to each of the international transport sectors, by which I mean air, sea, road and rail. I have had two Written Answers saying that that information per sector is commercially confidential. Surprisingly, maybe, I got a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, this morning saying that providers have many options as to how to find money, but with no comparators.
I can see why the noble Baroness could not see tell me about comparators. If one digs a little deeper, one finds that in the maritime sector—ferries—the Public Accounts Committee recently reported that the Government had written off £85 million for cancelled ferry contracts, which included a settlement with Eurotunnel of £33 million because apparently the Government had forgotten that Eurotunnel took the same kind of traffic that the ferries do. Noble Lords will remember that the Government spent £14 million on a company called Seaborne Freight, which owned a non-existent ferry and whose terms and conditions of carriage on its website appeared to have been copied from an online takeaway.
In the air sector, airlines have had soft loans to keep them alive. The noble Baroness said in a Written Answer that the Government were
“working closely with the aviation sector to support it to ensure there is sufficient capacity”.
They have spent £3 billion on keeping the franchise railways going, and that is good, but for cross-channel rail there is not a penny to ensure sufficient capacity. According to a presentation by the High Speed 1 chief executive Dyan Crowther to the all-party rail group last week, Eurostar has received no government guarantees or support and is likely to reduce the number of trains a day that it operates, possibly to between three and five or even fewer in order to survive. These are of course low-emission services, and I remind Ministers that, according to Eurostar, if all the passengers who took Eurostar in the last few years were to transfer to air, the increase in emissions would be equivalent to 40 new Luton Airports. We love Luton Airport but the emissions from 40 of them is hard to imagine.
Is there a solution? I suggest there are many that the Government ought to adopt. The European Union Council has adopted emergency measures to give member states the opportunity to reduce infrastructure charges to zero for trains. Italy and France are thinking about it, Austria has done it and the UK could do the same; it would be nothing to do with Europe but they could do it for HS1 to reduce the track access charges to just the direct costs. That might cost HS1 about £100 million but let us not forget that the Government made about £2 billion selling HS1 to the private sector, so they could afford to do this through HS1. It would mean that all train operators got the same benefit on that loan.
I hope the Minister can provide some comfort that Eurostar services can survive, providing the availability of a cost-effective and environmentally friendly transport service for those who want to work, live or study for the purpose of trade and goods. It would be a disaster if it were forced to close.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all owe a great deal of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment and for the very good speech that he made in support of his arguments. We have read them before but they have not gone away since we discussed them in 2019, and I look forward to seeing how the Minister responds to them. There were also some other very good speeches, particularly—although it is invidious to choose—those of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who put the case for the creative industries extraordinarily well, with a devastating analysis of the problems that they face.
This issue is primarily about how services are going to be dealt with after the transition period ends. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, put it, the issues that we face affect all trade but these days most trade in goods is also wrapped into a service that is provided; she quoted the figures for Rolls-Royce, which I think are instrumental. We need to be sure that the arrangements that are made post transition for this area are well founded and will continue. I assume that that means GATT, which will be applying, and its four pillars, which she talked about: the ability to operate in support of trade in-country, in another country, in support of the provision of services to that country and living and working there in order to provide such services as are required for that. These are important issues and we hope that they will get a full response from the Minister.
However, at the heart of the debate, in more ways than one, are the creative industries. We had an impassioned plea for more attention to be paid to the particular needs of the creative industries regarding mobility. That is not inappropriate in itself but it is also quite important to recognise that the creative industries are not having a good time at the moment, not least because of what appears to be a rather standoffish approach being taken by the Government, who question whether jobs in the creative industries are really “viable”. There is the extraordinary advert about looking for your next job when you are a ballet dancer and there is no reason why you should change, suggesting that the right thing to do is to move into cyber.
This is a bad time to raise this issue but it is one that needs to be raised. At the end of the day the creative industries, particularly the performing and visual arts, are about the personal and the sharing of personal experiences. Without people’s movement and engagement, it is difficult to see how those industries can survive, but it is important that they should. The question I want to leave with the Minister is this: will GATT be sufficient to ensure that the creative industries will thrive after the transition period comes to an end?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 46, regarding the parameters of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I have been left in no doubt about the importance of people—or personnel, as we sometimes call them—to ensuring that UK businesses have the resources that they need. Of course, this is correct, and I can relate to it to some extent due to my business background in human resources.
I was particularly struck by the tour d’horizon of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who spoke just now about the importance of the creative industries. The noble Baroness spoke about the performing arts, perhaps understandably, including music. Soft power has also been mentioned—as, in fact, were quite a lot of sectors, including the tech sector—by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I will start with that.
There is a “however” to this, which is that the Government have made it very clear on many occasions that our priority is to ensure that we restore our economic and political independence on 1 January 2021. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said in no uncertain terms—and she is right—this was at the heart of the Conservative Party manifesto and the basis on which we were elected.
The approach to the future relationship with the EU has already been extensively discussed by this House and the other place, most notably during Parliament’s scrutiny of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. We want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. That is what Task Force Europe, working within the Prime Minister’s office, 10 Downing Street, is pursuing.
Businesses have told us that it is important for them to be able to send their employees to other countries to deliver services on a temporary basis, so we will, of course, be open to negotiating reciprocal arrangements with the EU to facilitate this, building on the provisions that are standard in trade agreements. A reciprocal agreement based on best precedent will mean that UK citizens will be able to undertake some business activities in the EU without a work permit on a short-term basis. The same would apply for EU citizens making business visits to the UK. The precise details, including the range of activities, documentation needed and time limit are for continuing negotiation.
I will pick up on a question raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh on reciprocals. Our negotiations with EEA EFTA states on a trade agreement are ongoing, so I am afraid I am unable to comment on specific policy areas, and I know that she raised a number of questions for me. However, the Government are not seeking to agree mobility arrangements with the EU beyond those that are normally contained in the services part of a trade agreement. We will negotiate commitments on a temporary entry without prejudice to the introduction of our points-based migration regime. I will answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox: the Japan FTA does include a mobility framework.
While we will pursue an agreement on temporary entry for business purposes, this amendment seeks to mandate the Government to reintroduce a comprehensive mobility framework that runs counter to the manifesto the Government were elected upon and a decision that Parliament took when it passed the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
I will pick up on the subject of a different type of mobility. I listened with care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I reassure him that I will liaise with my noble friend Lady Vere in the Department for Transport to respond to him. I very much took note of the points that he raised about transport in general and, particularly, in relation to Eurostar. With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister and all speakers in this short debate. As others have said, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, set forward a compelling set of reasons why a mobility framework is good not just for the individuals concerned but for the overall well-being, financial and otherwise, of this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, brought up the evidence that was laid before the Economic Affairs Committee last week; I was privy to that and suggest that the Minister might find it a good use of an hour of his time to listen to that evidence, which is about the pressure that Covid is bringing to those people. However, it is quite clear that Covid, followed by a clamping down on their mobility and ability to move around Europe and ply their trade, is the double hit that they all fear.
The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw all supported what was being said, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for harking back to the deft decision-making of Chris Grayling. The Government appear to have taken up a career in suggesting new careers for people, with Ministers, apps and adverts all suggesting that everybody retrains. Perhaps Chris Grayling could retrain as a fishmonger and be sent to Northern Ireland to alleviate the crisis that MAC seems to have identified there.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for bringing up mutual recognition of qualifications. I was going to speak to that issue and decided that there was too much already, so I am glad that she did. This is absolutely crucial not just to the service industry but to all sorts of industries: from teaching to veterinary services, everything requires this to work. I understand that discussions are under way, but they need to be successful: there needs to be positive resolution.
Therefore, I do not think there is a meeting of minds. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we can assess the Minister’s response, which was short and hardly sympathetic to the amendment, which is not a surprise. It is interesting to note that, when it comes to Japan, we are prepared to have these conversations and be very open, and, when the announcement is put out, they will probably be one of the wonderful things that is lauded about that deal. Yet, somehow, in the terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is a sin to even think that we might be having this sort of discussions with our recently former colleagues in the European Union.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, “That has consequences.” As usual, she is right. I will be very happy when she can explain to people with relatives in care homes the consequences of having insufficient care, and when she can talk about there being too few key workers in sectors where we need them to help to hold our society together in times of stress. I will be very pleased when she is around explaining that those consequences are a result of decisions like this. However, with that said, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am not able to call Amendment 48A by reason of pre-emption.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 54. I remind noble Lords again that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 54
“International Trade Commission
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body corporate called the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) within one month of the passing of this Act.(2) The ITC must establish criteria for maintaining standards as high as, or higher than, standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of import for goods imported under a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and any other state.(3) “Standards” under subsection (2) includes, but is not limited to, standards relating to—(a) animal welfare,(b) protection of the environment,(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability,(d) plant health, and (e) employment and human rights. (4) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of goods into the United Kingdom unless satisfied that the criteria established by the ITC under subsection (2) have been met.(5) The Secretary of State must allocate such sums to the ITC as the Secretary of State considers appropriate as required in order to perform its functions.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move Amendment 54 and speak to Amendment 55, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to whom I am grateful. I am also grateful to them and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting Amendment 54.
At the outset, I shall refer to something that my noble friend Lord Grimstone of Boscobel said in Grand Committee on 6 October, in reply to an earlier debate. He said:
“It would require a statutory process for these food standards to be altered.”[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. GC 198.]
I should like to place on record my understanding, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that food standards are set by statutory instruments, by regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to one in particular. So the regulations could be amended or repealed by statutory instrument. The reason why that is important, and why I refer to it in the context of Amendments 54 and 55, is that because of what happened yesterday there is a greater need to put these issues into the Bill to become primary legislation that can be repealed only by further primary legislation. I do not wish to dwell on what happened, but it was extraordinary. Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was voted down, but Amendment 18, which was passed by an overwhelming majority in this place, was taken off the table.
That begs the question that I am exploring through these two probing amendments to see whether we take them further on Report. Can the Minister say what resources in terms of staff have been made available to the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which currently has only a six-month remit? My distinct impression is that it has no staff and that every meeting convened and every press conference held is staffed by members of the Department for International Trade. Does the commission have a separate budget? If so, what we are proposing in the amendment will be miniscule in comparison to the existing budget of the commission. If it has no budget and relies completely on the resources and staff of the Department for International Trade, it is—I am sorry to use the word—a sham, an empty vessel, there in name alone, purely as a sop to the farm lobby.
That is borne out by the fact that on 29 September, a shadow trade commission was set up, the Future British Standards Coalition. It includes representatives of Sustain, the leading body, as well as the Tenant Farmers Association, Public Sector 100 and many more organisations. I understand that it will be attended by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As far as they are concerned, there is a need for a shadow body on an ongoing basis to set the criteria for future trade agreements, to check the criteria of the existing roll-over agreements that are before us today and to report to this place, in particular, to our International Agreements Sub-Committee.
There was great dismay that yesterday’s amendment on international standards in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was not carried. I declare that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association, as set out in the register, whose president, James Russell, said yesterday:
“If the Government won’t legislate to protect our standards it is vital that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is given more powers and stature to safeguard them in future trade deals.”
I am going slightly further in my probing amendments and I draw my noble friend’s attention—I know he does his homework and I am sorry if I spoilt his weekend—to the paragraph on page 79 of the Henry Dimbleby report. This is the only reference I am going to make to that report and the annexe. In its recommendations to the Government, he says:
“The Government should give itself a statutory duty to commission an independent report on all proposed trade agreements, assessing their impact on: economic productivity; food safety and public health; the environment and climate change; society and labour; human rights; and animal welfare. This report would be presented alongside a Government response when any final trade treaty is laid before Parliament. Sufficient time must be guaranteed for the discussion of these documents in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and by the relevant select committees”.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as ever, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and speak to Amendments 54 and 55—I apologise for my voice, but I have a bit of a cold. This country has had a long and successful history as a trading nation. After nearly half a century as a member of the EU, we are about to embark on a new phase of that history. The question we are looking at here, following on from many earlier interesting debates, relates to the governance of our new trade policies. Will the control, design and execution of those policies be solely in the hands of the Executive or will there be a role, and, if so, of what kind, for Parliament, the Governments of the devolved Administrations and other bodies, such as that just described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh?
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge that the world has moved on since the 1970s, even since last year—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, reminded us. Therefore, government models that were appropriate in the 1970s need to be updated. The world is now a different place, and we can see that with the emergence of the devolved Administrations. Therefore, one question is how this needs to be reflected in trade negotiations, the drawing-up of trade mandates and the scrutiny of agreements.
Part of the dissatisfaction that has arisen over government policies in this area thus far is from the great secrecy in which they are being conducted. Future trade policies are being developed by the Department for International Trade, but in the utmost secrecy, with the help of severe non-disclosure agreements. This does not generate confidence. What have the Government and the DIT to hide? Why can they not consult openly and widely and share the results with us?
Amendments 54 and 55 suggest an alternative approach, one that has been adopted by other trading nations and found to be useful—the establishment of an international trade commission. It could play a role overseeing trade mandates and agreements, and could advise the Government and report to Ministers and Parliament. For example, as a newly independent trading nation, what rules should we be setting for our food standards and for our animal welfare and hygiene standards? What would be the impact assessment of a trade deal with, for example, the United States or Australia? How many farmers and businesses would those agreements put at risk? Such a commission could consider and report on these extremely important issues and calculations. It would draw in expertise and diverse views, and help to create a consensus that would power successive trade deals.
This is clearly a probing amendment, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the details of how such a commission might be established and what its remit might be, but a growing number of voices in the United Kingdom are calling for the permanent establishment of such a body to operate independently of the Government and to marshal a range of expertise and trade knowledge for the Government to draw on. As we have already heard, there is already a body sitting—alas for six months only—the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which will do some of this work. Members of that body have joined the calls for the permanent establishment of such a commission, having seen how useful and important such a structure could be.
I am not going to pursue the arguments about high standards covered in Amendment 54. As I said on the third day of Committee, it is my belief that the Government are preparing to reduce those standards to enable them to conclude new trade agreements with the United States and Australia, among others. That is why, I believe, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was rejected in the House of Commons yesterday. As a trading nation, should we not, at the outset, be deciding for ourselves what our standards should be? Should we not be debating these issues widely? Should a trade commission not help us in that task? Surely we are not just going to roll over and accept whatever trade competitors demand of us.
One of the issues that worries me most at the moment is the way policy is being formulated. There is a line, which is agreed at the top, then enforced on Ministers, the Government as a whole and party MPs and supporters. No dissenting voices seem to be tolerated, either in ministerial positions or government departments, and Cabinet Ministers seem to compete for the approval of those running the system. The belief is that success will be achieved only by eliminating all critics and alternative views, and having only supportive or pliant Ministers in post, with a handful of people making key decisions. This was exemplified for me by the appointment of Tony Abbott to the Board of Trade. It seemed almost a two-fingered gesture to the effect: “We are laying down what is going to happen in this area of policy, and we don’t care whether you like it or not.” After all, there was no suggestion that Tony Abbott had any expertise in or detailed knowledge of British trade policies.
I fear that such an approach will not end well. Successful endeavours share many characteristics, but one major element of success is a broad range of views. Some dissenting voices are listened to. There is a need to be warned of possible pitfalls and to listen. It is important to be flexible and pragmatic. That is not how our trade policies are being developed at present, and perhaps it is why some of our negotiations are not going so well, thus far.
These new clauses in Amendments 54 and 55 set out one way in which the decision-making circle might be expanded, which a Government, embarking on a new course and needing broad support, might find beneficial and useful. I am not sanguine that they will find any favour with the Minister, the Government or, more importantly, No. 10, but I believe we have a responsibility in this House, as a revising Chamber, to suggest constructive ways of achieving and improving what the Government are seeking. I am therefore pleased to support these amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to act as a co-signatory to both Amendments 54 and 55, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Henig.
As we emphasised while the Agriculture Bill was in Committee and on Report, there needs to be an international trade commission and it needs to be permanent, not like the Trade and Agriculture Commission that is currently in place. Such an international trade commission needs to be given a budget and staff, if we are serious about it doing this job on trade. The international trade commission needs to be in the Bill and able to provide advice to the Secretary of State. There is a direct read-across to the Agriculture Bill. I regret what happened in the other place yesterday, because they missed an important opportunity to give this international trade commission the impetus and support it justly deserves.
While welcoming the temporary trade commission, I feel it needs to be made permanent and put in the Bill. There is a need for a body to consider trade agreements, as they are negotiated. This is new, charted territory for all of us, particularly for the Government and all those involved in such trade agreements. It is important to support our farmers, producers and all those in the supply chain.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, Henry Dimbleby has produced his first report. He was appointed last year to undertake this study, and he proposes such a body. He makes comparisons with those jurisdictions that do not have one and with which we are trying to negotiate future trade agreements. The industry, as was referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Henig, has set up a shadow body to examine ways of protecting standards in trade deals. There has been progress since the Agriculture Bill, and we need to take note of that and that there should above all be parliamentary oversight and scrutiny, as exists in those other jurisdictions.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words about these two amendments. I can be a bit simpler than I had intended to be because my noble friend and the movers of the amendments say that these are probing amendments. To that extent, I want to add one or two questions of my own; I look to my noble friend the Minister for his response.
I have a feeling that, once again, these are amendments that fall into the category of trying to put into statute that Ministers should not do things that they do not wish to do. I am not quite sure why that is necessary. In this particular instance, the amendment proposes—in a number of areas relating to the environment, animal welfare and SPS—to take out of the hands of Ministers the business of negotiating the nature of the trade agreements that we are to enter into, largely tying the hands of Ministers. Ministers have been immensely clear, repeatedly, about their intention not to enter into trade agreements the effect of which would be to dilute the standards applicable by us in this country in all these respects.
What we have here says, in effect, that when we seek to enter into any agreement with other countries, we have an extraterritorial application of own standards to them. I fear that, in practice, that would mean an inability on the part of the United Kingdom Government to enter into trade negotiations with countries that apply different standards to our own. I am not sure that the signatories to the amendments have addressed the issue. They talk simply in terms of the impact in this country of the import of goods that are subject to different standards. That is a matter of domestic legislation; that is something we can stop. There is absolutely nothing that requires us to import goods that are produced to animal welfare standards that are different to and lower than our own, or that have environmental consequences that we would not accept. We are perfectly free to say no to that. The implication of these amendments, however, goes beyond that to the idea that we should not enter into trade agreements with countries that supply standards that are not our own.
I am not sure that noble Lords necessarily need to answer this, but I am not sure where the words “or higher than” have come from. What is this international trade commission supposed to do? Should it look at our standards and say, “They’re not good enough. We are going to apply higher standards to other countries than we apply to ourselves”, and seek to enforce them through the terms of an international trade agreement that we enter into with them? That seems inherently and deeply unlikely.
Finally, it was asserted by the noble Lords who put their names to the amendments that this amendment would put in the Bill something that is primary legislation and is therefore wholly applicable. What they are talking about are standards. They are not talking about regulations. In truth, what really matters is the implementation of international trade agreements in the form of regulations. For example, in a later debate, we will talk, I hope, about the implementation of our unilateral scheme of preferences with developing and least-developed countries, many of whom would find it intensely difficult to maintain standards—for example, of animal welfare or food safety and traceability—comparable to our own.
Is it noble Lords’ intention that the international trade commission should require that such regulations should have the same standards built into them, and that we would not accept goods from those countries if they were incompatible with the standards set by the ITC? That is not what these amendments say because they talk about international trade agreements. There is no international trade agreement required for us to offer unilateral preferences to these countries; therefore, perhaps it is their intention simply to exclude developing and least-developed countries from the issues they talk about. I do not think that that is their intention, but that is not the effect of their amendments.
I suggest that, in so far as these are probing amendments, let us recognise that there are some glaring deficiencies. If we come back, as I know we will on Report, to the question of how we maintain our standards in this country, let us think carefully about how we do it and recognise, with a degree of humility, that international trade agreements should not be a mechanism by which we seek to apply extraterritorial jurisdiction for UK standards to other countries throughout the world.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in a moment. In the meantime, I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie. I am delighted to support these two amendments.
I really congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It is almost like having a third member of the Green group sometimes. I am sure that she hates that thought and that the Minister might as well. It has been quite a slog for us during this Bill. We have repetitively talked about these issues and it is getting a tad boring.
This amendment is a mechanism to maintain trade standards that are as high or higher than domestic UK standards. For the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that means that it is okay to trade with countries that have higher standards, even though they are not the same as our standards; that is the point of this part of the amendment. He asked why this is necessary. It is necessary because we simply do not trust the Government. If he can put his hand on his heart and say that he trusts the Government—go on; no?—I will be astonished. We have fantastic Ministers here—we even have a fantastic government team—but we do not trust the Government.
This amendment addresses the criticisms raised in previous iterations of the Bill, when noble Lords suggested that defining UK standards and equivalent standards would be a difficult legislative exercise. The amendment would create a specific body to undertake that exercise, and would grant it the necessary resources to do so. That might be a bit of a sticking point but, quite honestly, it is possible to move resources around, so I do not see that as an essential problem.
My colleagues, the three noble Baronesses, have covered almost every aspect on which I should have liked to speak, so all I will say is: will the Minister commit to working with us, perhaps to find a compromise amendment ahead of Report? Otherwise, there will the inevitable Division and government defeat, which will obviously be quite exciting for many of us but probably less so for the Minister and his team. So it would be wonderful if we could see a positive way forward.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, first, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lansley. I agreed with absolutely everything that he said.
It should be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether she needs any advice on standards or the criteria to be adopted. But, of course, this amendment is not about giving advice; it is about imposing criteria on the Government. Even if it does not cross the line, it is getting very close to interfering with the Government’s use of the royal prerogative in negotiating trade deals.
As noble Lords will be aware, there is already an extensive array of bodies—the Strategic Trade Advisory Group and individual trade advisory groups with extensive memberships—advising the Secretary of State. The only purpose of this amendment is to try to impose something on the Government. Yet again we hear something that we have heard before in Committee; this amendment is coming forward because “We don’t trust the Government to do the right thing”. I have to say to noble Lords that Governments do not legislate because noble Lords opposite do not trust them. Noble Lords must accept the Government’s assurances as they are given.
I will just say something on the Dimbleby report, because we have heard a lot about it both here and in relation to the Agriculture Bill. As I understand it, this is a draft report; it is not yet final. The Government have not made any response so far, and do not intend to do so until after the final version. It would be extraordinary to try to legislate in this Bill for policy that is not yet made. I accept that this is a probing amendment today, but I hope my noble friend will not press it again on Report.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although, as the amendment states firmly, it is not exclusively concerned with the issues of animal welfare, protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene and traceability, plant health, employment and human rights, these are important in the context of this debate. We have repeatedly discussed them in the context of this Bill, as well as during the debate on the Agriculture Bill earlier this month. These standards matter desperately. The amendments are important because they provide belt and braces—a system whereby we can provide more effective parliamentary scrutiny.
This bears repeating as often as we like: when we came out of the European Union, the case that the Government advocated over and over again was to take back control. Well, that must mean that the representatives of the people in Parliament have control and authority. If this body helps us to take that control more seriously and to be more effective, it is a good thing, and we should not be wasting time explaining why it is not really necessary. It may be belt and braces, but it underlines the importance of the people’s representatives taking back control.
These amendments are very important indeed. Not for the first time I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on introducing it. I was also very impressed by the speech made by my noble friend Lady Henig in support of it. I do hope we will give these amendments a fair passage.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I agree with him that we should advance these amendments. I will address them in the context of our debates on the Agriculture Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said when she introduced this group so well—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that all the signatories have made a powerful case for this.
I wish to focus on two areas. The first is the continuous issue that the Government should be very careful with their language about statutory standards and the protection that exists for them. The second is the trade commission and where we might need to go forward on this. I want to do it also in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the least developed countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, referenced this in debate on an earlier group. It was also referenced in the House of Commons yesterday. Last week, the Trade Minister, Greg Hands, was reprimanded by the Speaker for using it to make a partisan point during an Urgent Question on trade—so it is a hot topic.
I was going to say that there is a degree of misinformation, but I am not alleging that the noble Lord would seek to misinform. But the reality is different from what is being put forward about what the impact on the least developed countries would be if we were to insist on imported goods meeting our statutory standards and did not accept imported goods of a lesser standard from the least developed countries. I find that deeply offensive to the countries with which we have negotiated a trade agreement, on the basis of everything but arms and the global scheme of preferences. Those trade agreements have included measures to support countries to meet the standards at which we would then allow imports. To say that we would allow imports of less good products at a cheaper rate because they are from a poorer country would be both against the law and contrary to the trade agreements that we have reached with those countries.
The noble Lord is right that we will come on to talk about global scheme of preferences and GSP+. As he knows, this is where countries have an agreement that does go beyond simply tariffs and regulatory standards. It includes, for example, husbandry, environmental practices and labour standards in supply chains, so that we do not import goods from companies that would break domestic law in the treatment of their staff. This is now the norm in trade agreements. I do not know why the Government are wanting to argue that, by maintaining and not dropping our current standards, we are somehow acting against the least developed countries. There were zero imports of beef and poultry from least developed countries last year, for these reasons. If the thrust of the Government’s argument is that this is a bloc, and we will now open up markets for these goods which do not comply with British standards, let them say so—but I do not accept it. That, no doubt, is something we shall return to.
This leads me on to my next point. What is the correct terminology? I hope that the Minister will be very specific in the way he sums up. He has the virtue of having the entire Civil Service behind him to enable him to be very specific. So he will forgive me if I am less specific, but perhaps, when he responds to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, he can be really specific.
Victoria Prentis, the Agriculture Minister, said yesterday in the Commons that
“our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation. They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine … Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 69.]
As I understood it, the noble Baroness asked how the Government will consider what are statutory protections. Are they within the primary legislation, requiring primary legislation to implement them? Or is it the same as with chlorine, which I referenced in the previous group regarding information provided to me by the NFU?
The regulation states clearly that:
“Food business operators shall not use any substance other than potable water—or, when Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 or this regulation permits its use, clean water—to remove surface contamination from products of animal origin, unless use of the substance has been”
prescribed by the appropriate authority. The Minister said that the appropriate authority was the Food Standards Agency, which is correct. But the change to allow imports of poultry that has been treated with anything other than potable water can be made in a regulation, using the negative procedure, put forward by an agency. On reading what the Government said—that they would be required to bring forward legislation to change that—most people will not infer that. A change to a regulation by an agency, using the negative procedure, does not afford us the proper level of debate about the consequences.
That leads me on to the issue of what is an appropriate body to be an advisory body and to allow debate among those who have an interest, both producer and consumer. I am not sure I agree with the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She suggested that a body such as this would effectively prescribe actions to the Government. It certainly could be a body based on parameters regarding the maintenance of standards. That is not uncommon for those bodies that provide information to Ministers or for bodies that the Government consult.
It is not the case that it is only those far more cynical than I who do not believe the Government on such issues. I am always willing to give the Government a fair wind and to listen to their arguments—although yes, their record might suggest that we have to be that little bit more careful. But I do not think that the Conservative Member for Totnes, the honourable Anthony Mangnall, or the Conservative Member for North East Bedfordshire, the honourable Richard Fuller—who last night in the Commons challenged Victoria Prentis about the trade commission, asking for its life to be extended and for it to be put on a permanent footing—fall into the category of not trusting the Government.
We do not need to labour the point that the Government chose to utilise the fact that the trade commission would require money for it to be set up and therefore it was not even debated by the Commons—the lengths to which the Government seem to go to avoid considering a Lords amendment on the Agriculture Bill are quite extraordinary.
This exchange from Hansard is very informative. Anthony Mangnall asked:
“… will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.”
That is a reasonable question. The Minister replied:
“I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended”—
and so I pass the ball to the noble Lord the Minister. She went on to say:
“It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.”
Richard Fuller then pressed her on it being on the same footing, and asked whether it might be better if it was permanent, so as to cover all agreements. The Minister’s reply was very interesting indeed:
“Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 72.]
Clearly, the Agriculture Minister thinks that it is over to the DIT now, with the option of re-establishing the commission when considering new agreements which are not with New Zealand, Australia or the United States. This is a very odd situation for the Government. Putting it on a permanent footing, as this amendment suggests, with a clear, forward-looking approach, is very sensible and far more pragmatic than the ad hocery of whether it should be set up again for new agreements. If the timing of the US, Australia and New Zealand agreements goes well beyond and into 2021, and the trade commission is wound up this December, will it be reconvened to look at a new set of circumstances on that basis?
The Government have unnecessarily got themselves into a bit of a muddle. This amendment, so powerfully moved by the signatories, shows the Government how they can think again and put the commission on a better footing.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the points made by the movers of this amendment in their powerful speeches. What they propose ticks a lot of boxes. It is fair to say that, as we have just heard, this is closely modelled on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and it may therefore suffer from some of the problems it has encountered in recent hours, let alone days. However, taken together, it is a bit surprising that those who drew up these proposals think that they are necessary, given that the intention behind the Government’s move is presumably to try to make sure that this whole area is tidied up and organised in a way that minimises the number of quangos and additional bodies that they have to consult, and gives them as much authority and freedom of movement as they would want in carrying out their negotiating mandates. That is of course what happens under the royal prerogative.
I took from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that this is really about trying to concretise the Government’s commitment—which they have made on many occasions, as we have heard—to our high environmental, labour, food production and animal welfare standards, and to protect our public services. A permanent commission, set up in the way that she talked about, adequately funded and properly located within the corridors of power, could contribute to that and allow a continuing review of how the Government are operating. Whether or not it is effective, I will come to in a minute.
I thank my noble friend Lady Henig for making the case for leading with our high standards. Despite the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, surely we should be saying to the world that we are proud of our high standards and that we challenge those who want to trade with us and access our markets to match us in every aspect, or to persuade us to raise them even higher. If that means that we cannot do trade deals with countries that cannot match our standards for imports, then that is the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, clearly pointed out. It does not change things, and in any case, it is a good thing.
Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, if it is true that food standards are set by secondary legislation—and, as he suggested, even by agencies responsible under the primary legislation to have power to change regulations—then, as my noble friend Lady Henig says, we do have a lower standard of scrutiny here. We have an obligation to do something about it. The question is what. I would prefer to see a firm commitment on the face of the Bill which sets our standards in a way that does not permit anyone to change them without full parliamentary scrutiny.
Can we see a way forward? I think we can. From what I have heard from the Minister so far today and in discussion with him, I am positive that we might be able to come forward with something. I would be happy to meet him, during the pause, to progress it. In the interim, I do not think that this amendment has got quite the essence that we are looking for. I believe that it would be perhaps better to focus more on other amendments that come forward.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, we have had yet another interesting debate where the expertise of noble Lords has been on full display, even if that meant repeating what have perhaps become familiar arguments.
Amendments 54 and 55 in the names of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would set up a new trade body, the international trade commission. This body would be responsible for setting criteria for assessing whether provisions in FTAs on imports of goods into the UK meet or exceed domestic standards of production and would, as a result, set restrictions for which goods could be imported under trade agreements. The other place has debated whether imports would need to meet our domestic production standards—a requirement which would be in addition to meeting existing specifications such as on food safety standards—and decisively rejected such a suggestion.
The Government absolutely recognise the strength of feeling around standards and imports of agricultural products into the UK. We have not only reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining high standards during debates on both this and the Agriculture Bill, and on many other occasions, but have taken clear action. I hope to explain this in more detail shortly. However, I first ask your Lordships to consider the real effect of Amendment 54. It would establish a new, permanent and unelected body, which would set criteria for assessing and scrutinising international trade agreements before they could be laid in Parliament.
The Government consider that this would be inappropriate and harmful to the due process of parliamentary scrutiny—a process which already includes an assessment of the impacts of the trade agreement and allows time for both the International Agreements Sub-Committee of our House, and the International Trade Committee in the other place to produce an independent report on it. The amendment would suspend parliamentary scrutiny of new trade agreements until this new body had been established and the criteria set. I believe that this would harm the interests of UK businesses and consumers. Importantly, it would also leave Parliament beholden to the terms set by the international trade commission. Moreover, the establishment of such a body would place it in direct conflict with existing bodies, which already have the remit and expertise to oversee and advise on standards, such as the food standards agencies, the trade advisory groups and the new Office for Environmental Protection. The creation of an international trade commission would only cause confusion with these trusted agencies, to the detriment of all. Furthermore, the amendment would require overseas countries to produce—and demonstrate that they produce—to UK standards before we would be able to import those goods. As I said, the criteria for such assessment would rest in the hands of a new, untested and unelected trade body.
Currently, the UK imports enormous volumes of food from overseas, including from the developing world. An amendment such as this could have far-reaching and, I am sure, unintended effects, preventing the UK being able to import a range of foods, with significant knock-on effects for supply chains, businesses and consumers within the UK, as well as, importantly, for developing countries and other export partners, which send agricultural products to the UK. For example, Vietnam, Ghana and Indonesia are major exporters of coffee to the UK, and we receive large volumes of bananas from countries such as the Dominican Republic, Belize and Cameroon. The impact of this amendment, requiring countries to meet the UK’s specific standards across a range of criteria, could ultimately prohibit imports from these trade partners and, in doing so, lose a valuable income stream for those developing countries as well as, frankly, affecting the British businesses and consumers who depend on them. My noble friend Lord Lansley made some powerful points in this regard about the damage that this would cause.
The standards that this amendment seeks to protect are already enshrined in domestic statute and the Government will uphold them. Of course, any changes to existing standards would require new legislation to be scrutinised by Parliament. Decisions around standards are a matter for Parliament and will be made separately from negotiations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will agree with me, even as a new boy, that statutory instruments are a statutory process.
The Government have taken decisive action to uphold our commitments to high standards. First, we have established new trade advisory groups, including a dedicated agrifood group, which will provide technical and strategic expertise that will feed directly into negotiations. Members include such organisations as the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, the British Retail Consortium, the British Beer and Pub Association, the Scottish Seafood Association, UK Hospitality and Tesco, among others. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, will accept that it would be highly prejudicial to the United Kingdom if our negotiating stance became public when we are in the middle of negotiations. We want to draw on the expertise of the members of these groups during negotiations. This is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake but common sense in asking them to keep confidential the information they receive from their privileged position in these groups.
In June, the Secretary of State for International Trade established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which brings together stakeholders from across the sector to provide recommendations that will inform the Government’s decisions and policy-making in relation to agriculture. The commission will produce a report with its recommendations and the Government have committed to laying this before Parliament. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about the resources available to the commission; sadly, I do not have this information to hand but I will write to her.
The recommendations made in the Dimbleby report are under consideration by Defra and will no doubt be responded to by my colleagues there in due course; as my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us, this report has not yet been finalised. Furthermore, we have listened to concerns around animal welfare in production and have committed to a rapid examination of what can be done through labelling to promote standards and high welfare across the UK.
Our various new initiatives and the setting up of new groups for exploring issues around standards and international trade policy are already looking to tackle some of the issues raised by this amendment. I would, of course, be very happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to discuss these matters further. In summary, however, we consider that the creation of a further new body would risk harmful conflict with existing groups with similar functions. I hope that I have managed to reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that there is no need for the body they propose. I therefore ask that the amendment is withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to the debate. I want to make one point. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, may not have understood my point about the unilateral scheme of preferences in developing countries. It was simply that, since Amendment 54 bites only on those international trade agreements that are subject to the CRaG process, it would not bite on the unilateral scheme of preferences at all. So, it does not do what the mover of the amendment is looking for it to do; when they look again on Report, noble Lords should—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, suggested —take it away and think about how they can support the Government to maintain and deliver our standards, rather than seek to go around them.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I have nothing to add to those perceptive comments from my noble friend.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I think that we will come back to this issue.
The Minister referred to Ghana as a good example. I referenced Ghana in the previous debate. We are still engaging on whether we will have a continuity agreement with it; it has not been agreed yet. The disruption in trade with Ghana will come if we revert to a non-EPA basis at the end of the year, rather than from anything to do with anything in this amendment regarding standards.
Can the Minister state whether we currently import, or will import, any goods from GSP countries or LDCs that do not meet our standards? My understanding is that we do not and will not. We offer them tariffs that are preferential to those for other countries if they have goods to be imported into the UK that meet the standards, because that is under the unilateral trade preferences scheme, but it is not standards that we seek to reduce. The Minister said that insisting on maintaining UK standards would somehow act against least-developed countries, but that does not apply because they do not currently export to us if they do not meet our domestic standards. I wonder whether he can clarify that.
Given that, yesterday, the Agriculture Minister did not categorically shut down the requests from MPs that the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s life be extended and sent over to the DIT, is the Minister’s mind open to the longevity of this Trade and Agriculture Commission? One of the ways forward could conceivably be to extend the lifetime of that commission; we could progress on that basis.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We will come to GSPs in a later debate; if the perceptive points he made are not answered then, I will perhaps write to him. Secondly, I always keep an open mind about the matters that we debate. We will reflect on the debate that happened in the other place last night.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to those noble Lords who contributed. I would be most grateful if my noble friend could extend his invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to myself and the other co-signatories of this amendment, and perhaps also invite the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. This formula worked extremely well with his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, who I am sure would commend it to us.
I suspected, even though I raised this in the House yesterday, that my noble friend would not have the figures on the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s budget. He will be pleased to know that I have the topical Oral Question on Thursday, when I am sure he will be able to provide those figures because they are the subject of the Question.
The International Trade Secretary herself referred to Kenya as a wonderful new country that we are going to do deals with. It subsequently found itself in a spot of bother with avocado pears; we will certainly wish to revisit that.
I do not think that any of the signatories to these amendments intend to tie the Government’s hands; indeed, I do not. The purpose of the amendments was to understand the thinking on the role of, and resources available to, the current Trade and Agriculture Commission. I have no doubt that current members of the commission do not wish to carry on, so this is an opportunity to either reappoint new members to the Trade and Agriculture Commission or revamp it into a new body, such as the one in the US calling itself an International Trade Commission.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 58. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 58
“Trade agreement with the EU: compliance with the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
Any trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union that is subject to sections 20 to 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is not to be ratified unless it fully complies with the requirements of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland as part of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, as signed and ratified by Her Majesty’s Government.”
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 58 on the Irish protocol, I will speak to Amendments 59, 65 and 82 in my name, on the Irish Sea, and to the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie, to whom I am most grateful for their support. The amendments have been lumped together in one group, so I am afraid that my speech will be a bit longer than is customary for me. I am sorry to say that Amendments 58 and 59 are not just sensible and prudent to include in this legislation; they are absolutely essential, and I will seek agreement to put them to a vote on Report.
When this House was due to debate a Trade Bill prior to the general election last year, my colleagues and I worked on similar amendments with a similar objective: to protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in all its parts and prevent a hardening of the border on the island of Ireland. A year ago, this was already a strong case. It was also consistent with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which is already law and into which this House placed important text along the lines of these amendments, with the eventual agreement of the Government. I hope that the Minister will note that in his reply. However, today—one year on—including these additional protections could not be more important for this Bill and for the Internal Markets Bill, on which we will have Second Reading on 19 October.
I remember only too well the Government’s responses to myself and colleagues on a cross-party basis in 2018 and 2019 as we sought explicitly to include these protections for Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. “Trust us”, they said. “Of course, we will protect the Good Friday agreement, and of course we will ensure no hard border”, they insisted. “This is superfluous and unnecessary”, we were told.
I am sorry but we did not trust them then and we definitely do not trust this Government now—not after their actions in recent weeks. We thought that they could not get any worse in their cavalier and dangerous approach to Northern Ireland—part of our United Kingdom—but they have surpassed themselves. As noble Lords will know, I had the honour to serve as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as did other noble Lords. It was a real privilege to hold that office. Those of us who have served, whether Labour or Conservative, know how unique and ever-fragile matters are on the island of Ireland.
The peace process is not done and dusted—it remains a continual challenge. That is why I and other previous Secretaries of State were so horrified when the current holder of that important office, Brandon Lewis, nonchalantly and very deliberately let it slip in the other place that the internal market Bill
“does break international law in a limited and specific way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 507.]
Tellingly, among those expressing their horror were Secretary of State Lewis’s two immediate Conservative predecessors, Julian Smith and Karen Bradley. Add to that multiple previous Prime Ministers and Attorneys-General, not to mention the Northern Ireland envoy of the current President of the United States, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
We must vote decisively to add the provisions in these amendments to this Bill, soon to the internal market Bill, and to any other relevant Bill that comes before us. The Government may not respect the law any more, so the law must tie the Government’s hands appropriately. We must leave no stone unturned, no route open to them to wriggle out of. I regret to put it so firmly, but I am afraid that that is what we are dealing with. Even without the developments of recent weeks, we need Amendments 58 and 59. We have included a specific obligation to fully respect and implement the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, as included in the withdrawal agreement that this very Government agreed, and this Parliament ratified.
As I have said here before, sadly, this Prime Minister, his Ministers and advisers, continue to try to pretend that Northern Ireland is no different from anywhere else—that it is just another border, just another straightforward place. I might have given Kent as an example of a straightforward place but, of course, we now know that the Government are actively preparing for a hard border there too.
Let us remind ourselves why we have the Northern Ireland protocol. The border, of course, is the key sensitive issue, over which much blood has been spilt over the generations, and much suffering endured. It is a 300-mile border with 300 crossings, unlike almost any other border in the world, but there is more to the protocol than the border. We have the unique arrangements under the Good Friday/Belfast agreement for north-south co-operation—no less than 157 different areas of cross-border work and co-operation in Ireland, north and south.
These areas are the things of everyday life; they go well beyond animals and food and we must not ever have a new border erected to block or discourage them. People can travel to and fro, do business, get educated or get health treatment, as if the border were invisible. I shall give just a few examples of these arrangements: food, tourism, schools, colleges, farming, fighting crime, tackling environmental pollution, water quality and supply, waste management, bus services, train services, cancer care, GPs and prescriptions, blood transfusions, gas supply, electricity supply and, yes, co-operation on health pandemics as well.
Almost every one of these areas is about people’s everyday lives and almost all were linked to the European Union, and Ireland’s and the UK’s common membership of it since 1973. With regret, I accept the reality that we have left the European Union, but that is precisely why we have this Irish protocol: to ensure there is no interference with or disruption to those arrangements, either through no deal, reneging on the protocol or any new trade agreements we may someday strike with other partners. For if there were to be, it would be a major step backwards, making the Irish border a contentious matter again, with all the danger to peace and stability that that will mean. We must prevent that happening at all costs.
I have said it in your Lordships’ House before and I will say it here again: the work of successive UK and Irish Governments in helping courageous and visionary leaders in Northern Ireland was all about taking down borders, not putting them up. These amendments would ensure that our Government stay true to that vital mission.
I turn to Amendments 65 and 82, covering the Irish Sea question. Northern Ireland faces great uncertainty as we exit the transition period. Although the Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement guarantees Northern Ireland free access to and from the single market of the European Union for goods, three areas of grave concern still exist. The first is what the future UK-EU relationship will look like; the more distant this is, especially if there is no deal, the greater the impact of the protocol when it comes to the movement of goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. This means that internal UK trade is potentially in play here; this is why it has been picked upon by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but in a way that only increases the risk to that slim certainty that Northern Ireland had, and only increases the likelihood of no deal and of badly damaged trust.
Secondly, there is uncertainty about how the protocol will operate in practice. The trader support service is a vital element in this operation, but there are still some 60 “known unknowns” when it comes to how the protocol is to be enforced. The doubt instigated by the Government’s move in the internal market Bill escalates concerns from merely being about practice to being about the very legal status of this protocol itself.
Thirdly, there is uncertainty about Northern Ireland’s status with regards to free trade agreements. Although it will be de facto in the European Union’s customs union and single market, it looks as though Northern Ireland will not benefit from the free trade agreements held by the EU. This could prove to be severely disruptive to its export markets. More directly, there are worries that, for all the promises of the Government, Northern Ireland will be effectively excluded from the UK’s future free trade agreements too. While your Lordships’ House can do little to affect the first of these three concerns, Amendments 65 and 82 seek to address the other two.
Amendment 65 would ensure that Northern Ireland goods are not discriminated against. The UK has said that Northern Ireland will benefit from access to its new free trade agreements. This makes sense, on one hand, because Northern Ireland is in the UK customs territory. However, it is not straightforward, because the EU customs code will be applied in Northern Ireland, as will its standards for the production of goods. As a consequence, there is a possibility that when it comes to free trade agreements, a potential free trade agreement partner will say, “Hang on, what’s the story with Northern Ireland? Why will our goods have to go through customs procedures to get into it, and why do EU goods have free access into Northern Ireland, and thus potentially unfettered access into Great Britain?” These things make it difficult to deal with the UK as a single entity. What will the UK do in such a scenario and in response to such a free trade agreement negotiating partner?
There is a risk that Northern Ireland will not be included in future UK free trade agreements, or that there will subsequently be discrimination against Northern Ireland goods, or even new customs processes when entering Great Britain. This is a particular risk as long as there is no serious anti-avoidance regime to stop Republic of Ireland or EU goods passing off as Northern Ireland goods and thus getting free access into Great Britain, undermining ones from the rest of the world. Even more fundamentally, there is a question about the status and labelling of Northern Ireland goods, because these have to follow EU rules on labelling as well, of course, as on standards. Because Northern Ireland goods will be produced in accordance with EU rules under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, this amendment would ensure that Northern Ireland goods, in particular, will not be discriminated against as a consequence of any new UK free trade agreements.
Ministers often pooh-pooh these concerns, but take the very practical example of a perfect storm coming in Northern Ireland when it comes to food poverty. This is because of increase grocery costs for goods coming from Great Britain, especially for those in rural communities reliant on small retailers. Add to that jobs lost from the coronavirus pandemic and the growing numbers on universal credit—up from 58,000 in February this year to 108,000 in May and, I guess, more since—which is proven to increase food poverty, as any families living on universal credit can testify.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain, as a co-signatory of these amendments. Coming from Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, where I was born, grew up, was educated and served as a Member in the other place, a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a Minister, I am only too well aware of the impact that the European Union had in Northern Ireland. Clearly, we do not want to see borders in the Irish Sea or on the island of Ireland.
I cast my mind back to the early 1990s and the Maastricht treaty, which allowed the border to be evaporated in many ways and opened up the whole island to trade with each other and with the island of Great Britain. The Good Friday agreement established the infrastructure that facilitated north-south co-operation, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly and those important east-west considerations through the British-Irish Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has elaborated quite considerably the impact of these amendments, which I fully support and concur with. They deal with the need to protect the Northern Ireland protocol, which ensures that there will not be a hard border on the island of Ireland and protects the intrinsic quality and content of the Good Friday agreement as characterised in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to prevent the return of a hard border on the island and the protection of Northern Ireland free trade agreements in the GB context.
Amendment 58 means that, in any trade agreement with the EU, there must be compliance with the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to prevent that hard border. Being part of the EU ensured the eradication of that border; there was seamless trade which bolstered the economy of both parts of the island, particularly the counties which straddled the border, which is some 300 miles long, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to. It would be impossible to have tariffs, as there are so many crossing points and the costs of such infrastructure would be highly prohibitive and a disincentive to our economy and society. We have grown so much together; the very fact that we have the restoration of those political institutions is characteristic of that ongoing work.
The bottom line is the UK’s commitment to north-south co-operation, the guarantee of avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure, and the checks and controls that must be compatible with the overall withdrawal agreement. That is how we understand the Northern Ireland protocol. It is important that it not be undermined by the internal market Bill which comes to your Lordships’ House next week for Second Reading.
Amendment 59 addresses the need for the continuation of north-south trade and the prevention of customs arrangements at borders. It means honouring the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, and the withdrawal Act—both of those are international treaties, and the internal market Bill should not be allowed to override them.
Amendment 60 is Northern Ireland-GB specific. All trade agreements must benefit every part of the UK equally, with no exclusions. This is needed to avoid the risk that Northern Ireland is excluded from future UK free trade agreements due to the complexity of its differential arrangements. There is a condition that no free trade agreement can be concluded by the UK if it does not apply equally to all regions and nations of the UK. This is to prevent Northern Ireland being excluded, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, from free trade agreements. This was raised last Thursday in the fourth session of Committee.
Amendment 65 intersects with the Northern Ireland protocol. As Northern Ireland goods will be produced in accordance with EU rules under the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, this amendment will ensure that Northern Ireland goods will not be discriminated against as a consequence of any new UK free trade agreements.
The trader support service, which supports businesses moving goods from Britain into Northern Ireland, will simply be temporary. Amendment 82 would ensure long-term commitment to it. At the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, it will be for only two years. However, putting it into legislation as a long-standing commitment from Britain to Northern Ireland would be essential to security and long-term planning for the Northern Ireland economy. It would also be of assistance to free trade agreements, because the trader support service is for goods that enter Northern Ireland from Britain that are coming from any third country. It would also involve no extra costs and would cover the cost of export health certificates. We also have to take note of the changed circumstances because of the rising levels of poverty, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to, and the growing reliance on food banks at the time of the Coronavirus pandemic.
I urge the Minister to give very positive consideration to these amendments and to support them. If we do not get support today, we will come back on Report. It is important that the intricate sets of relationships that have already been created on the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain, which have allowed free movement of people and trade and have bolstered the economies on both islands, are allowed to persist and continue. Those intricate sets of relationships need to be developed because they break down barriers in the minds of people and on the islands, and the last thing we need is the establishment of new borders and new islands.
I can remember travelling to the Republic of Ireland as a child. You were stopped at the border, and customs clearance guys on either side asked your parents very deep and pressing questions about what might have sounded like trivial matters. Thankfully, that day has long gone. We do not want to see a restoration of that or the imposition of any such barriers because it simply injures trade, stops important business, and prevents local communities, which have so many connections with each other, growing.
I am very happy to support these amendments, and I recommend them to your Lordships’ House for positive consideration. I hope that the Minister will consider approving them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I agree with Amendment 58 and I hope all noble Lords agree with it, because it is our shared intention. I am pretty sure that it is the intention of those negotiating on the part of the European Union that they will enter into an agreement that is thoroughly and completely compatible with the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
However, the main point I want to make, apart from a subsidiary one on Amendment 82, is that this is neither necessary or, in truth, effective. Noble Lords will recall a number of occasions in Committee when we discussed carefully the distinction between on the one hand the ratification of treaties and on the other their implementation into domestic legislation. In this instance, we already have in domestic legislation the enforcement of this principle. It is in Sections 21 to 24 and Schedule 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which says, not least in Section 24, that Ministers of the Crown can make no alteration to the Belfast agreement. Therefore our domestic legislation already provides for our compliance with the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The point is that the purpose of this is to say that we will not ratify an agreement with the EU if it does not say that. I hope it will say that, but if it were not compatible, in any case it would have no effect in domestic law because domestic legislation already says that.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
It is always a pleasure to speak to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hain on Northern Ireland affairs. His commitment to Northern Ireland is second to none, and he always speaks with great authority and concern.
The progress towards building a better future for Northern Ireland and indeed the Republic has been remarkable. However, it is a human story in which very many people have been involved and committed themselves. A great deal has been happening at the community level in Northern Ireland. Central to all that has been the need for trust. A great disturbance was caused to that healing process based on trust when we came out of the European Union because the minority population in Northern Ireland had always felt that when we were in the European Union, they had the authority of the institutions of Europe, not least the court and everything, which were there to reassure them. That was a big shock.
We then negotiated the protocols. The protocols again are crucial not just technically in trade matters but as a process of building a situation in which there can be trust and faith in the future. It is impossible to overemphasise the importance of the Good Friday agreement. Let us never forget that the Good Friday agreement became possible by the magnificent work of Tony Blair and his colleagues, but also because of the work done, before Tony Blair took office, by John Major and his colleagues.
We have a huge responsibility and we must never do anything inadvertently or indirectly—as well as directly —to undermine that process of trust building and confidence in the future. These should be our guiding principles in all that we are tackling in trade matters and I am glad that we have my noble friend Lord Hain watching it like a hawk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity with this small group of amendments to press forward some of the evidence that we heard on the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. While my noble friend Lord Lansley said that this amendment should not be needed, I rather regret that it may be and I would like to take this opportunity to press my noble friend the Minister in this regard.
The Government have made a commitment under the Northern Irish protocol that there will be unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. The position on exit summary declarations is as yet unclear and the discussions between the Government—presumably Defra and the Department for International Trade—and the Assembly in Northern Ireland do not seem to have been going as straightforwardly as one would wish.
In the letter that we wrote to the Minister—I believe in September, so we probably have not had a reply—we highlighted the need for training and awareness raising in what information gathering those we heard from, including farming organisations, freight operators and other businesses involved in this trade, will be required to make and submit under the new checks and controls. Those we heard felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has said, that they would benefit hugely from a trusted trader scheme. It would be interesting to hear what state that is at.
With those few queries, I would be grateful if my noble friend could respond to the serious issues that were raised. This is pretty much the 11th hour. We are now in the middle of October and these checks and controls presumably are meant to be in place ahead of 1 January. These amendments provide for us to obtain an update at a timely moment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendment 82 in this group. I generally try not to speak on matters about Northern Ireland, because life is too short.
I completely agree with what my noble friend Lord Lansley said on the trader support service. In particular, I am sure that, if there were a need for further support at the end of the two years, any responsible Government would ensure that such support was available. I remind noble Lords that it is a temporary facility in order to help traders become accustomed to the new arrangements, whatever they finally turn out to be. It includes training. It is not to take over from the traders handling the paperwork; it is to train them so that it becomes part of their everyday activities. In that context, two years may well still be enough, although I accept that there is uncertainty at the moment.
The amendment says that the service can be accessed at no cost—that is, of course, no cost to the trader, but there will be a cost to the public purse. I just say to noble Lords that, if they pass the amendment, they are walking straight into financial privilege.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have outlined clearly the sad and urgent need for these amendments. I particularly commend the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, speaking from the heart from a lifetime of experience on the ground. Lives and businesses have been peacefully and productively intertwined between Northern Ireland and Ireland and must not be torn asunder.
It is a year since I came into your Lordships’ House. I did not appreciate then—although, in retrospect, perhaps I should have, given that it was just after the unlawful Prorogation of the other place—that in 12 months’ time I would have to join a broad coalition of fellow Peers speaking up simply for the rule of law, the Government having explicitly disavowed adherence to it.
We are daily reminded of the fragility, instability and weakness of our current institutional arrangements and the pressing need to make the UK a modern, functional democracy. I go back to a paper from the Constitution Society in 2019, which noted:
“We have long assumed that those who rise to high office will be ‘good chaps’”.
The gendered nature of that phrase is telling but not my main point. The paper concludes that general standards of good behaviour among senior UK politicians can no longer be taken for granted.
Reflecting on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that these amendments are unnecessary because they are already covered, my response would be that, on an issue of this importance, we need to seek every possible protective mechanism in these circumstances. That is the context in which these amendments come before us. The practical reality is that they create laws that then may well have to be enforced on the Government. I urge the proponents to pursue them to the utmost.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, in his eloquent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out the background and the history to this important group of amendments on Northern Ireland. I am pleased to have been able to add my name to the amendments. I am also delighted to have received the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on Amendment 58, although I felt that there were perhaps some contradictions in his argumentation. I look forward to seeing him in our Division Lobbies when we come to vote on this on Report.
We heard some extremely passionate speeches from other noble Lords, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who has also signed these amendments and who spoke so movingly about the realities and threats that we face on the ground in Northern Ireland. I shall limit my remarks to Amendments 58 and 59.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, if a year ago there was already a strong case for these amendments, since the introduction of the internal market Bill they have become ever more important to safeguarding the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. I hope that these amendments, or similar, will be retabled on Report, so that we can test the opinion of the House.
It is worth briefly recalling how the Government have taken us to this point. We are in this situation because from the outset the Government have promised a series of incompatible things, namely that the whole of the UK would leave the customs union and the single market, that special status for Northern Ireland was ruled out and that there should remain no border on the island of Ireland.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate at a very high level. Of course, that is inevitable if you have a former Secretary of State and a former Minister of the Province lending their expertise and knowledge to the issues that we have before us. My noble friend Lord Hain was very precise when he said that it was a difficult group to speak to, because there seemed to be two parts to it, and almost a third one with the trader support service, as we have discussed. However, I think we gained by having all three amendments discussed together, focusing on all the problems facing this troubled area, and by having drawn to our attention, which we need from time to time, the hope and enthusiasm that there is for a future in the Province as a result of the changes that were brought forward through the Good Friday agreement and subsequently.
I just have two or three small points to make. My noble friend Lord Hain was right to suggest that, irrespective of recent events, we probably would have wanted to return to this issue in this Bill at this time from the prospect of international trade because of the concerns of people in the Province about how they will be treated as part of the United Kingdom. That has doubled in focus—if that is a possible term—because we are now aware of the machinations that the Government have thrust into the debate by seeking to legislate in the internal market Bill; but, of course, that will be for next week. We have to deal with where things are at the moment, with the international outrage over the breaches in international law that have been threatened. It is right, therefore, to ensure that, at the end of the day, the Government are forced to respect the law as it currently stands and have no wiggle room to change it.
Secondly, picking up the points made by both my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there is much more to the Northern Irish protocol than simply issues relating to the border, important though they are. It would be completely beyond any sensible movement if we were to engage in a process that led to a block or discouragement in growth in the confidence and security that the Good Friday agreement has provided across all aspects of everyday life in Northern Ireland. It is, indeed, the cornerstone of peace and security there, and we change it at our peril.
Turning to Amendment 65 and the questions that it raises about the Irish Sea and its position in relation to the borders of both the European Union and Great Britain, I am beginning to think that this is beginning to adopt some of the aspects of the Schleswig-Holstein question of the last century or two, or even of Schrödinger’s cat, since we are talking about trying to legislate for an area that is simultaneously both a member of two customs unions and subject to variables in terms of the operation of the law, depending on which way it is facing. My noble friend Lord Hain was right to point out that we still do not know enough about where the EU-UK agreement will leave us; we do not know how the protocol will operate in practice and what will happen in the next few years; and we are uncertain about where the Northern Ireland operation will be in relation to the free trade agreement with the EU. Will it align more towards the EU, or will it be more like the FTAs that the UK will negotiate; and if that is the case, how will we make sure that they are properly applied? There are lots of questions here, and the amendment helps to clarify the issues. Whatever the truth of that is, Northern Ireland needs an assurance about how it should go forward.
On the trader support service, it might well be defective in law, but the intention is very clear. I hope that, when the Minister comes to respond, he can give support to the idea that it continues.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to various aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol. Amendments 58 and 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, seek to make the ratification of any future UK-EU international trade agreement contingent on compliance with the protocol. I listened very carefully to the hard-hitting and long speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I am very aware that he speaks passionately on Northern Ireland matters as an ex-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that he spoke again today with great passion. We have been clear that we remain completely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to implementing the protocol in a flexible and proportionate way, protecting the interests of both the whole United Kingdom and the EU.
Our proposals for implementing the protocol will deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the whole of the UK market, ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK’s customs territory, discharge our obligations without the need for any new customs infrastructure for Northern Ireland, and guarantee that Northern Ireland businesses benefit from the lower tariffs that we deliver through our new free trade agreements with third countries. This approach is, in our view, the best route for commanding the broadest possible support across the whole community in Northern Ireland, respecting the myriad ways in which lives and livelihoods are intertwined right across our United Kingdom. This came out, again, in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
The Bill that we are debating here does not address the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Other than the government procurement agreement, it is concerned only with continuity agreements: that is, agreements to which both the EU and the relevant third country were signatories before exit day. While I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, there will be better opportunity to debate them elsewhere. In accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, both Houses will have the opportunity to debate any UK-EU future trade agreement before it is ratified. Similarly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, acknowledged—and the reasons were eloquently outlined in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lansley—noble Lords will soon have a chance to debate their concerns regarding the protocol when the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill reaches this House all too soon, on Monday, for scrutiny.
I turn now to Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. As I set out during our debate last week on devolution, the Government have engaged closely with the devolved Administrations and have taken significant steps to improve this Bill. I hope this was made clear in the remarks that I made last week. I would like to take this opportunity to inform your Lordships that the Scottish Parliament consented to grant an LCM to the Trade Bill last week. I hope that this illustrates the close engagement that the Government have undertaken and will continue to undertake with the devolved Administrations.
On Amendment 65, the Government will ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, ensuring that businesses and individuals will be able to move goods from Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom on the same basis as now, while also benefitting from new trade deals. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom by ensuring that they benefit from mutual recognition and are not discriminated against. This will be the case whatever the outcome of negotiations with the EU.
On Amendment 82, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, I am pleased to say the new Trader Support Service—the so-called TSS—that the Government are introducing, will provide an end-to-end service that will guide traders through all import processes. It will provide extensive support to businesses engaging in new administrative procedures resulting from the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is a free service available to all traders moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and those importing goods into Northern Ireland from the rest of the world.
In response to various questions on TSS, I shall give a little more detail. It will offer the following core services. The TSS will benefit trader education by educating businesses about what the protocol means for them and the steps they need to take to comply with them. Secondly, it will support businesses when submitting declarations and advise them about additional documents and licences they will need; for example, a permit is needed to import endangered species. It will provide a complete service that submits relevant declarations into CDS, submits relevant safety and security declarations into HMRC’s import control system, the ICS, and in some circumstances will transmit transit declarations on NCTS.
In answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lansley, the TSS and its future will be reviewed after two years. My noble friend Lady Noakes asked about costs. She will know, and I want to emphasise, that the TSS is a unique intervention, backed by £200 million of government funding.
I hope that these explanations address your Lordships’ concerns and that they will not wish to press their amendments.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stevenson and all those who have spoken in this debate, beginning with my noble friend Lady Ritchie, who speaks with authority as someone affected daily by our decisions in this Parliament. She spoke eloquently about the intricate relationships so carefully and painstakingly built over decades to break down barriers. We must not do anything that reverses that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that he agrees with Amendment 58, but that it is not necessary because it is already in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, rightly argued that in the internal market Bill a part of the protocol is being repudiated. I say with some sensitivity and moderation to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that there is a lack of trust regarding the Northern Ireland-Irish protocol situation that has been engendered by the Government themselves.
The Government signed up to a protocol that they are now seeking to undermine through the internal market Bill, breaching international law and breaching trust with Dublin so painfully built over careful decades of negotiation and relationships. The relationship between Dublin and London now is terrible, and I can totally understand that as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We should never have got into this situation. As the noble Baroness rightly says, it is ironic that a group of cross-party Peers is having to defend what is nominally the Government’s own policy but which they are undermining. That is why these amendments are absolutely necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said the Trader Support Service would be extended if needed, so why not put it in the Bill through the amendments concerned? If there is a technical issue, the Minister can come back on Report and propose the addition of a regulation allowing the Government to extend it. Presently, it is limited to two years. I am puzzled about the Minister’s response. Effectively, he is saying that he agrees with these amendments in principle, but that on the one hand there is no need for them and on the other there is an opportunity for them later. I say gently to him that there is always supposed to be an opportunity later, but the reality is that by the time later comes it is too late. A trade deal may not have been struck with the EU and the consequences will already be a fait accompli.
The Deputy Chairman of Committeess (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We come now to Amendment 64. I remind noble Lords, as before, that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 64
Lord Lansley
“Trade promotion
The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament in relation to each year from 1 January 2021, prepared as soon as practicable after the end of that year, including—(a) the measures adopted by the Secretary of State to secure the benefits of the international trade agreements entered into by the United Kingdom, and which are in force during the course of that year; and (b) the trade and export promotion strategies which the Secretary of State proposes in order to realise the economic benefits of those international trade agreements to enterprises in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require Ministers to report to Parliament on how the benefits of new Free Trade Agreements are to be realised, including the trade and export promotion strategies they intend to adopt.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to move Amendment 64, the purpose of which is to seek from Ministers an annual report, starting after the end of 2021, showing what measures they have taken to exploit the benefits of the trade agreements into which the UK has entered and setting out how they propose to maximise the realisation of those benefits in future.
I should say that I was recently appointed the vice-chair of an all-party parliamentary group for trade and export promotion. Happily, it has gathered support from all sides of this House and the other place, led by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and Gary Sambrook in the Commons. It is timely that we should come together in this new all-party parliamentary group since it is important that we support businesses as part of the global Britain exercise to realise the benefits of trade and exports across the world. In many respects, globalisation has stopped. The expansion of global trade had stopped even at the end of 2019 and has gone backwards in 2020, for obvious reasons. The difficulties of achieving export activity and entry into markets in the midst of a Covid crisis are palpable. Businesses need our support and help; I hope that one thing we can do is ensure that the voice of business and those organisations that speak for and represent it will be heard here in this House.
My noble friend the Minister and I probably hark back to the days when we were responsible for trade policy in the British Government. I remember that, when I was a civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry, I was responsible for the chemicals and petrochemicals aspect of the generalised system of preferences. We had shared competence with the European Commission in those days before we lost it altogether. The point is that those of us who have experience of managing trade policy in the British Government have to be, almost by definition, in our 60s or older. So we are learning afresh; happily, the Department for International Trade is learning fast and operating on a broad canvas.
However, the bandwidth inside the DIT for this task is taken up with the business of putting trade agreements in place. That is a vital job but we cannot afford to lose sight of the job that is also an essential part of the DIT: leading our trade and export promotion activity. The DIT does not do that alone—it does it with other departments across Whitehall, not least the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—but it is not down to all of us, not just government, to achieve this. It is down to businesses, chambers of commerce—including the International Chamber of Commerce and bilateral chambers of commerce around the world—and trade associations to make this happen, but they need to know what the government strategy is to do so.
I want to say in passing that there is a tendency—President Trump is particularly guilty of this sin—to take a mercantilist approach to trade deals. When we make a trade deal, he seems to think that he can directly manipulate the volumes of trade between countries as a result of that deal. In fact, he is beginning to find that that does not happen; in truth, we should not expect it to. We are, I hope, facilitating, liberalising and expediting trade, but that requires the activities of businesses and traders to make it happen. The volume of trade is a direct result of their activities, so we need to enable them to exploit trade deals.
Also, it is far from the case that what is written into a trade deal necessarily results in exploitation by businesses. Preferential rates are often not used by many businesses. Tariff rate quotas are often not used by businesses in one country even though they are available for trade in another. The use of these trade deals is instrumental; we need to make it happen.
Unlike the amendment that we were talking about earlier, I hope that this one asks Ministers to do something that they want to do: set out the strategy for realising and exploiting the benefits of the trade agreements that we will, I hope, increasingly enter into—not just the continuity agreements that are the subject of this Bill, but the many international free trade agreements that are to follow. As we do that, I hope that a flexible strategy will come forward from Ministers soon.
I reiterate those two points. First, I hope that it is soon because we should have such a strategy in place before the end of the implementation period at the point at which we are operating once again as an independent trading nation. It is necessary for business to be able to see what “global Britain” looks like when we have not only left the European Union but exited the customs union.
Secondly, the strategy must be flexible. None of us knows how we will be able to access global markets easily in the course of the next year, possibly even the year after. These are intensely difficult times for traders. Some of the conventional ways of doing things—you do your market research, go into a market, participate in a trade mission, attend a trade fair, meet people, create relationships and build your business—will not be able to be done as easily as they have been done in the past. That is why it is all the more important, as we are hoping to do through the all-party group, for the Government to work with and through organisations such as chambers of commerce, bilateral chambers, trade associations and those who are able to work in-market alongside our embassies—in particular, to work in-market and in a commercial sense to create market opportunities for businesses.
For example, when I was at the British Chambers of Commerce 30 years ago, we took on responsibility from the department for the export market research scheme. It is important that we have a strong export market research programme in the years ahead and in the strategy to come. I hope that Ministers will publish a strategy in the weeks, rather than months, ahead to show how they will exploit markets and how “global Britain” is going to work. I hope that that will be clear about the sectors that can look to the Government for support and the nature of the support that they will receive. I hope that it will be equally clear about how we are going to operate in markets where priority markets exist and how the Government are going to do that.
I declare my interest in the register as the UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. A good example is the UK-Japan economic partnership agreement. It goes further than the existing EU agreement in respect of digital trade; I understand that our embassy in Tokyo has for the first time appointed a digital attaché. I hope that we will see a build-up of activity in markets by the Government, but also by the business communities, to make these trade agreements not only real, in the sense that we spent a lot of time discussing them, and not just signed, ratified, authenticated and implemented. Implementation is not a legal process; it has to become a market-orientated process.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that these amendments are not necessary because the Government are firmly fixed on renewing their trade and export promotion strategy—the last time they did so was in 2018, I think, but so much has happened since then—and setting it out soon in a way that really engages business organisations and the business community in making real the ambitions of global Britain, to which I think we all subscribe. I beg to move.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has succinctly made the case. The final countdown to the United Kingdom embarking on a new chapter in our proud journey has arrived. Transparency and inclusiveness are needed now more than ever. The noble Lord should be thanked for tabling these amendments. The word “trust” has been uttered many times in Committee. These amendments would assist that process. For a nation that built its reputation as a great trading nation, it is surprising how little is understood about how trade impacts. Taking the public’s trust is an imperative. These amendments would provide an important demonstration that the Government are serious about making trade work for everyone, and the promotion of international best practice. Demystifying trade, enabling all stakeholders to understand how it benefits the economy, and demonstrating that to the regions and communities up and down our land is essential.
It is time to look at these issues with fresh eyes, and to bring a more inclusive approach to finding solutions to the challenges we face. By inclusive, I refer to the United Kingdom’s multi-sector business organisations, together with representatives of consumers, civil society and workers. Strong social partnership between government, business and unions is the only way to deliver the required results. After all, a sustainable and inclusive approach would translate into economic growth, jobs and the maintenance of high standards.
Common rules and standards are the best mechanism to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and ensure that we all trade on a level playing field. An annual report, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would help ensure that robust mitigation strategies are in place to assist companies in understanding, for example, the new trade preferences available and how they can benefit. The noble Lord has flagged that an export strategy should be in place by year-end. This would be extremely commendable.
Lessons learned from the past, to effectively distribute the benefits of trade and how to achieve it, are paramount. To that end, and relevant to the issues before us this afternoon, an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Trade and Export Promotion has indeed been launched, which I have the honour of co-chairing. Gary Sambrook, in another place, takes the lead, with MPs across the family of nations being actively involved. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, kindly referred to this and he is a key participant. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to it. We are certainly working on a full programme, including, quite extraordinarily, a call at 4 am to review progress with a secretariat headed by Chris Southworth. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Mann and Lord Purvis, are vice-chairs, contributing much with their combined wisdom. It offers constructive consideration of the issues that bring us together today, bringing together international trade policy, trade promotion, investment and trade finance under one roof, and into an inclusive forum. The APPG is ably supported with a secretariat run by an organisation that lives and breathes trade, the International Chamber of Commerce.
This morning we had our first meeting, made up of 30-plus organisations from around the UK, to learn of concerns and proposals. From this point, we will invite Her Majesty’s Government to attend these meetings, as I have little doubt that they will find areas of interest, in the spirit of delivering better solutions and outcomes that build confidence and trust in trade.
I end where I began, in supporting these amendments. We must work as a team united, so that the UK can go forward as a global player, but not before sorting ourselves out internally. I endorse the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and encourage the Government to adopt the amendment to the best benefit of us all.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I certainly support all that my noble friend Lord Lansley said about the importance of trade promotion and export promotion. Clearly, this is vital to underpin our success in a post-Brexit world. I also support the intention that underlies the amendment, which is to facilitate holding the Government to account for their delivery in those areas. I find it difficult, however, to support the amendment itself.
All amendments that call for reports need to be treated with a certain amount of scepticism. There is already a vehicle for delivering what the amendment asks for, which is the annual departmental report. If my noble friend had expressed his amendment in terms of a government-wide delivery on his aims, I could understand the need for it to be a free-standing report, but his amendment focuses on the Department for International Trade. Therefore, the annual report for the Department for International Trade should suffice.
There is also the International Trade Committee in the other place. We tend to be somewhat dismissive of the other place’s ability to scrutinise legislation well, but one of the things it does do well is to hold individual government departments to account. If you take the combination of a departmental report and the International Trade Committee in the other place, we have the mechanisms to achieve the very noble intents lying behind this amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lord, I personally welcome the idea of the Secretary of State laying a report before Parliament. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State may not be minded to do so.
I am reminded of the fact that I started my political career in the European Parliament, where one of my functions was to advise my noble friend Lady Hooper, who very kindly found a letter from 1983 that I think we should frame. When I became a Member of the European Parliament for Essex North and Suffolk South, rather than an adviser to MEPs, one of the things I enjoyed the most was leading delegations of businesses to countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and introducing them, through department of trade contacts, to their opposite numbers, prior to them joining the European Union. It seems a bit sad, now that we have left the European Union, but they have the benefit of all my good work in that regard.
I would like to congratulate my right honourable friend Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for International Trade, for being brave enough to appoint, to my certain knowledge, the first-ever agricultural attaché to China, based in Beijing. They have been there now for possibly two or more years. It could even be five years—time flies. The consequences of that single act have been magnificent. Malton Bacon Factory has been a beneficiary to the tune of millions every year because it produces pork, and we do not eat the parts that Chinese consumers take to be very appetising such as pigs’ trotters, snouts, tails and ears. The very fact that we have had a commercial attaché based there goes to the heart of what we can do. I think they are paid something like 80% by industry.
The thinking behind the amendment is very good, and I would like to see more of it. The balance is about right in terms of funding by the industry itself, but there could be some pump-priming from various departments, such as in the case I mentioned of agriculture. I hope we can learn from other countries such as Denmark, which obviously remains in the European Union. In its exports of food, particularly farm products, Denmark punches way above its weight, as we found when I led a small delegation there from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee from the other place. Denmark has a whole network in countries such as China, and indeed other European Union countries, where it uses a little bit of state funding but mostly industry funding to market, export and promote its own goods. This is something Deliciously Yorkshire has done very cleverly at a regional and national level, and I hope it is something we can roll out. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on this amendment in that regard.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for moving this amendment. It has allowed us to generate a very high degree of cross-party support, and it is to be commended for that. I will try to respond to a valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with regard to how reports are put together and where they best fit. I hope she does not mind me saying from these Benches that she made a good point, and that she can accept that, but maybe we need to just tweak it. If we tweak it, we may generate overwhelming consensus on this point.
I preface my remarks by referring to the work of the new all-party parliamentary group, which was so well laid out by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I declare that I too am an office bearer for that group. I commend the noble Lord, other members, and the International Chamber of Commerce on their energy and direction in getting this group established. The noble Lord will forgive me if I ask that he does not invite me to any 4 am calls with the group, but I will be glad for him to send me the minutes of any discussions. In a moment I will touch on why that might be important.
I have been involved in politics since before I was elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the Borders constituency, an area extremely rich in textile heritage and industry. Having been born and brought up in that region, I have an enormous admiration for exporters. They are in many respects unsung heroes and the work that they do in supporting the UK economy can never be overestimated. They are not only men and women who trade, but pioneers searching out competitive new markets. They have to overcome many barriers, from languages to what can be very bad behaviour by companies in other countries, often on very low margins. They are at the front end. We can perhaps help them with getting cross-party support in our new trading relationships going forward from next January. I hope that the all-party group will focus on that.
I hope the Minister knows that I am sincere when I say that I will look at the Japan agreement. I will be looking at whether we are securing better market access for our textile exporters as well as guaranteeing Japanese market access to ours. As for myself and many friends of mine in the Borders, we are still stung by the multifibre agreement and the “cashmere wars”, and we know some of the challenges. This has been a long preface, but I am passionate about this.
In many respects, the support that we need to give our exporters as we go forward will be meaningfully different from what it has been in the past. I want to reflect on the different profile of trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned this; I want to add some figures that I have seen from the WTO, which are quite stark. Between 1995 and 2015, the overall global most-favoured-nation tariff rate had declined from 6% to 4%; the tariff reductions had been very good. However, over a fairly comparable period from mid-2000 to 2015, non-tariff measures had grown from just over 1,000 to 2,500 as recognised by the WTO. By and large, that is because countries that are becoming more prosperous regulate their own domestic markets, introducing more standards—this links with the debate on the previous groups. On the one hand it is harder to export to those markets; on the other, those countries are operating on a basis comparable to us.
In many respects, the support that we give to our businesses allows them to understand some of these markets much more and to navigate their way around the non-tariff measures that those countries have put in place. Our whisky industry has become expert at this. In many respects, the Government learn as much from our whisky industry as many other businesses can learn from government about how to operate in the competitive global market; as we go into the “new world”, this will be important. As much as we want to advance and support our exporters, our competitor countries are doing that as well if not better.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his amendment on trade promotion and strategies. It has stimulated an interesting debate. It is interesting to me because it provides me with the an opportunity of agreeing, for once, with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the need to make any trade promotion strategy government-wide, which goes without saying. It is also interesting because the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned the trade in pigs, our influence on China and how we might learn from its ability to market pigs’ trotters. It is some years since I consumed a pig’s trotter, but the thought of it fills me with great joy.
As has been mentioned throughout these debates, trade offers many benefits to UK businesses and will play a vital role in our post-Covid recovery. The Government must make sure that when they sign trade deals those benefits are shared across SMEs and large companies, as well as different regional groupings.
The amendment usefully refers to trade and export strategies, and I shall pick up a few points on the Government’s approach, especially their export strategy. Their stated ambition is to increase exports from 30% to 35% of GDP, with the Department for International Trade and UK Export Finance playing a key part in achieving that goal. Their previous ambition of increasing exports to £1 trillion by 2020 was not achieved. The National Audit Office has criticised the evidence underlying the strategy to increase exports to 35% of GDP and has said that it is not clear how stretching such an ambition is and that the timetable in which the target is expected to be achieved is not clear. The Public Accounts Committee has also said that it is unclear how the DIT’s work is well-linked to the Government’s export strategy ambition.
I have questions for the Minister. How and when will the Government achieve their 35% target? How are the overseas networks of DIT and UKEF staff working closely together to avoid missing export opportunities? The Federation of Small Businesses supports the 35% target but would welcome a grant scheme to support smaller businesses in particular—which is where we look for growth—looking to invest in new export processes. Are the Government giving that active consideration? It goes without saying that we need a strategy that actively promotes trade internationally in these new times, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, called them, as we find our way in the new world free of the EU. We must have that strategy in place, and this debate has highlighted that. Colleagues have brought into it the valuable experience, knowledge and insight that they gained from the all-party parliamentary group.
The Minister in the other place has said that he is developing a new export strategy. What is it to be and when will it be published? Can we have more debate on it and can the House expect to have regular updates and reports based on it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendment and his wise words in his introduction, honed by his years of experience.
As discussed when I met my noble friend to speak about this amendment, international trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on if businesses and consumers are not educated and enabled to take advantage of their contents. I also fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the need to operationalise those agreements. He and I were in complete agreement when we discussed this. I therefore agree that it is right that the Government should regularly review the benefits realised through the measures adopted for the international trade agreements they negotiate and the trade and export promotion strategies that they deploy. The strategies are vital, and I and all my ministerial colleagues in the department are well-seized of this.
The new all-party parliamentary group for trade and export promotion is an important development, and I am pleased to thoroughly endorse it. The energy of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, as co-chair, and its eminent sponsors will surely lead to its success.
Coming to the substance of the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will be pleased to hear that my department already has plans to publish such a report every two years. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the two-year period is appropriate because to do so more regularly would be overly burdensome for the department to pull together and would provide insufficient time to monitor the benefits realised. I assure noble Lords that the fact that the period is two years rather than one year in no way means that we do not agree on the importance of this topic.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to the trade access programme. I am well aware from my contacts with SMEs how valuable many of them find it, and I will write to give him an update on its present stature.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we are fully seized of the points he makes and that my domestic and international colleagues work closely together on this. If at any time a conversation with me or my ministerial colleagues would help him, we would be happy to have one.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Lansley is reassured that the Government share the objective behind his amendment and that our proposal for a biannual report meets it in a proportionate way. Consequently, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who took part in the debate. Everyone expressed their views in a positive way, and there was widespread support for the amendment’s objectives. I particularly thank my noble friend for his support for the objectives of the all-party parliamentary group. We look forward to working with him, his ministerial colleagues and officials in trying to ensure that we engage fully, not only here in Parliament but with the business community, in making that happen.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, not least for referring to the Federation of Small Businesses. In the report it published earlier in the year relating to SMEs and more recently when Make UK published its report on exports, it was abundantly clear how important it will be for us as a country to bring small and medium-sized businesses into export markets, not only in Europe, to which many have been accustomed, but beyond it. Thirty years ago, I set up an active exporting scheme through the British Chambers of Commerce that mentored small businesses to help them get into exporting activity. I hope that we can look at schemes of that kind because it is important to make that happen.
It was a very interesting debate about the nature of reports. I gently say to my noble friend Lady Noakes that the amendment refers to “the Secretary of State” because “the Secretary of State” is every Secretary of State, not just the Secretary of State for International Trade—so it can within the amendment be a cross-governmental report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 66—Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I understand that neither the noble Lord nor anyone else listed to speak wishes to move this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 68. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 68
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Agreements with states accused of committing genocide
Regulations made under section 1(1) or section 2(1) are revoked if the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the ground that another signatory to the relevant agreement has committed genocide under Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, following an application to revoke the regulations on this ground from a person or group of persons belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or an organisation representing such a group, which has been the subject of that genocide.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to nullify trade arrangements made under this Bill if the High Court of England makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the ground that the proposed trade partner has perpetrated Genocide.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we come now to Amendments 68 and 76A, which are being taken together. Amendment 76A supersedes Amendment 68 and takes into account remarks made by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, when we debated Amendment 33 on 29 September. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and me yesterday at a meeting attended by another Minister, Greg Hands MP, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, but I also thank my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Forsyth, for being co-sponsors, and all noble Lords who will either speak today or who have indicated their willingness to support the proposition at later stages.
Thanks, too, to the founders of the Coalition for Genocide Response, Luke de Pulford and Ewelina Ochab, for their valiant efforts in driving this on. Particular thanks, though, to Members of another place for their supportive, bipartisan references to the amendment in their recent Westminster Hall debate entitled “China: Labour Programme in Tibet” and yesterday’s debate on Uighurs. The former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, told the House that
“should such a new clause come to the Commons, I will absolutely support it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/10/20; col. 119WH.]
In yesterday’s debate, triggered by 100,000 signatures sent in a petition to Parliament, Shabana Mahmood MP said that she hoped that her colleagues on the opposition Front Bench would back the amendment. In parenthesis, I should mention that I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Uighurs, Tibet and Hong Kong.
It was back in March 2016 that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble friend Lady Cox and other noble Lords strongly supported an amendment responding to the unfolding genocide against Yazidis and other minorities in northern Syria and Iraq. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a characteristically powerful intervention. The Government resisted the amendment and repeatedly told the House that genocide was a matter for the courts.
We did not leave it there, and the admirable Member for Congleton, Fiona Bruce MP, a lawyer, tabled a Motion in the Commons declaring those events to be a genocide, in line with the legal definition of genocide set out in the convention on the crime of genocide of 1948. Although the House of Commons passed it with overwhelming all-party support, the Government again resisted it, saying that only international courts could determine a genocide. This is a circular argument—indeed, a vicious circular argument.
The Government say that the International Criminal Court is the appropriate court of law, neglecting to add that a referral to it from the Security Council will almost always be resisted by the use of a veto by a permanent member. Does anyone seriously believe that the Chinese Communist Party would refer itself to the International Criminal Court to establish whether it had committed genocide in Xinjiang against Uighurs. Waiting for international institutions to act soundly is very commendable, but is a convenient fiction, especially for those who think it should just be business as usual.
What happens in this cycle of buck passing? Following the debate in 2016, it is estimated that 10,000 Yazidis were kidnapped or killed by Daesh, and approximately 3,000 Yazidi women and girls were forced into sexual slavery and are still missing. Many other minorities suffered similarly, as I heard and saw for myself when collecting evidence in northern Iraq a few months ago. For the past four years, Mrs Bruce and I have tabled genocide determination Bills to break the circle—and here, in this Bill, we have the opportunity to do just that.
So how would the provision work? During the debate in Committee on Tuesday 29 September, the noble Lord raised his concern that the continuity agreements do not involve trading partners who are most likely to be the most serious abusers of human rights, and that a country such as China would not have been within the scope of the amendment. However, with the help of the Public Bill Office, to which I am grateful, Amendment 76A takes those points into account and, in summary, nullifies trade arrangements made under the Bill if the High Court of England makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the ground that the proposed trade partner has perpetrated genocide.
I particularly draw the attention of the Committee to the words that such deals would be revoked if
“another signatory to the relevant agreement or any future trading partner that has hitherto traded with the UK, regardless of whether they have a formal trade agreement, has committed genocide under Article II of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, following an application to revoke the regulations on this ground from a person or group of persons belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or an organisation representing such a group, which has been the subject of that genocide.”
As for scope, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, rightly insisted during the Committee proceedings last week that it is for Parliament, not government departments, to determine what falls within the scope of the Title of a Bill. Therefore, this amendment is in scope. However, another argument is now also being deployed. The amendment may be in scope, it says, but this is not the Bill in which to do it; this is not the right time or place. However, as Sir Iain points out, that is a standard line that he himself was told to deploy and use during all his years as a Minister. It is never the right time and never the right Bill.
This is a convenient moment to remind the House of the promise given by a government Minister at the Dispatch Box of your Lordships’ House at the conclusion of Report on the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill. Following speech after speech from all sides pointing to human rights violations in Xinjiang and the direct links of Huawei and the companies in supply chains that use slave labour, the Government agreed to rewrite an amendment on human rights violations and to bring it back at Third Reading. That Bill of course continues to be deferred, and it is no secret that the Government have been unable to draft the promised amendment. Hence, an opportunity is presented here for the Government to honour their promise and to use this vehicle not for the Christmas-tree purposes of hanging on it every issue under the sun but to meet an obligation entered into in Parliament and to act on an issue that enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support.
So how would this provision work in practice, and who might it affect? The key is that the court would decide whether there is enough evidence to justify a predetermination. The threshold is incredibly high. Furthermore, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead pointed out, if they so wished, the Government would have the right to have a contradictor present in the court to argue against such a predetermination. I thank my noble and learned friend for his invaluable advice, not least in pointing me to the High Court of England and Wales rather than the Supreme Court as the relevant body to make the predetermination.
Currently, the most obvious global contenders for predetermination are China and Burma for their crimes against Uighur and Rohingya Muslims. However, if state collaboration in countries such as Syria and Iraq against ethnic or religious minorities, such as the Yazidis, were proven, they too could fall within the terms of the amendment. However, we should be clear: the threshold is exacting, and the amendment will not stop any trade with any country until the High Court has made a preliminary determination that there is a prima facie case of genocide, with the Government able to deploy a contradictor in the court.
The crime of genocide—often described as the crime above all crimes—is carefully defined in the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. Article II of the convention states that
“genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
As a signatory to the convention, we are required to prevent genocide, to protect those affected by genocide and to punish those responsible. However, if no judicial authority declares a genocide to be under way, we are not obliged to act—hence the vicious circle.
The practical effect of that is illustrated by the Armenian genocide of 1914 to 1923. It is still unrecognised by the United Kingdom as a genocide. It involved the systematic mass murder and expulsion of 1.5 million ethnic Armenians carried out in Turkey and adjoining regions, and was referred to here in your Lordships’ House only yesterday in the context of the current unfolding events in Nagorno-Karabakh. In an intervention last week, I reminded the House of Hitler’s infamous remark as he prepared the Final Solution: “Who now remembers the Armenians?” In yesterday’s debate in another place, Siobhain McDonagh, the MP for Mitcham and Morden, movingly said of Xinjiang:
“If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 40WH.]
Increasingly, we might ask, “Who now remembers the Tibetans?”, and in the future will other perpetrators of genocide ask, “Who now remembers the Uighurs?”
Perhaps I may give another example of the vicious circle. The United Nations report into mass atrocities in North Korea, chaired by the eminent jurist Michael Kirby, a judge in Australia, described North Korea—a country I have visited, and I should declare that I am a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for North Korea, which I founded—as “a state without parallel”. The report called for North Korea to be referred to the International Criminal Court. It has never happened because this of course would require a referral by the United Nations Security Council, where China would use its veto.
What sort of evidence would be laid before the High Court to short-circuit the vicious circle and to upend the impotence to which the cynical misuse of the veto and the subversion of United Nations agencies has led? During the debate on Amendment 33, we heard allegations from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about forced organ harvesting in China, targeting Falun Gong practitioners. We have heard many accounts from Xinjiang of forced labour, the removal of people from their homes and villages, the creation of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, described as concentration camps, the prevention of births, and the destruction of cemeteries, identity and culture. There are almost 400 prison camps in Xinjiang and more are being built. The Muslim faith and culture, language and identity are being obliterated and a surveillance state enforces compliance.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the start of this Committee. I had to chair the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords to which the Governor of the Bank of England was giving evidence.
I support these amendments and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his tireless commitment to championing the cause of so many people suffering persecution and genocide around the world. Who on the Front Bench could have heard that speech and not felt an absolute obligation to accept these amendments or some variation on them? This House can be proud not only of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but also of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the indefatigable way in which they bring the appalling atrocities happening around the world to the attention of this House and of the country.
I want to focus on China, a country with detention without trial for bloggers, journalists, academics and dissidents; of televised forced concessions; of torture, genocide, enforced organ harvesting, compulsory sterilisation, forced labour and the destruction of crosses and their churches. I have referred to this in the House before, and to the evidenced-based report by the Conservative Party’s Human Rights Commission entitled The Darkest Moment: The Crackdown on Human Rights in China, 2013-2016. It makes for very disturbing reading. It details how a pastor’s wife was buried alive while protesting at the demolition of a church in Henan province and how Falun Gong prisoners were forced to donate organs to high-ranking Chinese officials.
Giving evidence to the commission on organ harvesting, the Chinese-born actress, Anastasia Lin, said that such acts force us
“to confront the question of how humans—doctors trained to heal, no less—could possibly do such great evil”.
Her answer was:
“The aggressors in China were not born to be monsters who take out organs from people … It’s the system that made them do that. It’s the system that made them so cold-bloodedly able to cut people open and take out their organs and watch them die.”
As a consequence of her criticism of the regime, Ms Lin’s family was threatened by state security agents and her Canadian sponsors were asked by the Chinese consulate to withdraw their support.
Last century, China signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but somehow it has not got around to ratifying it. The assaults on Tibetan identity and the oppression of the Uighurs in Xinjiang are mirrored in Mongolia. My right honourable friend Sir Iain Duncan Smith wrote about this in last week’s Daily Telegraph. He reported that there are 3 million Uighurs in detention camps and he rightly pointed out:
“As China carries out these human rights abuses while systematically breaking World Trade Organisation rules, too many businesses act as apologists for China”.
We must now take a lead in challenging this behaviour. We saw how Huawei found friends in high places, with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, no less, chairing its UK board and Sir Mike Rake, a former president of the CBI, joining the board, together with a former head of UK Trade & Investment, Sir Andrew Cahn and the Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London, Sir Ken Olisa. I do not know what the UK board of Huawei does but, since public exposure, many of these people have scuttled off it. Speaking out against China’s egregious breaches of human rights has not been one of their functions.
This amendment is a start to holding China and others to account. In a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—I call him my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said:
“We have a policy of engagement with China and our approach will remain consistent even if difficulties emerge.”
We are talking about atrocities and genocide. This is why this amendment and its supporting amendment —which takes account of the Minister’s comments—need to be taken on board in the Bill. I hope the Minister will support it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out the case so comprehensively that I will not detain the House in repeating some of these egregious abuses.
I want to come at this from another angle that speaks directly to the UK’s trade policy and our values and obligations on the international stage. States carry moral weight, so the amendment is entirely pertinent to this Bill.
Thinking about this amendment made me reach for my copy of Philippe Sands QC’s excellent book East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. Anticipating resistance to our amendment, I hope to explain why Amendments 68 and 76A are relevant. They will only apply in the most extreme and egregious cases as affects international law and UK trade policy. My arguments go directly to the distinction between the crime of genocide and the broader illegality of crimes against humanity.
At the Nuremberg trials of 1945 and 1946, two outstanding prosecutors, Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin, part of the British and US teams, determined that international laws were needed relating to a pattern of state behaviour that could no longer be allowed to stand and that they were categories of human rights violations that needed to be given a name and recognised—“genocide” and “crimes against humanity”. For Lauterpacht, who was an academic at Cambridge, the killing of individuals, if part of a systematic plan, would be a crime against humanity. For Lemkin, the focus was genocide: the killing of the many with the intention of destroying the group of which they were a part.
As Philippe Sands explains, for a prosecutor today the difference between the two is to do with establishing intent. To prove genocide, you need to show the act of killing was motivated by an intent to destroy the whole group, whereas for crimes against humanity no such intent has to be shown. He explains that proving intent of genocide is extremely difficult, as those involved tend not to leave a paper trail—he should know, being the foremost prosecutor of such attempts.
Lemkin went on to win the argument at the United Nations, as in December 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It was the first human rights treaty of the modern era. Lauterpacht’s contribution inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of 1948, ironically adopted by the General Assembly only one day after the genocide convention that same December. The law of crimes against humanity has primarily developed through the evolution of customary international law and is not yet an international convention.
But turning to when and where this particular provision from this amendment may be used, it is fair to say the world is more respectful of both individual and group rights, but not universally—hence the suffering of the Rohingya people in Burma and the Uighurs in China. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have spoken about the crimes against them, and this House is well versed in this situation over several years.
I want to close by quoting Raphael Lemkin from a letter he wrote in 1946, which is quoted by Sands. He wrote the letter two years before the genocide convention was agreed. He wrote the letter when he despaired that it would become international law, and he said:
“we cannot keep telling the world in endless sentences: Don’t murder members of national, racial and religious groups; don’t sterilise them; don’t impose abortions on them; don’t steal children from them; don’t compel their women to bear children for your country; and so on. But we must tell the world now, at this unique occasion, don’t practice Genocide.”
If the United Kingdom’s values are to stand for anything in trade, international relations and its footprint on the international stage, they must stand for that.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lord Alton for bringing the amendment forward in the style to which we have become accustomed, for he has always been a champion not just of the underdog but of those who are on the verge of death and torture. I rely on his description of genocide and that of my noble friend Lady Falkner. The definition is a complicated one and it is quite correct for the amendment to rely on the High Court to decide whether a country is guilty of genocide.
It is a sad day when we have to debate this, but the amendment is perfectly in keeping with the trade amendments that we have been discussing all day, because we can see the thread: morality and trade go together. The amendment is a very good example of that.
It is sadly no longer the case that genocide is something of the past. We have many modern examples of genocide or steps toward it: the Darfuris in Sudan, the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Christians in Nigeria, the Yazidis. We must now ensure that UK business and consumers do not support or profit from forced labour inflicted on the Uighurs in China. It is shameful that China is in such a position that it controls so many international organisations and enables itself to be free from any attack on its behaviour. That is what makes the amendment so important.
I quote Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli historian who himself escaped from a possible Holocaust and was able to get to Palestine in the days when the United Kingdom prevented most refugees entering Palestine. He said:
“Politics that are not based on moral considerations are, at the end of the day, not practical politics at all. It is out of these considerations that I beg you to permit me to repeat here what I said, exactly eight years ago, in a speech to the German Bundestag: I come from a people that gave the Ten Commandments to the world. Let us agree that we need three more commandments, and they are these: thou shalt not be a perpetrator; thou shalt not be a victim; and thou shalt never, but never, be a bystander.”
He writes in a new book:
“I can no longer bear the speeches void of content and packed with clichés of presidents, prime ministers, rabbis and others … What does it actually mean to say ‘Never again’ when genocides keep recurring? It’s just an empty slogan.”
We are learning that in this country. Holocaust remembrance is a major event every year, but building monuments will not do it. There are countless memorials around the world to genocide and atrocities, but they do not help the victims or teach other countries to change their behaviour. We cannot block China because of the unfortunate structure of the Security Council.
Some people say that we will at least be able to bring the perpetrators to justice, but the number of trials before international tribunals is actually quite small. Yes, there was the Nuremburg tribunal. A Japanese war general was put on trial. Tokyo war crimes were tried. There was a tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Rwanda and for Cambodia, and the trials of Saddam Hussein and Charles Taylor. But they are ex post facto: the murders and genocide happened before the trials. It is too late for those who died. There is no indication that the punishment of a trial awaiting them has deterred mass killers.
Moreover, the International Criminal Court does not have universal jurisdiction and its stances are partial. Indeed, President Trump gave an executive order in June threatening consequences against anyone who supported this court. There is now a perception in many quarters that the International Criminal Court has not fulfilled the expectations of its founders. The court’s proceedings are cumbersome and lengthy. Many of those accused are still at large, including Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan. Some €1.5 billion have been spent, and there have been only three convictions for core international crimes. Cumbersome procedures, ineffective prosecutions against high-level alleged perpetrators and weak internal management are among the current criticisms of the International Criminal Court.
We are therefore left with nothing else that we can do apart from taking in refugees and supporting this amendment. I wish that there were mechanisms for going into the countries of the accused and rescuing those who are suffering from genocide or coming near to it, but it seems that we cannot do that. Supporting this amendment and perhaps hitting them where it hurts, which is in trade, is the only thing we can do. I cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept it. I support both of these amendments wholeheartedly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Owing to an error in the listing, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will speak later. Meanwhile, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his consistent support for oppressed people around the world. That is not in any doubt whatever; nor is the sincerity of the intent behind the amendment. I would, however, like to query whether it will achieve what the noble Lord thinks it might.
I will speak to the revised format of the amendment and concentrate on free trade agreements, not the GPA under subsection (1). The regulations under Section 2(1) apply only to continuity trade agreements. As I understand it, at the moment there is no agreement with either China or Myanmar that would qualify to be implemented by regulations under Clause 2 of this Bill, so I do not think that the amendment will achieve what noble Lords want it to. It would be quite difficult to repurpose the amendment to tackle future trade agreements because what the court could not do is revoke the trade agreement. The only thing that could be got at is some of the implementation legislation. It would be quite difficult to find a formulation that allowed the High Court to revoke, in effect, an international trade agreement. As I have suggested, I do not think that the mechanism of going to the implementation measures will actually work.
In addition, I believe that Parliament has a clear role when new free trade agreements are entered into. If Parliament does not like the counterparties or believes that they might be involved in either genocide or any other form of abuse—my noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke as much about human rights abuses as he did about genocide itself—it can decide not to ratify a free trade agreement and not to implement any legislation that is required to implement such an agreement. However, it is very difficult to go back and undo a free trade agreement once it has been made and ratified. I suggest to my noble friend that even if the courts were able to do that, I do not believe that they are the right place for what is essentially a political decision.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this amendment. I agree absolutely with those who argued that it is inconceivable that the Government will not accept it.
The situation in China is of course appalling, but if we are going to introduce this legislation and further the cause of justice, we must be consistent. That means that we have to try to do everything possible to avoid arbitrariness, in which cases to be brought become, in a sense, historically arbitrary, because there are too many cases of what appears to be genocide in the world.
It is not just a matter of genocide; the definitions of genocide are clear and you can make an absolute stand. The problem is the issues which are marginal; there is also the problem of the immense human suffering, inhumanity and abuse of human rights and so on, which do not formally become genocide but which are appalling.
The one point I want to make in this context is that if the House, as I am sure it will, overwhelmingly approves this amendment—my congratulations to all those who have brought it forward—this must be the point at which we take extremely seriously, in all our trade deals, abuses of human rights, suffering and injustice. I do not hesitate to make the point.
An example of this is Yemen. Why do we prevaricate on Yemen when it is absolutely clear that we are very much implicated, indirectly, in what is happening there? That has great significance for our trade policy towards Saudi Arabia and others. We must be consistent. This is a wonderful opportunity to mark a point of no return, where as a nation we become known for consistency and firmness in our approach to the application and fulfilment of human rights and the protection of people in the name of humanity across the world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope noble Lords can hear me; my computer is claiming that my bandwidth is low, but I hope I am none the less audible. I was going to speak to Amendment 68, but my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has explained the significance of Amendment 76A, which I therefore support.
Some noble Lords have already gone beyond the term “genocide”, but the narrow scope of this amendment is very important. It is a term for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed out, there is a very high and exacting threshold, which is important. In a speech on Raphael Lemkin, Michael Ignatieff suggested:
“Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood.”
It is clear that we should not fall into the trap of calling any sort of human rights abuse genocide, but there are cases where it is important that we acknowledge that something is genocide.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have had more than one exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Anelay of St Johns, when the latter was a Minister, in which Ministers of State have repeatedly suggested that while genocide is obviously a heinous crime, they cannot bring it forward and say that it is genocide—that is only for the courts to decide. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed out, that gets us into the most awful vicious circle. How do we ever get to the point where something is declared a genocide and used as a reason not to engage in trade, for example?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has withdrawn, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have great sympathy for the thinking that lies behind these amendments, and I have huge admiration for the unremitting way that my noble friend Lord Alton carries on his campaign to root out genocide and to bring its perpetrators to justice wherever they can be found. It is a hard struggle. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide now seems, with hindsight, to be a deplorably weak instrument for dealing with the challenges we face today. It was indeed the first such treaty of the modern era, as my noble friend Lady Falkner pointed out, but it is simply not up to the job.
It was conceived in the mid-1940s as a reaction against the Holocaust that the Nazis’ policy of extermination had created in Europe. It was assumed that it would be enough to require the contracting parties to enact the necessary legislation and, having done so, to require them to bring those within their jurisdiction who were charged with genocide to trial. But we can now see, in today’s world, how ineffective and perhaps naive this relatively simple convention is.
The UN convention against torture of 1987, which we became familiar with in the case of Senator Pinochet, is a much more powerful instrument. He had travelled to this country for health reasons and, no doubt to his great surprise and dismay, found himself open to proceedings brought against him under that convention in Spain. This was because he had travelled to this country, which was one of the signatory countries that was bound by the convention to extradite him to be tried there. The Law Lords in this House, of whom I was one, upheld the Spanish prosecutor’s request, although in the end Senator Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. I mention this just to make the point that the torture convention is a much more far-reaching instrument, although even it would probably still fall short of what is needed to deal with the crime of genocide in the countries where it is now prevalent, which have been referred to this evening, simply because those countries would almost certainly refuse to release the perpetrators to a country where they could be brought to trial.
We have to make the best of what we have. We cannot go down the direct route of bringing the perpetrators to trial here, so some other route must be found. We cannot just turn our backs on this appalling crime, and we must be grateful to the noble Lord for doing his very best to see that we do not. The greatest barrier that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has faced has been in trying to devise a mechanism for bringing the issue before our courts. We have to do this here, because there is no standing international tribunal that has universal jurisdiction in this matter.
Our courts can deal only with those over whom it has jurisdiction according to our rules, and as a general rule it can deal only with crimes committed here in this country. Parliament may give our courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, but it must do so expressly, and the accused person must be in this country when and if he is to be tried here. We have had extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case of the murder of British nationals committed abroad, since 1861; and, more recently, in the case of the taking of hostages, since 1982; torture, since 1988; and terrorism, since 2000. But even if genocide had been on the list, without a strong UN convention that would enable us to get the people who really matter here to be tried it is almost impossible. So what else can be done?
The procedure which the noble Lord has chosen has my full support. Let me bring the bare bones that we see before us to life. There are two very important advantages, which I think are worth mentioning. First, you need to have someone with a relevant interest to bring a proceeding before the court; the person or group of persons referred to in these amendments will almost certainly satisfy that requirement. This in itself is a big step forward.
Secondly, what it provides will allow for due process in a hearing in full accordance with the rule of law. By this I mean that notice of the proceedings will be served on the Secretary of State and on a representative of the other signatory to the agreement, as they must both be given a right of reply. This is to enable the Secretary of State to appear and present such arguments as he or she thinks fit, and the other signatory, if it wishes, will have that opportunity, too. This is important, because the court will wish to test the argument in support of the application that is brought before it. There will be two questions before it: first, can the court be satisfied that the crime of genocide has been committed; and, secondly, should it grant the remedy to which the amendment refers?
I wish to stress that the procedure the noble Lord proposes is a very serious matter, not a mere formality. It will result, if it proceeds, in a fully reasoned judgment by one of our judges. That is its strength, as a finding by a judge in proceedings of this kind in the applicant’s favour will carry real weight, quite apart from the effect it will have on the relevant agreement. I think that it will achieve its object, but if a refinement in its wording is needed to be sure that it will do so, that refinement should certainly be made. I, too, very much hope that the Minister will support this amendment.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is imperative that we support Amendment 68, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I commend him on his excellent speech; he did indeed speak from the heart.
At the outset, I would like to say that in 1972 my family and thousands of Asians were expelled from Uganda by General Amin. I have personal experience of ill treatment being imposed on innocent people by a tyrant. I have spoken previously about crimes against humanity in your Lordships’ House. I would like to declare that I am the co-chair of the APPG for the Prevention of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this amendment, which sends a clear message that the UK will not be associated in any way with regimes found by law to be committing genocide. The amendment would mean that regulations made under this Bill to authorise the implementation of trade agreements would be revoked if the High Court of England decides that they should be, on the grounds that a signatory to a relevant trade agreement has committed genocide.
The amendment would also grant the right to persons or groups of persons belonging to national, ethnic, racial or religious groups that have been subjected to genocide to oblige the UK courts to request that a trade agreement be revoked. It is right that the High Court decides, as the court will be impartial and decisions will be arrived at logically.
In 2017, the Conservative Party published the Kigali declaration affirming our commitment to prevent and punish genocide. The declaration states:
“Whether at home or abroad we will seek to protect individuals and groups who are targeted because of their identity, from hate crime to genocide to violent extremism. Our responsibility to protect begins at home but extends around the world.”
This requires us to ensure that any potential violation of human rights is considered before doing business with any country. If the United Kingdom maintains trade agreements with states committing genocide, we risk being seen as complicit in these crimes and we send a message that our trading partners may commit genocide without any consequence.
This amendment must be accepted, because the UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 2005 Responsibility to Protect commitment. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court in 2001 incorporated the Rome statute into English law. These commitments mean that we have a legal and moral obligation to act against genocide.
I and other Members of your Lordships’ House spoke on Second Reading of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill about the treatment of Uighurs and Falun Gong in China. Evidence of the Uighur genocide is growing. The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders has estimated that 1 million Uighurs have been detained and organs are being harvested on a massive scale. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute report suggested that 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of Xinjiang between 2017 and 2019, and they are likely working under forced labour conditions while supplying global brands.
The proposed amendment is modest. The United States has gone much further to condemn and punish those responsible for those human rights abuses. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which places sanctions on officials responsible for oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang. US companies with operations in Xinjiang have been compelled to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour.
Furthermore, US Customs and Border Protection has issued five withhold release orders barring imports from such producers of cotton, apples, hair products, computer parts and other goods in the Xinjiang region. The House of Representatives recently passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act with almost unanimous support from both main parties. If this law, which now has to go to the Senate, is passed, it will ensure that goods made with forced labour in the Xinjiang region will not enter the US market.
Through these Acts, the United States holds the Chinese Government accountable and ensures that Americans do not benefit from goods created by forced labour or under potential genocide. This amendment goes some way towards this, by giving UK courts the option to remove trade co-operation with states found to be perpetrating genocide, establishing a principle that may be taken further in future legislation.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a passionate debate on an appalling subject: the brutality of man against man. It should be a given that we do not have a trade deal with a country that is responsible for genocide, but pressure can be irresistible and there will be little scrutiny of new trade deals going forward. As ever, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for ensuring that human rights are always at the forefront. I do not know how he can sleep, with all that he knows threading itself around his mind. Not everyone can do what he does. It is easier to turn aside, but we cannot and must not do so with this Bill.
We discussed this issue, as the noble Lord explained, at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Minister argued then that the Bill deals with continuity agreements and that they do not involve trading partners who might be implicated here. In the light of that earlier discussion, the movers recast Amendment 68 so that culpable regimes are more easily identified, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. He also makes the point that the purpose of the Bill is drawn more widely than simply continuity agreements, including making
“provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”
and similar wider definitions. That is why Amendment 76A is within scope.
The United Kingdom is a signatory to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was established after the Nazi genocide. Many said then, “Never again”, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, powerfully said, those are often empty words. As a signatory, we are required to prevent, protect and punish. The legal definition and threshold are set very high, as others have said. We know the difficulty of seeking international agreement that genocide has been carried out. After much delay and prevarication, a genocide was declared in Rwanda. However, even the Human Rights Council, set up to try to ensure that those whose record means that they should not qualify to be on it, now has its hands tied by those elected to be its members, including, of course, those Security Council vetoers, Russia and China.
The International Court of Justice has determined that the actions of Myanmar in relation to the Rohingya Muslims are genocide, but the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has pointed to the limits of the ICJ. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has cited the conclusions of the China Tribunal, headed by Sir Geoffrey Nice, whose work in the Balkans war crimes trials gives him the most terrible background to lead this, with crimes against humanity proved beyond all doubt. However, we also know that the scales are tipped when it comes to holding China to account. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham makes clear the hurdles for holding anyone to account on genocide.
Given the difficulty of establishing this internationally, the amendment proposes that the High Court should be asked to make a determination. I agree with my noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that that is an astute way to do this. If the court believed that the threshold of the 1948 genocide convention had been reached, trade arrangements with the offending country would be nullified. We need various means, including some of those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I am struck by the noble and learned Lord’s conclusion on the rule of law here and the strength that that brings to this issue. The arrangement proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is in keeping with those that some key American lawyers are now arguing should be applied to the UN Security Council, which could itself be taken to the ICJ if it is not addressing genocide, given the responsibility of each country to adhere to the convention.
One would hope that amendments such as these were not required and no doubt the Minister will say so, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. However, we know that genocide continues to take place and we must face that. It is easier to turn away and that is why we must put this protection in the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his amendment and his excellent speech, which said everything that needs to be said around this very difficult area, with considerable skill and a huge amount of information that we will need time to absorb.
The House seems united in the view that this is a serious issue that has a lot of support and needs to be implemented. I will be interested to hear how the Minister responds to it. What is most attractive about the amendment is the innovative use of the courts as a way of trying to give a point of factual accuracy around which decisions can be taken. I have not seen this before; it is not something that we have ever had proposed and it is worthy of further consideration. Indeed, it may have wider applications.
That puts the House in a bit of a spot. If it is clear that there is a way of checking, in a way that is respected in the use of our courts, to assess whether or not an action needs to be taken, are we not put on notice to live up to our responsibilities as signatories to this convention to prevent, protect and punish? Indeed, if we care about our moral values as a nation, we should have no grounds not to support the amendment.
Having said that, I wonder whether it is worth picking up one or two points that suggest that a bit more work on the amendment might make it achieve even more. Others have picked up on the question of why it is applied only to rollover agreements when it has the capacity to deal with all free trade agreements. Although this is a terrible thing to say, why stop at the issue of genocide? Are there not other egregious issues that would need to be considered in the same class as genocide? As my noble and learned kinsman Lord Hope said, the torture convention may well be an opportunity for further thinking around this area.
While I support what has been said today about the proposal and I want to give whatever assistance we can to the movers of the amendment, I suggest that maybe there should be other discussions before we reach Report, because what is said in the amendment goes with the grain of so many other amendments that we have looked at around the question of human rights that it would be good to see if we could find something that brought them all together. We need something that is helpful to the broader causes that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, espouses but is capable of bringing in other issues that other Members of the House also care about.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 68 and 76A in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, which seek to ensure that any regulations made under Clauses 1 or 2 are revoked in the event that the High Court makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked because the partner country has committed genocide. I was very thankful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra yesterday.
I unequivocally reiterate the Government’s commitment to upholding human rights and opposing genocide in all its forms. It is the British Government’s policy that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for government or non-judicial bodies. Our approach is to seek an end to all such violations of international law and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes. Any determination as to whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred is a matter for competent courts after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
As your Lordships are aware, the Bill enables the Government to ensure continuity in relation to specific agreements we were party to through our membership of the EU. These agreements met international obligations in respect of human rights and we have maintained, and will continue to maintain, those obligations in the agreements we sign. Should we have any concern about the behaviour of any partner country in relation to human rights abuses, we would take it up with them through the appropriate channels. In continuity agreements —the subject of our deliberations today—there are often suspensive clauses that allow us to suspend agreements in the event of human rights breaches.
We have heard again today, as we did during the debate on Amendment 33, the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. The examples he gave of the Uighur Muslims in China are truly chilling. I understand and share his concerns; the Government condemn any human rights abuses, including the egregious situation in China. As the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place on 6 October, this is not something that we can turn away from. The UK Government are playing a leading role in co-ordinating international efforts to hold China to account for these violations and we will continue to do so. We will of course continue to raise these concerns with Chinese officials.
I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said about the amendment he and other noble Lords have tabled being within the Bill’s scope. However, and I say this with regret and almost in a sense that I am using bureaucracy to counter the most passionate arguments that we have heard today, Clauses 1 and 2 can be used only to implement the GPA and non-tariff obligations from those continuity agreements we signed as a member of the EU before exit day. China is not a party to the GPA. Additionally, China does not have a free trade agreement with the EU, so Clause 2 cannot be used to implement any future free trade agreement with it.
I am of course very happy to discuss these matters further with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the other sponsors of the amendment. I reassure noble Lords that the Government take issues relating to genocide extremely seriously. I hope, for the reasons that I have offered, that the noble Lord will have confidence to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has addressed the Committee, but also for the time he has given, not just yesterday but at previous meetings, and throughout the discussions we have had so far. I know that he is trying to be constructive about this. I know that he would rather it were not in this Bill but he speaks for the entire Government, not just the silo of the Bill or his own department, when he addresses your Lordships’ House. I remind him of what I said earlier specifically about the undertakings that his own Government gave from that same Dispatch Box that an amendment would be crafted in response to the telecommunications infrastructure Bill. That has been addressed in neither the Minister’s reply nor the correspondence I have had with him and other departments involved in this. Indeed, at a previous meeting, not only was the Department for International Trade represented but the DCMS, Home Office and Foreign Office. I have done my best to try to weave this across government departments and to get a response from all the Ministers involved.
We have an opportunity inside this legislative vehicle. I will not pretend that I have the skills or the ability to craft amendments in ways that overcome the bureaucratic hurdles that the Minister referred to a few moments ago. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, say that he thought this was an innovative use of the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, talked about this as being a different way of approaching the issue. Others have talked about the astute nature of the amendment in trying to navigate these difficult waters.
When the Minister says that he has unequivocal opposition to genocide in all its forms and that is the Government’s position, I do not doubt that. I applaud it. I referred earlier to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and the unequivocal stand that he has taken on these issues. But the question for me, therefore, is: what can we do about it? It is almost as though the spirit—the shadow—of Raphael Lemkin has been here throughout the debate. My noble friend Lady Falkner was the first to mention Lemkin, but so did the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others. Raphael Lemkin lost 49 of his relatives—49 people were murdered in the Holocaust who were direct relatives of his—and coined this word: genocide. It is not a word to be used lightly. Again, I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made this point, rightly: it is not hyperbole. This is a word that should be used only in very extreme circumstances. That is why the amendment is crafted to do precisely that.
It is interesting that the Minister said that this was not a political decision but a judicial one. In my correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, this is an area about which we have disagreed because she herself has said that she thinks it should be a political decision. But the Government’s position is that it is a judicial one. Yet this gets us into the vicious circle I described earlier, where there is no competent court because of the vetoes used to prevent it being dealt with at an international level.
That takes me to the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. We were treated to an extraordinary, spellbinding and authoritative description by someone of huge standing. He told us at the conclusion of his remarks that this amendment will achieve its objective. However, he said that if refinement is necessary, he hopes that the Government will be willing to participate in providing it between now and Report. He said that it provides due process in accordance with the rule of law, and throughout the debate other noble Lords have commented on the importance of the rule of law in these circumstances. He also said that this is a very serious matter and that we have provided a mechanism in the amendment to tackle it. My noble and learned friend is a very wise man with huge judicial experience, and I hope that the Committee will take due note of what he said.
Everyone who has participated in the debate has made a valuable and interesting contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about the immense inhumanity and suffering experienced by so many people, and he said that it should be written into the DNA of all our trade agreements that we should act accordingly when doing business. As others have done, he talked about the importance of our values and where they stand in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, reminded us that business has a duty to ensure that it does not profit from genocide. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that morality and trade must walk hand in hand, and that we must hit where it hurts. My noble friend Lady Falkner reminded us not only of the origins of the word “genocide” but its implications in the way that we proceed in trying to deal with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said that the amendment would send a clear message. He talked about its symbolic importance and the creation of precedence. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reminded us of the manipulation of international bodies. She specifically referred to the Human Rights Council, where even today more votes are taking place on its membership. It seems rather like the burglar and the watchdog becoming one and the same thing when China has such a leading role in an organisation of that kind.
I will conclude in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said that there are other egregious offences that we might also wish to deal with. I simply say to him that, if that were possible, I wish that we would. However, the man who tries to go everywhere ends up going nowhere, and the man who tries to catch every hare ends up catching none.
The amendment is carefully drafted for a specific and particular purpose, which is to try to catch those who have been responsible for the kinds of genocides that we have heard about—the historic genocides that have been mentioned in the debate and those being perpetrated in the world today. Yet, in the end, my view is that the stories will not determine events. If the amendment were agreed, the High Court of England and Wales would decide whether there was a case to be answered. In those circumstances, it would trigger the removal of the agreements that had been entered into, whether they were past agreements or not. Therefore, I remind your Lordships to look again at the wording of the recast amendment, which was drafted after listening very carefully to what the Minister said at an earlier stage.
I hope that, as we go away from the debate tonight, we will see this as the beginning of a continuing discussion with the Government. The Minister should surely see the political realities after hearing the spokesmen for the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and people from the Cross Benches, and, perhaps even more importantly from his point of view, voices such as those of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Blencathra, and the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP, who is willing to co-sponsor this amendment in the House of Commons if it is incorporated into the Bill. Having seen and heard some of those realities, I hope that the Government will now work with us to iron out any imperfections in the amendment and to bring it back on Report in a better form. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 70. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press to a Division this or any other amendment in the group should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 70
“Trade negotiations with the EU: adjustment period
It shall be an objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiating a trade agreement with the European Union to secure an implementation period after IP completion day, allowing industries with just-in-time supply chains, including the farming sector, to make business-critical changes.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendments 70 and 95. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, had very much hoped to speak this evening, as he has very kindly co-signed the amendments, for which I thank him. One of the idiosyncrasies of our procedures meant that he was not able to get on to the right Marshalled List. I know that he will be following proceedings very closely and I thank him warmly for his support. I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Lansley speak to his amendment on free zones. Free ports are something that I support, and anything that we can do to increase people’s understanding of free ports and the fact that we could join and create as many free ports as we liked while we were members of the European Union is all to the good.
The purposes of Amendments 70 and 95 are straight- forward. They look to introduce a short period of adjustment following the end of the formal transition period at the end of this year, particularly in relation to any free trade agreements with the EU, but also with our economic partnership agreements and rollover agreements under the Bill. This would allow industries in the farming sector to make business-critical changes following the outcome of these negotiations. Also, for business viability, it refers to the introduction of measures to facilitate trade with our partners, both in the EU in a future trading agreement and our current economic partners, with the EEA, EFTA and others, in the rollover and continuity categories of agreements. Also, again, it looks to the minimisation of compliance costs for the farming sector, including minimising veterinary checks and physical inspections on large volumes of food products moving between the UK and our partners, particularly the EU.
I know that many of these issues were touched on in the earlier amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, so I take this opportunity to stress that we are dealing here with perishable goods, particularly fresh meat and produce. This is a particular source of concern to the British poultry business, which hopes that we will continue to have tariff-free access to the EU market to ensure quality, affordable British food. We should realise how important poultry is as an industry: more than half the meat we eat in the UK is poultry and 1 billion birds are reared for meat every year. The UK is the fourth largest producer of poultry meat in the EU and is about 60% self-sufficient.
We are very heavily dependent on trade. It is generally understood that, for trading purposes, your closest market is your best market, because obviously the cost of transport will be lower, and with this being fresh produce and, as I said, perishable, it is extremely important that we remove as many barriers as possible.
These are intended to be probing amendments, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, when he comes to sum up, will be able to put my mind at rest that it will be part of an objective in negotiating trade and continuity agreements as well as any eventual agreement with the EU to secure such an implementation period, allowing industries with just-in-time supply chains, including the farming sector, to make these business-critical changes.
I am acutely aware of the impact of this particularly on the Northern Irish border with the Republic of Ireland, so any light that my noble friend can shed on this would be extremely helpful. Equally, when I ask, in Amendment 95, to look at
“the minimisation of veterinary checks and physical inspections on large volumes of food products”,
I am aware of the shortage of veterinary scientists in this country. Has my noble friend and his department addressed this in this regard?
I therefore seek to achieve a commitment that the trade will be as frictionless and seamless as possible, as we were promised when we decided to leave the European Union. This will continue to be the case with the EEA, EFTA and the EU. With those few remarks, I beg to move Amendment 70.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity, in this group, to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh. She will forgive me if I do not speak to her two amendments but instead confine myself to Amendment 93 in my name, which relates to free zones and free ports. These are essentially the same thing; they are called free zones in the legislation that establishes the procedure for making them.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the debate on 4 February 2019 on the previous Bill that was brought forward. I had a debate whose purpose was to propose a consultation on the future designation of free zones; of course, there were and are no free zones. The Minister at the time, my noble friend Lord Bates, replied to me on that subject then. I was asking for a consultation, and he said that he was not able to offer one but that
“The idea has been advocated”—[Official Report, 4/2/19; col. 1349.]
by himself and a number of others in the north-east, including the local MP Rishi Sunak. I see that time has moved on.
I am raising the same subject but do not need to ask for a consultation on the part of the Government, because they have now had one and are readying themselves, I hope, to respond to the product of that consultation. Back in February 2019, my noble friend said at the end:
“I am not able to be more helpful than that to my noble friend at this point, much as I may wish to be”.—[Official Report, 4/2/19; col. 1349.]
So I am looking to my noble friend on the Front Bench again today to be as helpful as he wishes to be.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only to Amendment 70 in this group. We voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016 and that has been confirmed several times. We have left the EU but are currently in a one-year implementation period, which expires at the end of this calendar year. I do not believe that any further implementation period is needed, and I particularly do not think that one is needed in the context of an agreement with the EU.
The amendment says it shall be an objective in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU to secure a further implementation period—clearly ignoring the fact that we have already legislated for no further implementation period. But, if there were any issues, they would be most likely to bear on people who are exporting under WTO terms after the end of this year. So the amendment is not going to achieve the effect of helping those with complex supply chains, because those with complex supply chains who are expecting the arrangements with the EU, as part of a free trade agreement, to deliver the certainty they require will be of a much smaller order of magnitude than in the context of having no deal. We know that the Government want to achieve a deal, but it is not yet clear that we will be able to do so—so I could never support Amendment 70.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise as someone with many years of experience in supply chains, including just-in-time supply chains. This area is often a problem in trade agreements, and indeed in the operation of such free trade agreements. I remember all the difficulties affecting our shoppers when quotas and rows between the EU and China held up bras and shoes on the high seas—not perishable, but as important as chicken for many of us. Food is trickier than goods, as noble Lords will remember from strikes affecting Channel crossings and the Icelandic ash cloud.
The point I want to make is that EU exit, or any continuity or future trade agreements, are likely to lead to changes in supply chains. We should embrace this, and I am afraid that I am not convinced that we need Amendments 70 and 95.
My own view is that the combination of more border checks, whether we agree a deal on trade with the EU and EEA or not—that is the reality—will change trade flows. New FTAs will bring changes in tariff schedules, rules of origin and perhaps new provisions on standards. This could be a huge opportunity at home for British industries and parts of British agriculture, as buyers turn to home production to avoid the complexities. Of course, they will also face competition, but I know from experience as a business executive that competition makes business sharper and better.
There may be a need for some transitional arrangements in EU or other FTAs—fisheries is an obvious area—and even help for small firms wrestling with new checks. But we should not seek an additional transition period with the EU, as my noble friend Lady Noakes has just said. We should not try to preserve existing systems in aspic, however good the intentions of those debating this Bill today. We will do much better if we lead the way in embracing the opportunities of EU exit and of new trade agreements.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak first, briefly, to linked Amendments 70 and 95, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I note that a Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, today found himself getting some attention for a claim that traders were taking a “head-in-the-sand” approach to trade post Brexit. I do not think that I could do better in response than quote the chief operating officer of the Food and Drink Federation:
“If any traders have their head in the sand it’s because, after many frustrating months awaiting critical answers, they probably think it’s more likely they’ll find those answers in the sand than they will from the Government.”
That was coming from an organisation which is not, I think it would be fair to say, a natural critic of the Government. I hope that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, do not accurately reflect the view of the Government, and in particular that they do not indicate that they do not understand the extremely difficult position of small businesses, with so much else to deal with at the moment. We do not want to risk seeing them battered further on an uneven playing field by larger firms that are more likely to have the resources to react—something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just alluded.
I want to speak mostly to Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I appreciate the chance to support an amendment in his name, since we have had some disagreement on other elements of this Bill. I think that this is the first time that the issue of free zones has come up in this Committee, and I want to express the Green group’s strong opposition to the whole concept, noting that there were seven free ports in the UK at various points between 1984 and 2012 and that they were seen to have failed. Going back to the 1980s is surely not the answer for today.
I also note that the European Greens have been strong in their opposition, highlighting the links of free ports and free enterprise zones to tax avoidance, as exposed in the Madeira papers. To quote the historian, Quinn Slobodian, what they do is
“splinter the world into jurisdictions engaged in a constant competition to attract multinational companies, locking nations into a global ‘place war’ to offer businesses the most enticing incentives and the lowest labour costs.”
However, today we are mostly focusing not on the principle but on what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has created in his amendment, which is at least the chance of some democratic oversight and, crucially, a commitment to some local consultation. I would like to see in this amendment both a stronger position on local consultation and national oversight, noting that the impact is not only in the immediate area but in other economically similar areas, which are likely to see a loss of business and jobs to new zones. However, I hope we can return to that on Report. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response and perhaps what plans the Government have, particularly on local consultation and oversight, if they wish to push ahead with this revival of an old, neoliberal failure.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, when I saw this grouping, I hoped that these speeches would identify the golden thread that linked them together. There is not one, so I will speak to them separately. I will talk to Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, before coming to the other two.
I, too, agree with the noble Lord’s conjecture that there should be some parliamentary process that brings these free zones into being. I am not a fan of them, and I do not think our party is either. We think that they tend to move activity around rather than create new or larger activity, but that is not the point that we are here to debate, which is how these things are brought about and approved. I do not know about your Lordships, but I have been involved in a hell of a lot of statutory instruments in the past while, and they seem to be on some very big issues and some very trivial issues. It seems that there is no allergy in your Lordships’ House to taking on statutory instruments and trying to make decisions. Therefore to add a few more—I guess there would be a few free zones—does not seem a hugely controversial issue.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about applications coming in that had not had any form of local consultation, I can give him one idea of where people might object. There will almost certainly be planning things that will happen subsequent to the creation of a free zone, unless it is already an industrial zone. If you look at the sprawl outside airports, you start to see distribution centres and warehousing and all sorts of planning things. If I was a local resident living on the edge of or just outside somewhere that wanted to be a free zone, I would start to worry about some of those kinds of issues. So traditional planning issues would come forward—some would call them nimby and others straightforward—which would create problems, and do so for local politicians if not national ones. I am therefore very supportive of Amendment 93.
On Amendments 70 and 95, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it would not work, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that manufacturers and so on need to embrace change. They may be right in both those instances, but I should caution a little compassion for the individuals concerned who are trying to make a business work. They are trying to do so when they still do not know what the rules are and in the face of all sorts of other pressures, not least Covid but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, immense international pressure and price pressure on what they are trying to do. Therefore, while the noble Baronesses might be right, I ask them, and in particular the Minister, to approach this with some compassion. Change is easy enough for some people. My father milked cows. You do not suddenly go from producing milk to producing pork pies overnight. Those kinds of changes can and do happen, but they do not happen at the turn of the year, when, eventually, the rules emerge.
I have one final point. Perhaps all of us could spend some time reading the latest edition of the GB-EU border operating model. I think my colleague my noble friend Lord Purvis, has mentioned it before. It should be compulsory reading for everyone working on this Bill. It is 138 pages, and every page has a list of at least 10 to 20 things that have either been changed or inserted in the latest edition, which was published last week. These are the things these people who have to change or get on with it have to embrace. It is hugely difficult to understand; it is a massive issue. So, the helpful slogan
“The UK’s new start: let’s get going”
is somewhat missing the point.
There is a huge amount to be done between now and the turn of the year, and the Government and the people in this Chamber need to have some air of understanding the extent to which it is threatening people’s livelihoods and putting them under pressure. These amendments are just two ways of trying to alleviate that. Overall, there has to be a wider understanding of the role of government in getting businesses past this huge change which is happening.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, this is a slightly big reach for a group, but it has been worthwhile because we have had a bit of a fishing expedition dressed up as amendments and out of that have come a few fish, so that is quite good. It will be interesting to hear the Minister try to respond in full measure to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I am certainly looking forward to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has discovered a whole new area of interest with this identification of powers held by Treasury Ministers that are not subject to parliamentary approved procedure. That does sound a little exciting, even at this late stage of the day. We have primary and secondary legislation and now we have tertiary legislation. Perhaps, the noble Lord could speculate when he comes to respond how many more powers are buried deep in arcane laws and subplots that we have yet to discover. I look forward to hearing from him.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I do not know about fishing expeditions, but let me turn to Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering regarding securing an adjustment period with the EU after the end of the transition period. The Government have been clear, and I have made it clear today and on many occasions over the past few months, as has my noble friend Lord Grimstone, that our priority is to ensure we restore our economic and political independence on 1 January 2021. We want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and is centred on free trade. As I have said today, that is what we are pursuing.
At the second meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee in June, the Government formally notified the EU that they would neither accept nor seek any extension to the transition period. The moment by when an extension could be agreed has now passed. The transition period will end on 31 December 2020, as enshrined in UK law. Any extension would only defer the moment at which we are in charge of our own destiny. An extension to the transition period would also bind us into future EU legislation without having any say in designing it, but still having to foot the bill as we would still have to make payments into the EU budget. We need to be able to design our own rules in our best interests without the constraints of following EU rules.
The “The UK new start: let’s get going” campaign clearly sets out the actions people and businesses need to take to prepare for the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. I took note of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and he is right to highlight these matters, but I reassure him that businesses have no excuse for not knowing about the matters that need to be addressed. Over the coming weeks, we will be intensifying our engagement with businesses to ensure they are well-prepared to seize the opportunities it will bring.
I turn to Amendment 93. If there is a theme to this short debate, it has been the considerable comment made by a few Peers about free ports or free zones. As one noble Lord said, they are one and the same thing. I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his foresight in this area; it was during the 2017-19 Bill that my noble friend raised the issue of free zones, as I remember—and I remember the response from my noble friend Lord Bates at the time. I warmly welcome his support for the Government’s policy in this area.
The Government plan to introduce up to 10 free ports across the UK. I have to disagree with the general sentiments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because these will be national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce, regenerating communities across the UK. They can attract new businesses and spread jobs, investment and opportunity to towns and cities up and down the country. Specific locations will be chosen according to a fair, open and transparent allocation process, which will include significant input from the port, local authority, local enterprise partnership, local businesses, and other local partners, ensuring robust consultation with the local area.
As my noble friend Lord Lansley highlighted, the Government ran a consultation on their free ports proposals earlier this year, and a response was published by the Treasury on 7 October that sets out the final policy in detail. Further policy on the allocation process, including a clear bidding prospectus setting out what free ports will offer and how interested parties may apply, will be announced by the Treasury in due course. I hope that my noble friend will agree that this is my helpful response; the narrative of this story has not quite finished.
My noble friend also raised the issue of the use of free zones in combination with other initiatives, such as enterprise zones. This is an important point, which I am sure that the aforementioned Chancellor and my colleagues in the Treasury have heard.
I turn to the new clause proposed in Amendment 95 by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks to grant powers to reduce costs for the farming sector of complying with legislation related to the import and export of goods, including through minimising veterinary checks and physical inspections. We should be clear that government is already taking all necessary steps to support the farming sector after the end of the transition period. However, first we should highlight that export checks are set by trade partners as a condition of market access, and it is not within the Government’s gift to change these. In relation to import checks, we already carry out important physical checks on EU imports of live animals, and from January 2021 these will continue to be carried out at destination.
Secondly, the Government are committed to supporting businesses at the border after the end of the transition period. An updated publication of the Border Operating Model is now available for businesses and the agricultural sector, while the Government are holding a series of trader readiness forums open to just-in-time businesses. In addition, the Government are planning a series of seminars to support the agricultural sector through any new changes. Of course, noble Lords will be keenly aware of the support that we hope to provide to the agricultural sector through the Agriculture Bill, which, as noble Lords know only too well, is currently proceeding through the Houses.
I recognise my noble friend’s intention to support key businesses at the border, but I assure him that the appropriate actions are already taking place, and that it is important for legislation, such as this Trade Bill, to be passed to grant businesses security and continuity after the end of the transition period. In light of these explanations, I would ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to speak after the Minister.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister said in his repudiation of, or comments on, my points that businesses have no excuse for not knowing what they have to do. At the end of what I said, I asked for some empathy, and I do not think that that is a particularly empathetic response. I shall give two excuses that they might have. One is that dozens of those rules were published only last week and the other is that they might be quite busy trying to keep their businesses alive in the middle of a global pandemic.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point and I hope that he will not take this as being unempathetic; I am just making a point that focuses particularly on Brexit and the transition period. Putting aside the obvious huge problems that businesses are facing at the moment, there has been more than enough time—four years—for businesses to prepare. We have done our best to support them during this period.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend was doing quite well until that last remark. Saying “four years to prepare” when we have not even heard what the situation will be on the Northern Ireland border is not quite the approach I would have hoped for. My noble friend did not answer the question about the number of available vets. This is a source of great anxiety to many, particularly those with livestock as well as products crossing the border. I hope that my noble friend will be able to put my mind at rest on that at some point.
I agree entirely with what my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe said with regard to home-produced substitutions. To a certain extent, that should already be happening given that those involved in home-produced food have come into their own during Covid; other priorities are maintaining our existing markets and opening up third-country markets for trade in poultry, other meat and breeding stock.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who said that it is all very well to embrace change, but businesses need to know what that change is before they can do so. Certainly, all the evidence that we have heard as recently as this September, along with a letter that we have followed up with a different department, Defra, as regards the rules for the checks and controls on the borders, make it incumbent on us to get information out as best we can.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues. I have listened to what my noble friend Lord Lansley said. I just hope that we do not get to the situation that we can see in Luxembourg, which has almost more free zones than it has territory. If my memory is correct, Luxembourg has a very large number of free ports in comparison with the size of that state. However, I find it difficult to share in the enthusiasm of realising our destiny until such time as I am 100% sure of what our destiny will be. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we come now to the group commencing with Amendment 71. I remind noble Lords that anyone who wishes to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 71
Lord Freyberg
“Trade agreements involving health and care technology
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the condition in subsection (2) is met in relation to the agreement.(2) The condition in this subsection is that any agreement which relates to trade in medical algorithms, technology or devices must explicitly allow, in the case of any traded algorithm or data-driven technology which could be deployed as a medical device, for the methodology for processing sensitive data to be independently audited or scrutinised for potential harm by an appropriate regulatory body in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that traded data-driven medical devices which recommend or inform treatment and care would not be beyond scrutiny by an appropriate body.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for the opportunity to speak today about trade agreements involving healthcare data and technology and, in moving Amendment 71, I shall speak also to Amendment 72 in this group.
Noble Lords will be aware that I am a long-standing advocate for the use of patient data to provide better healthcare, and some will know that my motivation is personal to the extent that the treatment of my sister, before she passed away, very sadly, was impacted by the poor flow of healthcare information. Therefore, noble Lords can rest assured that in tabling these two amendments I do not seek to restrict the free flow of data or to introduce obstacles to vital research and innovation. I do, however, wish to guarantee patient safety in our increasingly data-driven health service and, allied to that, continued government control of publicly funded healthcare data as we move beyond the transition period post Brexit to forge new trading relationships.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to protect the healthcare data generated by the NHS as well as the safety and rights of the patients and citizens it exists to serve. I commend the way in which he introduced these amendments.
I have spoken on Second Reading and earlier in Committee about the need for data adequacy to ensure that personal data transfers to third countries outside the EU are protected in line with the principles of the GDPR. By the same token, we must protect NHS data, especially given the many transactions between technology, telecoms and pharma companies concerned with NHS data. Harnessing the value of healthcare data must be allied with ensuring that adequate protections are put in place in trade agreements if that value is not to be given or traded away.
Amendments 71 and 72 would introduce clauses to the Bill to help guarantee patient safety where the data-driven medicines and medical technologies feature in a trade agreement. These are products and services that are bound to grow in number and novelty in the future, as a direct result of both the ongoing Covid-19 health emergency and the accelerated use of new technologies. Given the number of healthcare-related amendments that have been discussed in Committee, it is very clear that there are fundamental concerns about protection of the NHS and the safety, efficacy and cost of the healthcare services that it delivers. There is the potential for the Government to lose control at precisely the moment they propose to take it back. That is why I have put my name to, and support, Amendments 71 and 72.
In July, in the case of Schrems II, the European Court of Justice ruled that the privacy shield framework, which allows data transfers between the US, the UK and the EU, is invalid. That has been compounded by the recent ECJ judgment this month in the case brought by Privacy International. In future, data exporters will have to rely on standard contractual clauses. Relying on standard contractual clauses in healthcare is simply not acceptable. Relevant to Amendment 72 in particular, there is a common assumption that, apart from any data adequacy issues, data stored in the UK is subject only to UK law. This is not the case: in March 2018, the US Government enacted the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, or CLOUD Act, which allows law enforcement agencies to demand access to data stored on servers hosted by US-based tech firms, such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and Google, regardless of the data’s physical location and without issuing a request for mutual legal assistance. In practice, data might be resident in the UK, but it is still subject to US law.
Data cannot, therefore, simply be considered UK sovereign, and it is notable that Amazon Web Services gave a full response to more than 1,259 subpoenas, search warrants and court orders between January and June of this year. AWS’s own terms and conditions, which form part of its agreements with the UK Government, do not commit to keeping data in the region selected by government officials if AWS is required by law to move the data elsewhere in the world. Key and sensitive aspects of government data, such as security and access rules, usage policies and permissions, may also be transferred to the US without Amazon having to seek advance permission. Similarly, AWS has the right to request customer data and provide support services from anywhere in the world.
The Cabinet Office Government Digital Service team, which sets the Government’s digital policy, gives no guidance on where government data should be hosted. It simply states that all data categorised as official —the vast majority of government data, but including law enforcement, biometric and patient data—is suitable for the public cloud, and instructs its own staff simply to use AWS, with no guidance given on where the data must be hosted. The costs of AWS varies widely, depending on the region selected—and the UK is one of the most expensive regions. Regions are physically selected by the technical staff, rather than the procurement team or the security team. I should say that Amazon Web Services has a contract with NHSX, so that should be set in this context.
The free flow of data across borders, in principle, is of crucial importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said. However, I hope this example illustrates that control of policy and regulation as to what that data is and who it is shared with should be retained by the UK Government. In fact, that is not even enough existing control over government data. In particular, retention of control over health data, health service planning, and research and innovation is vital if the UK is to maintain its position as a leading life sciences economy and innovator. That is what these amendments would ensure.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, is to be congratulated on bringing these amendments to the forefront of our discussions and considerations, not least because, as he said, at the heart of them is an attempt to guarantee patient safety. That should be a paramount reason for giving them the active consideration we are.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, there is a significant value to NHS data for a number of reasons: expanding research, testing technology, better under- standing of diseases and, of course, improving treatments. The fiscal value of NHS data cannot be underlined strongly enough—imagine its value if an insurance company were to find, for instance, access to data concerning test, track and trace.
The value of all this data is estimated to be around £10 billion a year, but, as I have mentioned before, the Bill in its current form could allow UK data to be moved to servers in America and stop the NHS being able to analyse its own health data without paying royalties. We should not pretend that tech companies and US drug giants do not recognise the value of all this data; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has given ample voice to that argument.
Last year, it was revealed that pharma companies Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly paid the Government for licences costing up to £330,000 each, in return for anonymised health data. The Government, as has been said earlier, have also given Amazon access to healthcare information, and DeepMind was given access to the data of 1.6 million patients at the Royal Free Hospital.
As we have touched on before in a previous group, Labour supports protecting the NHS, including its data and publicly funded health and care services, from any form of control from outside the UK in trade deals. I have already pulled out the inconsistencies in the Government’s position. They say the NHS is not on the table in trade talks, but they will not put protections on the face of the Bill. What have they got to hide? They do not want to improve scrutiny mechanisms for trade agreements, and I think we should be concerned and highly worried about that.
I am not the only one to recognise this: more than 400 doctors and health professionals have urged the Government to amend the Bill and ensure that health services are not on the table in future trade deals. They have also argued that free trade deals risk compromising the safe storage and processing of NHS data. Let us commit in statute to protecting our beloved NHS in trade deals and making sure we can use valuable data to provide the most cutting-edge care for patients here in the UK.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 71 and 72, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Freyberg. I express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, having heard the background to his interest in health data. Before I turn to the detail of these amendments, I hope I made clear on the second day of Committee the Government’s absolute commitment that the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.
I have heard your Lordships’ concerns that medical data or access to suitable medicines may be affected by our programme of trade agreements. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that this is not the case. As noble Lords know, the NHS is usually protected through a range of exceptions, exclusions and reservations in trade agreements. The Government will continue to ensure that the same rigorous protections are included in future trade agreements, safeguarding the NHS against the privatisation that we are often accused of plotting. Our published negotiating mandates for the US, Australia and New Zealand make the Government’s commitment to the NHS crystal clear: it is not for sale.
We need the powers in this Bill to provide continuity of trading relationships with existing partners, avoiding disruption for businesses and consumers. Our continuity programme does not seek to change the way in which public services or health services are delivered. None of the 21 agreements we have signed has had any substantive effect on the way in which health services will be provided.
Amendment 71 stipulates that regulations could be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if they allowed for the scrutiny of medical algorithms, technology or devices with respect to the methodology for the processing of sensitive data. I reassure your Lordships that before any medical device can be placed on the UK market, it must have been assessed as complying with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. These regulations cannot be superseded by a trade negotiation without further legislation.
The MHRA is the designated competent authority that administers and enforces the law on medical devices in the UK. At the end of the transition period, the role of the MHRA in the UK will be the same as now. It will retain sovereignty over all aspects of medical device regulation in the UK, regardless of any FTAs agreed. Furthermore, the Government are clear that health and care data should only ever be used and/or shared where used lawfully, treated with respect, held securely and where the right safeguards are in place. The UK’s high standards of data protection will be maintained in all trade agreements. In other words, these are decisions for Parliament and Parliament alone. Your Lordships, and colleagues in the other place, will have full oversight over continuity agreements through the use of the affirmative procedure for any regulations made relating to medical devices.
I turn to Amendment 72. This stipulates that regulations could be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if they do not restrict our ability to process and manage patient, public health and social care data, and if they contain an explicit exclusion of investor-state dispute settlement for access to medical data. No trade agreements, whether with continuity partners or new FTAs, will affect our ability to decide which services involve private providers. The Government are acutely aware of the strength of feeling on these issues in this House and of our colleagues in the other place. I repeat: the NHS is not, and never will be, on the table, not least because your Lordships would not allow it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it is absolutely crucial that data is always protected to the highest standards, including when the NHS enters into partnerships with research and commercial organisations. NHS organisations must continue to meet the highest standards of transparency and accountability and ensure that partnerships have explicit benefits to patients and people in the UK. Decisions made about the use of health and care data will prioritise patient and public benefit and ensure that data is kept safely and securely.
As I have said before, none of the 21 agreements we have signed makes any provision for investor-state dispute settlement in the UK. However, because our signed agreements do not have explicit exclusions relating to ISDS for patient data, this amendment would force us to return to negotiations with all 21 partners and seek the introduction of this exclusion. This cannot be a proportionate step.
I have confirmed to your Lordships that our health service will be protected through trade negotiations. However, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which will also progress through Committee in this House in the coming weeks, may be a suitable vehicle if your Lordships consider that further reassurances on this technical subject are required. I would be happy to facilitate a conversation to that effect if it would be helpful.
I hope that these reassurances will give your Lordships confidence that the NHS will not be harmed by our trade agreements and that the amendment can therefore be withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I will take him up on his offer to facilitate further discussions on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill.
I take the point that the Government prize the privacy, safety and security of citizens above all else, including their data rights, and have not and would never relinquish control of policy-making or regulation in respect of the same. However, the Minister will be aware that the pandemic has given rise to significant emergency powers on healthcare data, which the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made plain are required to combat the virus.
He also indicated that the Government mean to retain some of those powers in future, which implies additional responsibilities to steward healthcare data in an ethical manner resting with central government for the foreseeable future. Without Amendment 72, I do not see how the Minister could commit to doing so, since it is clearly necessary for the Government to retain the ability to assess and audit any and every medical algorithm, technology, device and use of data for the delivery of safe, effective and lawful care to their citizens, free from commercial, state or any other limitations on the UK’s sovereign control.
The Minister also mentioned the continuity legislation; as such, provisions to protect the NHS are not required, because existing trade deals already provide such protections. Where such provisions might exist for health and care services, they are distinct from data-driven products in the form of medical devices—which are the subject of a dedicated Bill that is also making its way through Parliament, as the Minister just said—and data-processing services and IT systems for which the NHS has overarching responsibility. The former are widely anticipated to grow in number and novelty as a direct result of the pandemic, and the primacy of patient safety should therefore be reflected in the Bill. The latter are in the news daily—not always for the best reasons. The reliance of the UK economy on them is now such that I am sure the Minister would agree that it is imperative that Her Majesty’s Government retain control of and sovereignty over them.
I shall take back what the Minister has said and reflect on it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 77. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 6: Provision of advice, support and assistance by the TRA
Amendment 77
Baroness Hayman
“( ) analysis of how proposed measures align with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment provides that, when the Trade Remedies Authority provides the Secretary of State with advice, that advice includes analysis of how any trade remedy measures being proposed would align (or not) with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, and Lady Kramer, who have added their names to my Amendment 77. I also welcome and support Amendment 83A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which is in this group. In these amendments, we return to the discussions on how we align the UK’s future trade policy with our climate and environmental obligations. When we discussed these issues on the second day in Committee, there was considerable support from all Benches for such alignment and for ensuring that those obligations and targets were in no way undermined by future trade agreements.
The Minister was sympathetic to these objectives but argued that the previous amendments were unnecessary because the Bill was focused on continuity agreements. We may return to that debate as a later stage but, for now, Amendment 77 approaches the issue from a different perspective—that of the new Trade Remedies Authority, which is very much something for the future.
Amendment 77 aims to ensure that the trade dispute process and any advice and guidance given to the Secretary of State by the new Trade Remedies Authority factor in climate and environmental considerations. If the UK’s climate and environmental goals and obligations were omitted from the advice, discussions and negotiations surrounding a trade dispute, there is a real risk that the Secretary of State would not be considering all the impacts of any proposed trade remedy measure. Amendment 77 is one simple step that the Government can take to minimise the risks that could arise from narrowly focused trade policy and its impact on our environmental and climate goals.
The new Trade Remedies Authority will provide advice on trade remedies to the Secretary of State. Its aim is to protect domestic industries against injury caused by unfair trading practices such as dumping subsidies or unforeseen surges in imports. The Government have confirmed that one of the key roles of the Trade Remedies Authority will be to provide an assessment of the economic impact of a particular trade remedy. However, as well as the economic impact, it is vital that any assessment includes the impact that the proposed measures would have on the UK’s climate and environmental obligations under international law, such as the Paris Agreement.
Trade policy is about economic impacts, of course, but it is also about more than that, as the passionate debate on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, earlier this evening demonstrated only too clearly. Ensuring high environmental standards and entering into trade agreements that align with our climate and environmental goals clearly can bring additional economic and social benefits. Equally, a failure to factor in climate and environmental considerations when advising on a trade dispute could lead to unintended consequences.
If a proposed remedy were to cut across the UK’s climate and environmental goals, this would be highly relevant information and it would be essential that the Secretary of State were fully informed—and not just the Secretary of State; Parliament and the public would need to know as well. For that reason, I will be very supportive of Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about making advice from the TRA public, when we come to it.
This is a straightforward issue. It is about ensuring that a climate and environmental lens is put across the advice given by the Trade Remedies Authority on trade disputes. This Bill is currently silent on climate and the environment—the defining issue of our age. In the year leading up to COP 26, the importance of the UK showing climate leadership is clear. This amendment will be one small demonstration of our commitment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 77 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Kramer. I also support Amendment 83A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
We have had lots of opportunities in this debate, and have rehearsed the environmental aspects at great length, but it is good to have another opportunity to remind the Minister of the strength of feeling on this issue. It is worth saying again that nothing is in a box, and so it is not appropriate to talk about trade and trade policy as only an economic manoeuvre. Trade has a huge impact on every aspect of our lives, from the price of tomatoes to how much pollution gets washed into our seas, and so we must be very responsible when we are a trading partner.
The Institute for Government, which calls itself
“the leading think tank working to make government more effective”
has raised some problems concerning our national environmental sustainability. It has been a year since we signed up to a zero-carbon target and we have just over a year until we host COP 26, when we will be held accountable for our progress, or lack of it, on the environment. At the moment, the UK is a long way off track, and there is no credible plan for meeting that zero-carbon target. Trade will be crucial in helping us to meet it. We have reduced emissions, particularly in the power sector, but emissions now need to fall in much more difficult sectors where progress has stalled. This will go to the heart of people’s lives. It is for us to ensure that we achieve these things, not from a point of view of some imaginary global perspective, but for the here and now, for everybody’s lives in the UK and globally.
The various impacts of climate change, including hotter summers and more severe flooding, have barely been acknowledged by this Government. A local firefighter recently told me that they now spend more time dealing with floods than with fires, yet the Government do not see fit to give them dedicated funding for that. This is a Government who are unable to see the interconnectedness of everything. There has been a dire lack of political leadership, but there is a way forward if we can develop a coherent plan which includes all our trade commitments, with emissions targets for each sector of our economy. This would give businesses some certainty, which at the moment they are missing.
We also need a consistent regulatory system for each sector, co-ordinated work across the whole of government —I nearly laughed when I said that—minimising the costs of transition to a zero-carbon economy and consent by public and politicians. That means being transparent and explaining what we are going to do, so that there is buy-in from everybody.
Finally, there must be effective scrutiny. When there is no scrutiny, mistakes are made. Scrutiny is what this House is for. We do the effective scrutiny to try to prevent the Government from making some gross errors.
This amendment would be a welcome addition to the Bill, but it needs the binding force of some of the amendments discussed earlier. This is an opportunity for the Minister to detail exactly how the Government will analyse the environmental impacts and obligations of trade agreements.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important amendment. On matters of the environment, there has been a lot of rhetoric and aspirational thought. There are international agreements to which we are, I hope, firmly signed up. However, the point about moving forward on the environment is that we need muscle. We should be talking far more about how our trade policy can assist in fulfilling our obligations under existing environmental policy. It is too easy to begin a process of erosion whereby, for reasons of rationalisation or whatever, we begin to backslide. The amendment is a step towards ensuring that that cannot happen.
Part of our obligation in environmental policy is to ensure that the burdens that fall and the challenges that come to third-world countries are given pride of place. For that reason, we must regard fulfilling our obligations towards third-world countries as very much part of fulfilling our environmental obligations. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for having introduced this amendment and it will certainly have my support.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for being a late newcomer to Trade Bill proceedings, but other Bills and committees have conspired against my taking part thus far. I want to speak in favour of both these amendments and to explain Amendment 83A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer and to which my name is added in the latest Marshalled List.
Whereas Amendment 77 relates to TRA advice, Amendment 83A relates to the economic interest test used as part of determining the final level of trade remedy measures. In the test, there is analysis of a range of socioeconomic matters in order to conclude whether the application of a trade remedy that is otherwise justified by virtue of dumping, subsidy or a surge in imports and that is causing harm to UK industry is also in the UK’s overall interest. Although the test broadly follows the EU’s Union interest test, as commented in the Brick Court Chambers blog on 24 September, it
“has the potential to play a strengthened and more prominent role than has been the case to date with the EU”.
I would add that, perhaps obviously, it can be more granular when applied to an individual country.
Under the economic interest test, the remedy can be diminished or set aside if stakeholder interests harmed by the remedy disproportionately outweigh those of the industry harmed, along with its related stakeholder effects. Amendment 83A requires that environmental obligations be part of that analysis. It is a probing amendment, not least because it would need to be put into Schedule 5, as well as Schedule 4, to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act in order to cover safeguarding measures as well, but I am sure that noble Lords understand the point.
Paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 to that Act lists the things that must be taken into account in the economic interest test. These are: industry, consumers, geographic areas, particular groups, the competitive environment and the structure of markets. Although there is a sweep-up provision enabling the TRA to consider anything that it considers relevant, the environment, with its unique importance—one could say for the future of everything—should surely have a place among the compulsory considerations.
By way of example, I recall discussions some time ago about solar panels and whether it is better to have cheap ones that everyone can afford, and hence greater deployment, or to have ones that protect an industry and jobs, and which will last better for the longer term, especially if the domestic industry goes. Added to that is the question of how you take account of carbon-dumping in the manufacture. Such socioeconomic wrangles are no simple matter, and there might not always be an environmental angle, but if this kind of weighing-up is to be done then environmental aspects should be in the mandatory checklist.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and speak to Amendment 77. We all know that carbon, and in particular net zero by 2050, are currently important political topics. I am afraid that, as far as many people are concerned, that is often where it starts and more or less where it ends, and thereafter it is thought to be something to do with the Government.
In recent months, in my capacity as chairman of the Cumbria local enterprise partnership, I have been involved on the fringe of how carbon policies should be developed and applied in the county. The key to doing that is to develop a language and accounting standards appropriate to accurately measuring the important aspects of the matter and then generating debate about it. The trouble is that to most people these things are at best unfamiliar, very often counterintuitive and almost incomprehensible.
We cannot, I believe, make serious progress in this area—to be serious, progress has to be accepted by the population at large—unless there is a widespread understanding and acceptance of these things in the same way as traditional accounting and economics are the basis of current politics. Green accounting and green economics will be as important as traditional accounting and economics. Indeed, they already are, and we are going through a revolution that is just getting under way. That has already been mentioned in the discussion about this amendment.
On top of that, if ever John Donne was right, it was when he said that no man is an island. I have been criticised by my scientist friends for saying that increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere is like putting the globe into a microwave. That may be bad science, but I think it makes the point. It is the globe that is the battlefield upon which this contest is fought, so it does not matter where the emissions originate; they impact everywhere. Therefore, as is frequently and rightly commented, how our economic life impacts both domestically and on the rest of the world is not simply a domestic issue, hence the importance of the amendment. I believe that it goes back to metrics, the language and engendering an understanding of the issues.
The crucial point about this particular topic is that it cannot be kept in a silo. Environmental policies and problems affect everyone around the globe. It is therefore very important that the Government take the lead in ensuring that these matters enter the general debate of political discourse, and it seems to me that what we are discussing with this amendment would be a very good place to start. We could begin to show that we are serious about what we are saying and to uphold our country’s credentials as one that is concerned about the environment.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments I declare my interest as chair of the advisory committee of Weber Shandwick UK and as a non-executive director of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
The Government’s policy on climate change, particularly their policy of net zero UK emissions by 2050, is a laudable one that is widely supported across this House, but regrettably one of its most notable features is the absence of any plan to achieve it. Just last week, in answer to a Question in the House from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about sponsorship of COP 26 and concern that oil companies among others might use it for a spot of greenwashing, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, told the House:
“We are looking for companies committed to reaching net zero by 2050 with a credible short-term action plan to achieve this.”—[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. 516.]
In view of that Answer, I asked him whether he did not think it was time that the Government themselves had a credible short-term action plan to meet that goal. He agreed that it was, but, sadly, that one does not exist, although it is promised—“shortly”, I think he said, which I am afraid did not give me much reassurance.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, am extremely sympathetic to these amendments and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for bringing them forward. As she argued, trade policy is about much more than trade, and it is truly shocking that the Bill is currently completely silent on climate change and its impact on the environment.
These amendments would encourage the Trade Remedies Authority to take account of our environmental obligations and give advice to the Secretary of State accordingly. As colleagues have previously said, the issues of climate change and environmental protection should be central to all our future considerations of trade policy, but this goes totally unmentioned in the Bill.
Labour believes that achieving our environmental goals, including net zero by 2050, requires action across all areas of policy. For that reason, trade must be included in that, so the TRA should play its part, too. My question is very simple: can the Minister confirm how the TRA will take account of UK environmental obligations, and will he please enable it to give that advice to the Secretary of State?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken during the course of this Bill of the Government’s commitment to addressing the global environmental challenges that we face. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that we should continue to debate these very important matters, not just for the UK but for our whole planet. On this at least, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Jones and Lady Kramer, and I are in full agreement. However, we cannot accept the amendments, and it is incumbent on me to explain why.
Amendment 77, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Kramer, would create a new role for the TRA when it provides advice and support to the Secretary of State, by requiring it to analyse impacts on the UK’s international environmental obligations. This amendment would fundamentally change the function of the TRA, which is being established to act as the UK’s investigatory body for trade remedies. Its core role will be to determine whether to recommend imposing trade remedy measures, in accordance with the rules set out in the relevant WTO agreements. Its role does not and should not extend to providing expertise on the UK’s international environmental obligations. To do so would detract from its function as the UK’s investigatory body for trade remedies. This expertise lies elsewhere across other departments and NDPBs, and requiring the TRA to duplicate it is both unnecessary and wasteful.
I turn to Amendment 83A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. The amendment would add further criteria to when the Trade Remedies Authority or the Secretary of State consider whether anti-dumping or anti-subsidy remedies meet the economic interest test. Specifically, it would require the UK’s environmental obligations to be taken into account, as far as they are relevant. As with the previous amendment, the primary focus of trade remedy cases is, and has to be, protecting domestic industry from injury where appropriate. Trade remedies cases are not the vehicle for progressing the UK’s domestic or global ambitions on environmental issues, although environmental implications could be considered by the Secretary of State as part of her consideration of whether the measure is in the public interest. On this basis, I would ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who contributed to this short debate. Of course, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. Ministers at the Dispatch Box—and I do not doubt their sincerity—talk about the Government’s commitments in this area, but we hear more talk about general commitment and less talk about specific actions. Time is running out; we are behind in our own targets for reaching net zero by 2050, and I maintain the view that, as legislators, it is important that we put a climate focus on every policy and piece of legislation. In the area of trade, with its international repercussions, there is an overwhelming argument for so doing. But perhaps we will revert to these issues, and the Bill’s silence on climate issues, at a future date. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 78. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate. I inform the Committee that if Amendment 78 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 79.
Amendment 78
Baroness Kramer
“(c) protect the TRA’s operational independence and its ability to make impartial assessments when performing its functions.”
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, under the Bill, the UK’s current Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate, part of the Department for International Trade, will be replaced at the end of transition by the Trade Remedies Authority. Responsibilities that fell to the European Commission under the common commercial policy during the years of our membership will be ours to decide, but in this arena no one acts in a vacuum. The TRA powers in the Bill reflect three separate agreements of the WTO: the agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, commonly known as the anti-dumping agreement; the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures; and the agreement on safeguards.
However, how we position ourselves is not simple. The EU, for example, has in recent years made its own findings of significant distortions in exporting economies, and those decisions may be challenged in the dispute settlement proceedings of the WTO. Where will we in the UK position ourselves?
Our economy, whether the Government like it or not, is deeply interlinked with the EU economy, so that many actions against the EU will also encompass the UK. Some way will have to be found to co-operate with the EU, and, often, to synchronise trade remedies—or, frankly, businesses will be left in a completely impossible position. The European Commission has ongoing investigations in at least 20 cases, including multiple cases against China, the USA and India on goods ranging from steel and biodiesel to electric bicycles and tableware. It is also a complainant and, in other cases, a defendant in a number of cases in the WTO dispute resolution system that have consequences for the UK.
So it is crucial that the TRA is operationally independent and impartial in its assessments as it deals with complaints brought to it by industry or—I hope rarely—investigates concerns brought by the Secretary of State. But, if it is to have standing and credibility, it must be seen to be above international, electoral and party politics. Under the current Government, this is not easy, as illustrated by the article on “shaking up the state” in last week’s Financial Times. In discussing bodies such as the TRA, one of Boris Johnson’s allies is quoted as saying that
“Labour stuffed these bodies with their people; now it’s our turn.”
That is not an appropriate reputation for a body such as the Trade Remedies Authority.
I have done my best to trawl through this Bill, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and the raft of related SIs, but I have yet to find any unambiguous statement that the TRA is required to be operationally independent and impartial in its assessments. The Government might say that both are implied in clauses that deal with the behaviour of the Secretary of State towards the TRA. Those clauses include a “must have regard” in Part 2, and again in the “Guidance” paragraph of Schedule 4. However, |your Lordships will be aware that a “have regard” only sometimes has consequences. I have worked for years now with financial regulators who consider a “must have regard” as pretty light touch.
These concerns sit behind Amendments 78 and 114, and the first paragraph of Amendment 104, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Bowles. They would make unambiguous the requirement for the TRA to be operationally independent and impartial. Amendment 79 is also in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Bowles. It approaches the issue from a different angle. It seeks to require proper resources and funding for the TRA and thereby assure its independence. My noble friend will expand on this issue.
The second two paragraphs of Amendment 104 tackle a rather different problem. I can read in the Bill that the Secretary of State can accept or reject a recommendation from the TRA on dumping, subsidisation or guarantees, but I am unclear whether the Secretary of State can vary a recommendation or act without a TRA recommendation. Could the Secretary of State accept one element of a recommendation and ignore another part? This is a genuinely probing amendment and I hope that the Minister can provide some absolute clarity, because the issue is fundamental. The role and authority of the TRA will be disclosed by his answer.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I assume that Amendments 104A and 108A are essentially tidying-up amendments—my apologies if that is wrong, but that is how I read them. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 105, which would go some way to deal with a serious flaw in the balance between Parliament and the Executive.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, at this late hour, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the debate on the predecessor Bill on 4 February 2019, in which I made similar points to those that are reflected in the three amendments in my name in this group. Regarding what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, I do not think Amendments 104A and 108A are tidying up. They are there to delete the possibility that the chief executive of the Trade Remedies Authority might be appointed by the Secretary of State in the first instance where the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority has not been appointed.
We are in a situation where, if the Bill were to pass into law before the end of the year and if it were to be commenced rapidly, we already have a chair designate of the Trade Remedies Authority. We happen not to have a chief executive designate. We are in the unhappy position where the Trade Remedies Authority has been legislated for for a couple of years but has not actually existed because this Bill was supposed to have become law alongside the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act. In that time, it has had a chair designate, who then stood down to be replaced in February this year, and a chief executive designate, who stood down in April this year and has not been replaced, so it is not a happy story so far. We cannot have a situation where the first chief executive of the body proper is not appointed by the chair designate who is in place, and I see no reason why that provision of Schedule 4(2) should not now be taken out and, as a consequence of that, paragraphs 17 to 23 of Schedule 4 can be removed since they all relate to that possibility.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, what is more important is the issue of the appointment of the chair and that, in order to reflect the importance of the role and the impact it can have in the public domain —including, obviously, from a business point of view, the economic domain in particular—and because of the requirement for independence, this should be an appointment where, before it is made, the Secretary of State should seek the views of the International Trade Select Committee in the other place.
Interestingly, I have asked the chair of the International Trade Select Committee in the Commons whether it has seen the chair designate of the Trade Remedies Authority and, as of last week, it had not. It seems to me that the department has been somewhat remiss not to put the chair designate in front of the Select Committee and to seek its views, and, not least because we had this debate back in 2019, it could easily have done it when it came to appoint a new chair designate in 2020. However, it has chosen not to do so. I think that the time has now come for Ministers to agree that this role should be one where the Secretary of State takes the views of the Select Committee before making the appointment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendments 78, 79, 104 and 114, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kramer and in my name.
Amendments 78 and 114 would amend similar wording in Clause 6 and Schedule 4, where in both places the Bill has the provision that the Secretary of State must
“have regard to the expertise of the TRA and to the need to protect … its operational independence, and … its ability to make impartial assessments when performing its functions.”
We have heard several times in this House, including from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that “have regard” has no force, so these amendments are intended to get the operational independence and impartial assessments out from governance by the weak words “have regard”. I will not labour the point any further save to say that the independence of the TRA is very important for international credibility, and indeed not only with regard to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 104 also goes to the matter of independence, as my noble friend Lady Kramer has already explained. It would explicitly put into legislation things that have been said, understood or only indirectly recited. I believe that in the other place the Minister, Greg Hands, said that if there was no recommendation, that was the end of the matter. However, it would be good to see it in the Bill. Likewise, I am curious about whether there could be an order for an instant reopening in the event of no recommendation. It seems a good idea to clarify that the end means the end unless circumstances change.
Amendment 79 is a little different in that it relates to funding and inserts into Clause 6 that when the Secretary of State seeks advice, there must also be regard to the capacity and funding of the TRA. Although I regret the omnipresent “regard”, that is important, because TRA funding is determined by the Secretary of State, as is stated in paragraph 29 of Schedule 4. We wanted to probe a little to make sure that the TRA will have sufficient funding.
With trade matters coming under UK control, success and funding are linked. It will be no good if the TRA finds itself in the situation that it cannot do things for fear of cost or the cost of litigation, which has hampered other regulators and authorities. That might please some if they think they come under less scrutiny from a supervisor, but this is not a supervisor but batting for the UK. Will there be a formula that relates to workload, and is it appreciated that workload is not under the control of the TRA? Workload happens because of actions in other countries, and what the TRA does or does not do can be hauled up before the Upper Tribunal as well as the WTO.
I understand that the Secretary of State has shied away from having the arrangements of the CMA, which are seen as much more costly, and I have to say the salaries on offer in the advertisements for TRA posts are low by international standards. Will that be reflected in lack of experience and possibly in staff retention once staff are trained up and the private sector beckons? Will these matters be seriously kept under review or will the TRA just be told to suffer the squeeze? Would the TRA be allowed to raise funds of its own? I have some concerns there around the issue of independence, but I think we ought to know. I appreciate that these probing questions go further than the amendment, but the last thing we want is the TRA explaining to Select Committees or the Upper Tribunal how it has funding for only half the job.
I also agree with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and although he does not seek a committee approval of a nominee for chair, I have personal experience of holding the power of approval over appointments and reappointments of chairs and chief executives for all the European financial services authorities, and pre and post-appointment hearings for potential candidates for the board of the European Central Bank. Although those powers were resisted in the first instance and my committee had to wring them out of the Commission, the European Council and Eurogroup, almost immediately those bodies decided that these were rather constructive things to have. They were always phoning me up to ask more about what the Parliament thought, and the UK should be brave enough to follow suit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important and valuable group of amendments and I congratulate my colleagues on bringing them forward and providing us with the opportunity to shine a bit more light on the Trade Remedies Authority. Labour believes that the creation of the TRA is necessary and welcome, in principle, once the UK has finally left the EU, so that we can protect domestic industries in our own right, investigate allegations of unfair practices by overseas competitors and seek their resolution via the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanisms.
However, we are also worried that the new Trade Remedies Authority lacks the stakeholder engagement, independence and parliamentary oversight and accountability to ensure that it will operate transparently and fairly when investigating and challenging practices that distort competition against UK producers, in breach of international trade rules. It is no secret that similar concerns were shared by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, which said that
“it is not clear why … the functions and powers of the Trade Remedies Authority cannot be set out in more detail in this Bill”.
Schedule 4 states that the Secretary of State will appoint the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority, who will in turn appoint the chief executive and non-executive members. This process needs to ensure an independence of thought and action at the TRA. The Secretary of State should not appoint someone just in their own image, or necessarily with the same political leanings and economic opinion. We cannot have an unbalanced TRA that looks only at the approach favoured by the Government. The chair must balance interests in exactly the right way to do these things. Can the Minister therefore explain how independence at the TRA will be guaranteed? Can he explain what parliamentary involvement there will be to ensure that independence and that, whoever the chair is, they receive representations from across industry, employers, the unions, consumer groups, and the devolved nations? How will the TRA ensure a wide membership?
It is clear that we need a functioning TRA and a functioning trade remedies system, but that functioning will be undermined if there is no independence. This group of amendments enables us to focus on that important thing. I must say that I am very much drawn to the constitutional innovation of having confirmation hearings, so that at least questions can be asked by parliamentarians of the process and of those involved.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the amendments tabled by noble Lords are intended to reinforce the independence and impartiality of the TRA, but I reassure them that this legislation has already been designed with this in mind. Both the Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act have inbuilt protections of the TRA’s impartiality that already address many of these points. I reassure the Committee that we want the TRA to be independent and impartial, because it is the absolute requirement for a body of that sort.
Turning first to Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, it is of course important that the Secretary of State has regard to the operational independence and impartiality of the TRA. But imposing a positive duty may require the Secretary of State to take potentially excessive steps to protect the TRA’s independence, which might prevent her making any requests at all, thereby depriving her of the vital expertise that the TRA holds.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for making it clear that the Secretary of State—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I apologise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would like to speak after the Minister. I got that message late.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful. Just for the avoidance of doubt, will my noble friend the Minister agree that it is not without precedent for pre-appointment hearings to take place for appointments made by Ministers? I think that under the Cabinet Office guidance there are about 50 of such. I was not proposing that the chair of the Trade Remedies Authority be included, although, frankly, the fact of it having public impact, being important and being required to be independent would justify including it in that list. Will my noble friend go away and consider whether this appointment should be subject to pre-appointment hearing?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that question. I have some skin in this game, because I was the author of the public appointments code in which these requirements appear. I shall certainly consider the point that he has raised and write to him about it, but, frankly, with no great confidence that I will agree with him when I do so.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
When the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, drew up that framework for public appointments, there was no way in which he could have anticipated this role, so I hope that he will look closely at the role of the TRA chair and listen closely to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State cannot vary duties recommended by the TRA and cannot, without the TRA’s say-so, impose those duties. I appreciate that clarification.
I smiled at the thought that there might be “excessive steps” to protect the independence and impartiality of the TRA. It is hard to think of anything that would be excessive if it were to support those principles of independence and impartiality, so fundamental are they to the role.
Given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.