House of Commons

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 14 October 2020

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It has come to my attention that, owing to an oversight in the Public Bill Office, the Government were not invited to signify Queen’s consent last night on Third Reading of the Fisheries Bill. I am satisfied that Queen’s consent is required and that it has been obtained, as it was signified for the Bill in the House of Lords on Wednesday 15 July this year. If a Privy Councillor will now signify formally that the Queen’s consent was obtained for this Bill, I will direct that the appropriate entry be made in the Journal for yesterday’s proceedings.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations on UK trade negotiations with the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I have regular discussions with Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including EU negotiations. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations meets regularly. My Cabinet and ministerial colleagues frequently meet Ministers from the devolved Administrations.

[David Linden]

Tomorrow is the day the Prime Minister has set as the deadline for a trade deal with the EU. So far, the devolved Administrations have been left out of the loop or deliberately kept in the dark on some details. Does the Secretary of State believe that withholding key information and detail at such a stage as this shows respect or disrespect to the devolved Administrations?

[Simon Hart]

I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s accusation. Given the number of meetings I have personally been in with Ministers from the devolved nations, let alone other colleagues, it would be a difficult charge to land to suggest that they have not been closely involved with the process right from the beginning. I suspect his comments are based on the fact that he does not like the reality of what is going on, rather than being a legitimate comment.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Last week, it was revealed that the Secretary of State’s Government have actively sought to conceal information from the Welsh Government. This information included the likelihood of food shortages and their intention to grab new powers. That does not sound like inter- governmental parity of esteem. Where does his role to represent the Tory party in Wales stop and his role to build trust and mutual respect start?

[Simon Hart]

The first responsibility in this particular context is to respect the fact that 55% of people in Wales voted to leave the European Union, and it seems astonishing that the party of Wales, represented by the right hon. Lady, is still so out of step with the people of Wales when it comes to that. The clock is not being turned back, and what we are attempting to do is to deliver a deal that respects that decision and all the institutions in Wales, which I thought we both valued.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Trust in politicians is sadly diminishing, because politicians are not seen to answer the question at hand. Back to the matter of trust, transmission rates indicate that Wales stands on the brink of a circuit-break announcement. Businesses in Wales, and people who need to self-isolate, seek assurance that they can trust the Treasury to back up covid-19 control measures made in Wales for Wales. Can the Secretary of State guarantee to the people of Wales that they can, indeed, trust the Government to do this?

[Simon Hart]

Having seen the Chancellor ensure that the Welsh Government have had £4.4 billion-worth of UK taxpayers’ money for exactly that purpose, I hope the right hon. Lady would share my view that we are looking at the UK in the round. Covid is an international problem, and it does not respect political boundaries. The Chancellor’s announcements make it very clear that he sees all the UK as a priority, not just individual component parts, and I would think the numbers speak for themselves.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on covid-19 restrictions in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

We have, of course, worked hand in hand with the Welsh Government throughout the covid-19 pandemic. The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Welsh Ministers about the ongoing UK-wide response to covid-19, and those include discussions between the Secretary of State and the First Minister and, of course, meetings between the UK Government and all devolved institutions.

[Simon Baynes]

Restricting the virus is vital, but the Welsh Government’s lockdown measures in Clwyd South and the rest of north Wales need reviewing. Given the difficulties they are causing, particularly for hospitality, the wedding industry and leisure businesses, by using county boundaries rather than being targeted on the specific areas with high covid case numbers, is the Minister able to outline how often the Welsh Government have invited the UK Government to participate in their covid-19 planning meetings and whether they have discussed using more detailed evidence by community rather than just by county?

[David T. C. Davies]

That is a very good question. Although the UK Government extend an open invitation to the devolved Administrations to take part in Cobra meetings and ministerial implementation groups, the same spirit of co-operation has not thus far been forthcoming. I was invited to one meeting by Welsh Government Ministers to discuss parts that were reserved to the UK Government anyway. We stand ready to accept the same level of co-operation from Welsh Government as we have always extended to them.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

With cases rising across the UK, the First Minister has called for an extraordinary meeting of Cobra to discuss plans for a so-called circuit-break lockdown. The measures are already under active consideration in Wales and would be implemented by the Welsh Government if they need to be, but of course, any such measures are more effective if we apply them with a four-nation approach across the whole UK. Will the Government now listen to their own scientific advisers and the Opposition and agree to meet the devolved nations to discuss these specific proposals?

[David T. C. Davies]

Throughout this pandemic, the Government have listened to a wide range of scientific advisers, some of whom will be advising circuit breakers, whereas others will be suggesting that measures are too strict. The Government have listened to all and tried to steer a course through the middle of this. They have listened to Welsh Government Ministers on numerous occasions, with more than 100 such meetings having taken place. We will continue to listen with an open mind and to follow the evidence.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Unlike this Tory Government in England, our Labour Government in Wales do follow the science. The rules in Wales have stopped people taking the virus with them from high-prevalence to low-prevalence areas, thus protecting people’s lives. We want the same for visitors to Wales from across the rest of the UK, where rates are even higher, so why are this Tory Government ignoring the First Minister yet again, failing to stand up for the people of Wales and playing politics with people’s lives?

[David T. C. Davies]

We certainly are not playing politics with people’s lives. The hon. Lady will be aware that 25% of the workforce of Wales travel over to England to work there, and playing politics with people’s lives potentially means looking at livelihoods as well. The reality is that we have followed the science all the way through this process and, more or less, the Welsh Government have followed exactly what the UK Government are doing.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) says we should follow the science, but 10 minutes ago, Public Health Wales told me that it did not even carry out a community-level analysis prior to instigating these lockdown measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that this virus does not respect county borders and that, once again, all the Labour Welsh Government are doing is throttling businesses and letting down the people of north Wales?

[David T. C. Davies]

First, let me wish my hon. Friend penblwydd hapus for tomorrow. It is the case, of course, that this virus does not respect boundaries, but the UK Government do. Although I fully accept that some people may have concerns about the slightly different approach the Welsh Government sometimes adopt in this matter, the UK Government respect devolution and the reality of Welsh government, and my role as a Minister is to work constructively with Welsh Government Ministers. At this moment, I do not wish to start playing politics and criticising them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

What additional funding the Government have provided to communities in Wales affected by Storm Dennis.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the hon. Gentleman last week to confirm that he is expecting to provide £2.5 million needed for the tip repairs in Tylorstown, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The letter also clarifies that the Chief Secretary is waiting to hear further from the Welsh Government on an additional request to access the reserve.

[Chris Bryant]

That was useless yet again. I have been asking for the money for the Rhondda for months. The Prime Minister wrote to me in June saying that he recognised that Wales had been particularly badly hit by Storm Dennis and that the UK Government would look seriously at any requests for funding. I am delighted that we have got the £2.5 million for the Tylorstown tip, but we need £60 million to mend culverts and drains and to make people’s houses secure in Pontypridd, the Rhondda and across the whole of Rhondda Cynon Taf. Make sure you earn your money by getting us the money in the Rhondda.

[Simon Hart]

What a contrast with the conversation the hon. Gentleman and I had last when I reported this news to him; he was charm and diplomacy itself then, yet when he gets in the Chamber with an audience, he becomes a different personality. I will remind him, just in case he has forgotten, what the Chief Secretary’s letter actually says. Among other things, he says, “I am expecting to provide the required funding.” That is in relation to the Welsh Government confirming they will make a reserve claim for 2020-21. So this process is under way. It does require the Welsh Government to come to the party, too, but they have not yet done so. Of course a lot of this is in the devolved space, so the hon. Gentleman cannot just pick and choose which bits of devolution suit his desire to make a statement in the Chamber.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for people in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for people in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor, and we spoke only last week. He has since announced a significant package of further job support and an additional £400 million of funding for the Welsh Government.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Tourism and hospitality is the backbone of the economy of the Gower peninsula. My constituent Lara Joslin runs the Kings Head in Llangennith. She is fighting to keep her family businesses alive. Lara runs a popular rural pub with accommodation, which, like many others in Gower, provides vital part-time jobs for local people. Why is the Secretary of State not banging on the door of the Treasury to right the wrong of the job support scheme failing to support independent hospitality businesses such as Lara’s?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Lady and I have a similar dependence on tourism in our constituencies, so I understand absolutely the argument she makes about its value, but I remind her that so far UK taxpayers have contributed £1.1 billion by way of bounce back loans; £490 million in self-employed income support; £303 million in coronavirus business interruption loans; £30 million-worth of eat out to help out; future funding of £7 million—I would carry on, Mr Speaker, if only you would let me—and that is not to mention the 401,000 employees on furlough. The Treasury has gone above and beyond the international average and tried to get to every single business in every single area of the UK, and that includes Gower just as much as anywhere else.

[Jessica Morden]

For those who are able to access the Government’s new job support scheme—many are locked out or deemed by the Government to be in unviable jobs—a cut of a third of wages for the low paid makes it extremely hard to pay bills and feed families. Does the Secretary of State really get this? If so, will Wales Office Ministers fight to get a better scheme?

[Simon Hart]

Often in this questions session we have talked about the fact that there will always be those in all our constituencies who do not quite fit every single one of the intervention measures that the Chancellor has announced over the past few months. In those circumstances, of course we want to be as flexible as possible and to try to find ways, through either the intervention schemes or universal credit, to support the hardest-hit families as best we can. If the hon. Lady brings to my attention individual examples of those gaps, I will of course do my best to address them.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Throughout this pandemic, Welsh businesses have done all they can to stay open and stay trading, with so many drawing on the support grants and loans that have been so important in keeping them afloat. But as more areas of the country come under local restrictions, with trading halted or severely limited, and amid fears about public confidence, many businesses feel that they have absolutely maxed out on their borrowing and are worried about the future. What plan do the Government have to support businesses that are now heavily in debt, to make sure that the burden of repayments in the coming months does not mean that they go under?

[Simon Hart]

I start by expressing some confusion: on the one hand, Opposition Members are articulating a Welsh Government view that the existing interventions are not strict enough, but on the other, the hon. Lady gets to her feet and says that the interventions are almost imposing undue hardship. It is quite difficult to know exactly where the Opposition stand on getting the balance right between disease control and the maintaining of a vibrant economy. At each and every stage of this process, the Chancellor has been flexible and adaptable and has recognised that the situation is changing, often by the hour, let alone by the day or week. The financial interventions, which up to now have been about £4.4 billion by way of Barnettised contributions to the Welsh Government—and we could probably double that for the other interventions, which are more direct—have supported business in Wales. But of course, as the circumstances change and our reaction changes, so we will remain flexible.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed, we have always said that any restrictions need to be backed up with proper financial support measures for business. To reduce the spread of the virus it is also vital that workers who are unwell or asked to self-isolate do actually stay off work, but as hours are reduced in sectors such as hospitality, an increasing number of Welsh workers will find themselves falling below the minimum weekly earnings threshold needed to qualify for statutory sick pay. To expect them to live off nothing for a fortnight is totally unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor to do the decent thing and extend the statutory sick pay scheme to all workers?

[Simon Hart]

I know from my personal contact with the Chancellor over the past few weeks that he is looking at all these options. That is why the winter resilience measures were brought in a week or so ago, on top of all the other measures he has introduced, which recognise the very difficult situation in which so many people find themselves. I am not going to stand here and say that we are never going to consider another option; of course we will. We will always look at the individual circumstances, particularly of those who are hardest hit.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

Further to our recent meeting, with the various covid funding measures being announced by the Government sometimes seeming haphazardly and causing some confusion—the bid for football here, the bid for the arts there and now, apparently, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy funding for universities in Wales even though the matter is devolved—will the Minister consider publishing a regular simple table of the Government’s covid funding with the consequential amounts for Wales if there are such?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about universities. Of course, that is a devolved matter and yet hugely dependent on the Union effort. In answer to his very direct question, I can give him a very direct yes.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to help implement (a) city and (b) growth deals in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

I am committed to driving forward each of the growth deals in Wales and, since March, have taken part in 24 meetings with representatives of Wales city and growth deals. I recently visited Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire constituency after approving the Pembroke Dock marine development, one of the many growth deal projects that will be contributing to levelling up in Wales.

[Andrew Griffith]

Last week, the Prime Minister outlined how we can build back better by investing in areas such as hydrogen, green energy and electric mobility. Does the Minister agree that, while it is an opportunity for the whole United Kingdom, we should particularly put Wales at the heart of that green revolution?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am very happy to agree with that. The Prime Minister’s commitment last week was a game changer, quadrupling offshore wind energy by 2030, doubling the amount of support for renewables projects and providing £160 million to support infrastructure and one gigawatt of new floating wind projects. That is all clear evidence of this Government’s commitment to a green and resilient economic recovery from the coronavirus.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the potential economic effect on Wales of the provisions in the UK Internal Market Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will protect seamless trade across the United Kingdom, which will benefit people in all corners of the UK and, indeed, of this House. Our market access guarantee will provide certainty for Welsh businesses as the transition period ends and provide a firm foundation upon which businesses may flourish.

[Aaron Bell]

Obviously, in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the whole of Staffordshire, and indeed the whole of the west midlands, there are a number of businesses that both source from and supply to Wales. Those businesses need the certainty that standards will be observed and that what they produce will be able to be sold into different markets around the United Kingdom, and particularly in Wales. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will deliver on that?

[David T. C. Davies]

I can absolutely confirm that. I hope all Members of this House are listening to the wise words of my hon. Friend. The Bill provides a vital guarantee that businesses in his constituency, and in all constituencies across the UK, will be able to continue to trade confidently within our internal market as the transition period ends.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support Wales’s economic recovery from the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

The UK Government have provided a support package for Welsh businesses and communities in recent weeks, including the Government’s £30 billion plan for jobs. Our ambition remains to secure jobs, stimulate growth and provide opportunities to level up Wales.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the Secretary of State for his financial support for Wales and for the devolved Welsh Government. Does he agree that, if the Welsh Government want to trigger further restrictions and go beyond Government measures, which should ultimately be used as a last resort, they need to provide plans for how they will financially support the industries that will be hit as a result?

[Simon Hart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Barnettised numbers, which total £4.4 billion so far, do give the Welsh Government a degree of flexibility in addressing issues if the evidence supports doing it in a slightly different way. There are one or two examples of where they have introduced their own interventions, courtesy of money provided by UK taxpayers, but the overriding point is that there does need to be a degree of collaboration and co-operation that straddles all the countries of the UK, because this is an international and a national challenge.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Like me, the Secretary of State will have welcomed the vision set out by the Prime Minister last week for expanding renewable energy and, importantly, the commitment to boosting floating offshore wind power, which represents such a big opportunity for us in Wales. May I ask him if he would use his good offices to ensure that all the relevant players in this—the private sector developers that have projects ready to go, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Crown Estate, which owns the seabed—are all on the same page, working towards a shared goal so that we get decisions made in a timely way?

[Simon Hart]

Absolutely. I agree with my right hon. Friend and neighbour’s assessment of the situation. We were all encouraged by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary’s comments just now in that respect. I can, I hope, encourage my right hon. Friend by saying that I am meeting the Crown Estate the day after tomorrow, I think, to discuss the potential delays, which at the moment look like being its problem, and we need to unblock that.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on support for people in Wales whose employment has been adversely affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I have frequent discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At least 510,000 people in Wales have been directly supported by the measures we have so far put in place. However, the best possible support we can provide is to get behind the national effort and public health guidelines to ensure that we overcome this crisis sooner rather than later.

[Rosie Cooper [V]]

With the UK’s unemployment rate at its highest level in three years, it is clear that many workers in Wales will need to rely on social security in order to get back on their feet. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is only fair to update legacy benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance to match the increase in universal credit that was announced earlier this year?

[Simon Hart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Conversations I have had with the Department for Work and Pensions, and indeed the Chancellor, have touched on this very issue. This is why the arrangements on universal credit have been as flexible as they can be. The Department is making an effort to ensure that everybody is accounted for and that those who might fall into the gaps we referred to earlier are properly looked after. That is very much uppermost in the minds of Cabinet and ministerial colleagues. I can give her that assurance.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

What progress has been made on expanding Wales’s full-fibre broadband network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The Government are committed to rolling out broadband across the United Kingdom, although we have much work to do. I am pleased that 50% of premises in Wales have access to full-fibre broadband, compared with only 14% in the UK as a whole. Only a fortnight ago, I was able to go out with the innovative Welsh SME Beacons Telecom, which is helping to deliver broadband in remote and rural parts of Wales—the parts of Wales that Openreach seemingly cannot reach.

[Jamie Stone [V]]

I suspect that my question will come as no surprise. I represent one of the most remote parts of the UK, and far too many of my constituents simply cannot get decent connectivity. Could the Minister please share his experience and his know-how with the Scottish Government so that we can get this problem sorted out?

[David T. C. Davies]

If the Scottish Government care to issue me with an invitation, I stand ready to serve and offer advice such as I can. Actually, I think my advice is that are innovative small companies out there that are able to do things that Openreach apparently cannot do. I saw an example of that in Wales, and I am sure there must be many others. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as a Government who are committed to the Union, our broadband ambitions span not just Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, from the tip of Penzance right up to the coast of Caithness and beyond.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)]

The Government are fully committed to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Our response to the covid-19 outbreak has clearly demonstrated the value of Wales being a part of the Union, with a package of UK Government support that frankly goes well beyond anything that the Welsh Government could offer alone. It is clear that our four nations are safer and more prosperous when we stand together.

[Marco Longhi]

It is very good news that the Government have appointed Sir Peter Hendy to undertake a detailed review as to how the quality and availability of transport infrastructure can support economic growth, as well the quality of life, across the UK. Will the Minister advise on what his Department’s priorities are for this review in Wales?

[David T. C. Davies]

Our priorities, clearly, will be better transport links, ensuring that Wales is better connected to the rest of the Union, but the Government’s ambitions go well beyond transport infrastructure. We believe that Wales is an integral part of the United Kingdom and we want to see not just good transport links but our historical links and cultural links, because we believe that one is quite easily able to be proud to be Welsh and proud to be British in this Union.

[Selaine Saxby [V]]

From Ilfracombe to Exmoor in my North Devon constituency, it is possible to see south Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the options for better connecting the two areas to strengthen the links between our economies and, ultimately, the Union?

[David T. C. Davies]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The Government are going to strengthen all links within the United Kingdom. We are a Conservative and Unionist Government, and I look forward to support from all sides of the House.

Petition

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Speaker’s Statement

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before Prime Minister’s Question Time, I wish to make a short statement. On Monday, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about virtual participation in debates, the Prime Minister—inadvertently, I would accept—said

“I defer to you and the House authorities.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 40.]

As the Prime Minister will know, decisions on the scope of virtual participation are for the House itself. All decisions have been made on the basis of motions moved by the Leader of the House.

I know that the House of Commons Service would be more than happy to facilitate virtual participation in debates, if the House voted for it. If the Government wished to pass me the power, I would be more than happy to accept it, but the decision to bring forward the relevant motion is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Government he leads, not for me and the House authorities.

Point of Order

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Remote Participation in House of Commons Proceedings Bill stands in my name and was due to have its Second Reading on Friday, and was originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). In the light of your comments earlier today, will you please advise me how we can best ensure that the Bill becomes a reality for the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving notice of the point of order. A decision to defer the Second Reading of a Bill and the Government’s position on the matters that it may contain are not matters for the Chair, as she will be aware. However, in making the point of order, she has placed her hopes on the record and I am sure that that will be listened to by those on the Treasury Bench. I am sympathetic, but unfortunately it is not my decision.

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.

12:35

Sitting suspended.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Bill Presented

Election Candidates (All-ethnic-minority Shortlists)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to amend the Equality Act 2010 to permit political parties to use all-ethnic-minority shortlists for the selection of election candidates; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March 2021, and to be printed (Bill 196).

Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection)

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:39

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish rights to keep dogs and other animals in domestic accommodation; to make provision about the protection of the welfare of dogs and other domestic animals; and for connected purposes.

A home is where special moments are created—living with a family, friends or companions. Moving into a new home is a normal part of life, but what if every time you move you face the threat of being separated from someone you love? Can a house or a flat ever be a home if you are forced to abandon a family member just to move in?

You, Mr Speaker—an animal-loving Speaker—will know better than anyone that animals truly are members of one’s family. Having owned two Staffordshire Bull Terriers—Spike and Buster—I know how close the bonds between dog and owner can be and how devastating it is to lose them.

Dogs are more than man’s best friend: they are equal members of the family. For most people, being separated from their dog is no different from being separated from their brother or sister. Sadly, pet owners who move into rented accommodation face the reality that their family could be torn apart, because most landlords in Britain have unnecessary bans or restrictions on pet ownership. For those who depend on the companionship of their dog and need their loving friend to be with them—especially those who live alone—such restrictions are nothing less than discrimination, cruel to animal and owner alike.

My Bill would end that discrimination, giving people who own a dog or other domestic animal the right to have it live in their rented home, provided the owner demonstrated responsibility and care for the animal.

My Bill will henceforth be known as Jasmine’s law, after a Weimaraner who is owned by the Adams family in Surrey. Jasmine lives with Maria, but her son Jordan Adams would dearly love to accommodate Jasmine at his home apartment—if only for a few days or when his mother goes on holiday. Owing to restrictions imposed on tenants, Jordan is one of the millions of people across the UK who is prevented from having his beloved pet to stay with him.

Many pet owners are, like Jordan, devastated to find that moving out of the family home means being separated from an animal who is such an important part of their lives. The no-pet clause on rented accommodation means that someone cannot have a dog over for even a short period for fear of recriminations or even losing their home. Instead of a dog staying with a familiar person, often they must be placed in a kennel, which can be a deeply stressful and unhappy experience for the dog.

Such discrimination must now end. Some people who move to a new home are able to find somewhere for the animal to live, with trusted friends or family, but others are tragically forced to abandon their pets altogether, unable to find anywhere to live where the pet will be accepted. Sadly, these no-pet rules are cited by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home as the second biggest factor behind people giving up their dogs, with 200 dogs a year being handed in for rehoming simply because of landlord restrictions.



These rules have the cruellest impact on the homeless, with many relying on companion animals for support and affection while living on the street. Too often, when they are offered housing by local authorities or housing associations, this comes with a no-pet clause. If they turn down an offer of accommodation, they are told that they are making themselves intentionally homeless and refused further housing assistance. Take the tragic case of John Chadwick, a homeless man who ended his own life after the only housing option his local council provided was one that meant separation from his pets. It is surely time to end these no-pets clauses that have caused so much pain and heartache for so many people.

Of course, many landlords have legitimate concerns, which I do not want to dismiss lightly. It is true that irresponsibly owned pets can be a cause of damage, misery and suffering to the animals themselves, to the neighbours and to those who manage and own properties. We must therefore ensure that landlords’ concerns are met and that pet owners pass the test of responsible ownership by obtaining a certificate from a vet before moving in, confirming that they have a healthy, well-behaved animal and are considered to be a responsible owner. For a dog, a responsible ownership checklist would include being vaccinated and microchipped and being responsive to basic training commands, with appropriate rules applying, of course, to other animals.

I hope that landlords, local authorities and housing associations listening to this debate today will consider overhauling their current policies in favour of one along the lines laid out in the Bill, and consider more fairly the rights of millions of responsible owners across the land. Particularly at a time when so many people are isolated, being able to own a dog can be vital to a person’s wellbeing and, of course, to their mental health. If tenants can prove that they are responsible owners and that their pets are well behaved and appropriate for the accommodation, there is no reason to deny them the right to live together with their animal companion.

Microchipping is also a key element of my Bill, which will stipulate that all cats and dogs kept in rented accommodation must be microchipped. It will also be mandatory for vets to scan animals brought into their surgery, ensuring that they are with their rightful owners. This will have the added advantage of helping to find both lost and stolen dogs. I commend the amazing work of Debbie Matthews and the group that she founded, Vets Get Scanning, which has campaigned for this for over a decade and was championed by her late father, the great Sir Bruce Forsyth. Part of the approval process for a pet to be moved into accommodation would be to have their microchip scanned by a vet to ensure that they were registered on a national database.

It cannot be right that so many pet owners in this country face the harsh reality that finding a place to live might mean permanent separation from the animal they love so much. Surely, as we take back control of our laws, now is the time to ensure that this nation of animal lovers remains a world leader in animal welfare. If France, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland can outlaw blanket restrictions on pets in rented accommodation, why can we not do the same here in the United Kingdom? The Government’s intention to remove no-pet clauses from their model tenancy agreement is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Jasmine’s law will replace the outdated and unfair no-pet clauses that many private and social landlords impose, setting out an alternative, streamlined system that will mean peace of mind for landlords, tenants and, of course, the animals themselves. At its core, my Bill represents the values of personal responsibility, individual rights and animal welfare, and today I seek to enshrine in law these important freedoms applicable to all responsible pet owners throughout the nation. I commend Jasmine’s law and this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Andrew Rosindell, Robert Halfon, Andrea Leadsom, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Sir David Amess, Theresa Villiers, Henry Smith, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Chris Bryant, Tim Farron, Ian Lavery and Ms Lyn Brown present the Bill.

Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January, and to be printed (Bill 197).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[12th Allotted Day]

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

12:50

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the Government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions, currently the North of England and parts of the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by reforming the Job Support Scheme so it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go; ensuring no-one is pushed into poverty when they do the right thing; providing clear, consistent and fair funding that goes hand-in-hand with the imposition of new restrictions, including using the £1.3 billion underspend on the grants fund to support local jobs; fixing gaps in support for the self-employed; and extending the ban on evictions.

We are at a critical moment for our country. Infection rates are rising, and the economic outlook is worsening. It is more vital than ever that this Government get a grip on both the health and the economic crises. There are some who seek to pit people’s health against our economy, but we all know that our country has suffered a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe and the deepest recession in the G7. The predominant reason why many expect our recovery to proceed more slowly than that in other countries is the continued severe impact of the public health crisis in the UK. It has been suggested that the Chancellor blocked proposals from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies for a circuit breaker. He can now, if he wishes to, intervene on me and set the record straight.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I intervene?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I asked the Chancellor to intervene on me. I am willing for another Member to, and perhaps the Chancellor will follow.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member mentioned “a” circuit breaker, but the guidance from SAGE says that “multiple” circuit breakers might be required to bring the virus under control. How many jobs does she believe those circuit breakers would cost?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I was just about to go on to say that the Government’s current stance is costing jobs and leading to reduced business confidence. If we continue as we are, without taking control of the public health situation, we will see a worse situation for jobs and businesses in our country. It appears that that will be the only intervention that I will receive.

It is clear that blocking a circuit breaker does not make sense for the health of our population or for our economy. Government Members need a reality check. One in four people in our country are subject to localised restrictions. We have already experienced a record rise in quarterly redundancies. Without action, we face the prospect of infections rising yet again, with more and more areas coming under localised restrictions and the Government eventually being forced into more national restrictions in any case. Every week of that inaction will hit business and consumer confidence, costing more jobs and livelihoods, with more businesses going to the wall. The question is not whether we can afford a circuit breaker. The question is whether we can afford to continue with a Government who duck taking hard choices until they are forced into them and who seem unable to stand apart from their chaotic lurching from week to week to assess what our country needs and take decisive action.

That circuit break must be used to fix test and trace, devolving it to local areas, so that we can protect our NHS, get control of the virus and start building economic confidence back up again, and it must be accompanied by support for jobs and businesses. We stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that that is put in place, so that no one is pushed into poverty for doing the right thing.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

SAGE warns that a circuit breaker is unavoidable. I wonder whether the Prime Minister’s words will come back to haunt him in a couple of weeks’ time as he admits that and does yet another U-turn. The best restrictions in the world will work only if people have financial security and can afford to comply. Is it not the case that offering only 67% of pay to somebody on minimum wage does not cover 100% of the bills that they have to pay? That is something that needs attention, as is the £1.3 billion underspend for all those people who, so far, have had no help in this crisis at all.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. It appears that experts are very clear that we are facing an unavoidable situation of rising infections that will not be stemmed unless action is taken. They predict that the Government will be forced into this position eventually, so why cannot we have decisiveness at this stage. Why can that nettle not be grasped now when it will be more effective, rather than leaving this unavoidable choice for many weeks into the future when it will be less effective? I will come to the other issues raised by my hon. Friend about the paucity of targeted support in a moment.

Time and again, Labour has had to drag Ministers to this House to explain what they will do to tackle the job crisis, and, time and again, those Ministers have either ducked the question entirely or come up with a short-term scheme that needs to be patched up again within weeks. The British people deserve better. To protect jobs—be that during a circuit breaker or under the Government’s new three-tier scheme—we need a functioning system of wage support, a proper safety net to prevent people falling into poverty, and economic support for local areas that goes hand in hand with the imposition of additional restrictions. Right now, we do not have any of those things.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am astounded by what the Labour party is saying today. How can the hon. Lady explain her position to my constituents in Truro and Falmouth, where the infection rate is incredibly low? The best form of support for the people working in Truro and Falmouth is for their businesses to continue as they are for as long as possible.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she reads those SAGE papers. When she reads them—

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

I have.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very pleased and grateful that she has. She will then understand SAGE’s prediction that the infection is rising across the country, including in rural areas and coastal areas. Unless we take action and deal with that now, the problems that we are experiencing around business confidence, which are costing jobs and forcing businesses to the wall, will only continue. We need to give ourselves a fighting chance that we can approach Christmas, which is so important for businesses in this country, without the current rising levels of infection. I am concerned about the future of this economy, and I want a Government who have that long-sighted approach, rather than one who lurch from crisis to crisis.

We should have had a back-to-work Budget in July, but, instead, we got a summer statement, including a last-minute bonus scheme that will see £2.6 billion of public money handed over to firms that do not need it. In September, Labour set out three steps for a better, more secure economic future to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild business. Instead, after we summoned him to the House, we got the Chancellor’s winter economy plan and a wage support scheme that does not meet the core test of incentivising employers to keep staff on part-time rather than let them go. Two weeks later, the Chancellor was back trying to fix problems with that scheme, as it became rapidly apparent that the health crisis was careering away from the Government and economic support was not keeping pace. Last Friday and this Monday, we had yet more announcements, which create as many questions as the answer.

I regret that these issues were not faced up to largely yesterday during the urgent question that I brought to the House, so I will try again. This time I can ask the Chancellor directly. Why have the Government adopted such an inconsistent approach to financial support for businesses in affected areas? Leicester, Oadby and Wigston had to wait a month to get the £7.30 per head in support that they were belatedly provided with. The initial funding for Liverpool City Region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough was, in contrast, £3.49 a head, but not for businesses; that was for covid-related action.

Last Friday, the Chancellor rebranded £100 million of funding for local councils as surge funding, with no details of how it would be allocated and the admission that £20 million had already been spent. On Monday, the Prime Minister spoke of more funding to local authorities, but again without details of how that money would be allocated—although apparently not to support local businesses. This situation is a mess. When local leaders are crying out for certainty, they need to know that if additional restrictions are coming, there is a clear and agreed formula for how much economic support they receive and how it will be deployed.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned Oadby and Wigston in my constituency; the Chancellor moved incredibly quickly to provide extra business support to my constituency. We had a different lockdown from that everywhere else and it worked: we have brought cases down from 160 to 25 per 100,000. That is an example of why the local approach is the right one and why her colleague the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), was right to say yesterday that what the hon. Lady is now suggesting would be disastrous.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret to say that the hon. Member, for whom I have a lot of respect, is sadly confused. It would have been useful if he had listened to the point that I just made, which was to provide contrast to the support that was provided to the Leicester area, specifically focused on businesses. I believe that negotiation occurred through the local business improvement district, the local enterprise partnership and local authorities, to ensure that that support was there for businesses—for his area, yes. Can he please intervene on me now to say which other areas of the country subject to additional restrictions have received funding specifically focused on businesses of that type? No, he cannot, because that support has not been provided to other places in the same manner as it was provided to Leicester. This lack of consistency is causing enormous problems for local authorities.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Anneliese Dodds]

Perhaps the hon. Member has discovered another area; I am happy to take his intervention.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady invited an intervention; I thought it would be unchivalrous not to provide one. Money was provided for my constituency because pubs had been shut. Yesterday, the Labour party voted against shutting pubs at 10 pm, but in favour of shutting down the entire economy instead. The idea that that is a proportionate response is absurd.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret that the hon. Member did not answer the question that I asked him, which was whether he knew of any other area of the country that had been treated in the same way as his constituency by being provided with business-related support. He could not answer that question; the reason why is that it appears that no other area has been. A radically different approach is being taken to different parts of the country, so local leaders and local businesses cannot plan because they do not know whether or not support will be there.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will make a little progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

We need to find out from the Government why they have not used the £1.3 billion underspend from the grants programme, which was already allocated as business support, for local areas to direct at businesses that need that help. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary said that the money was not available for use now because, in his words, “the need” had been “met”. That beggars belief. The need clearly has not been met. The Government should reallocate that funding on a consistent basis, so that businesses in the hardest-hit areas can get support.

What possible justification can there be for local areas getting control of test, trace and isolate only once they are into tier 3 and thus facing rapidly rising infection rates? As the debate following this one will indicate, the Government have poured vast amounts of public money into private contracts to deliver a system that is simply not working. Labour-run Wales has shown how locally delivered tracing is vastly more effective than a contracted-out system. When will the Chancellor’s Government stop dithering, follow the evidence and get a grip on test, track and trace?

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

One of the key benefits of the Welsh system is that it allows local government to track and trace where people may have had the virus and been in contact with someone. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the UK Government could apply that to England, it could save many people’s lives?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe that, actually, the contact rate is radically higher—above 90%, which is very significantly different. We are in a peculiar situation where our Government appear to believe that it only makes sense for local areas to get those powers, and the resources necessary to deliver them, once infections are already at an extremely high rate—once they are in tier 3. I find this very peculiar. Perhaps the Chancellor can explain why that support is only provided once local areas are at a high infection level.

Adequate support must be provided to those at the sharpest end of this crisis—those working in businesses that have been closed for public health reasons. The expansion of the job support scheme to closed businesses acknowledges an obvious gap in the original scheme. The Government maintain that, with their changes to universal credit, the lowest-paid workers will receive up to 88% of their previous income, but that ignores the continuing problems that the Government refuse to fix with universal credit and allied areas of policy. Why have they still not uprated the local housing allowance to median market rents so that affected people can cover their housing costs? Why will they not extend the ban on evictions? Why have they retained the benefit cap, now affecting twice as many people as at the start of this crisis? Why have they not abolished the two-child limit on universal credit and tax credits? Will the Government follow the previous Labour Government and reduce the waiting period for support from the mortgage interest scheme?

The list of questions goes on and on. It includes really significant ones about firms that have not been legally required to close but whose business has been heavily impacted by the imposition of new restrictions, so they will struggle to keep staff on for even a third of their hours. For those firms, the Chancellor’s job support scheme too often fails to incentivise businesses to bring back more staff part-time, instead of keeping some full-time and letting others go.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

When the hon. Lady talks about Government intervention and support, will she welcome the eat out to help out scheme, which meant that ceramic tableware manufacturers in Stoke-on-Trent saw orders massively increase? Will she personally write to them to apologise for saying that she wants to shut down the hospitality sector and therefore make sure that the kilns never start up again?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I have been very grateful to representatives of the ceramics sector, with whom I have had a lot of dialogue. I am very concerned about their situation. I am concerned about the lack of targeted support that has been provided to maintain our manufacturing capacity. I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what not just Labour but SAGE experts had been stating clearly: this Government will end up being potentially forced into a situation where they must apply additional restrictions. Why wait until a time when restrictions will be less effective when we will have had many weeks of reduced business confidence for the very restaurants that I, too, am deeply concerned about, which will have suffered from week upon week of reduced demand? I say: take decisive action now; that is what is needed.

In key sectors, the cost of keeping on more staff on fewer hours is higher in the UK scheme than under comparable initiatives in Germany, France and the Netherlands, even when the poorly-designed job retention bonus is factored in. Businesses want to do the right thing by their staff, but the Chancellor is pushing them to flip a coin and decide who stays and who goes. When will he fix the flaws in the job support scheme?

The Government have also left yawning gaps in their offer for the self-employed. From the start of next month, the support available will fall from 70% of pre-crisis profits to just 20%. That might be an appropriate policy if we were seeing a healthy economic recovery and rising consumer demand, but that is, very sadly, not the case. We need a targeted scheme that works for those self-employed people for whom business is still nothing like back to normal. Months on from the start of the crisis and the first package of economic support, there are still too many people who have fallen through the gaps. The Government’s message to those people is just, “You’re on your own—sink or swim.” That is not good enough. So I ask again: what will the Government do to help those who have been excluded from support so far?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will take one last intervention. I am aware that there are many who want to speak in this debate.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes important points about the difficulties faced by so many people in the economy. Will she explain how they will be helped by closing down the entire economy? It is the madhouse of fixing the windows or knocking the whole house down.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware that the windows are already broken and that, in a quarter of this country, we see those businesses having been subject to additional restrictions. None of them has moved out of that, aside from in Luton, which appears, sadly, to be in a difficult situation again now.

We see the Government’s own expert advisers saying that they are likely to be forced into a position where additional restrictions have to be applied in the future, when they will be less effective, because by that point infection will have been spread further across this country. So the question is whether action is taken decisively when it can be most effective or whether we push this back, the costs increase, business confidence continues to erode, people continue to lose their jobs and businesses continue to go to the wall. That is the question this Government need to answer.

If we are to avoid the bleakest of winters, this Government have to get a grip. We need a national reset. For that to work, we need an economic package that acknowledges reality and gets ahead of the problems we face; a wage support scheme that works properly; a safety net worthy of the name; and financial support that goes hand in hand with the imposition of extra restrictions.

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will not, because so many Members want to come in on this debate.

We brought this motion to the House today because the Government have not been doing what it takes to support areas under additional local restrictions. Currently, those are in the north of England and parts of the midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Members representing those areas know that that is the case. So I appeal to them to put their constituents’ jobs and livelihoods first, and support this Opposition motion. [Interruption.]

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Shut up!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) can both be quiet. I want to get on with the business, and I do not want one person to start to entice others. Let us see whether we can make some progress. Let us have a good, well-mannered debate, as that might be helpful to this House.

13:12

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and add:

“welcomes the Government’s package of support worth over £200 billion to help protect jobs and businesses through the coronavirus pandemic, including the eight-month long Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, £1,000 Job Retention Bonus, unprecedented loan schemes, business grants and tax cuts; further welcomes the pledge to protect, create and support jobs through measures in the £30 billion Plan for Jobs such as Eat Out to Help Out, VAT and stamp duty cuts and the £2 billion Kickstart Scheme; acknowledges the further support for jobs with increased cash grants and the expanded Job Support Scheme to support those businesses legally required to close due to national or local lockdowns; and further acknowledges that this is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support anywhere in the world.”

I very much welcome the opportunity to update Parliament and the country on the economic challenges we face and our plan to tackle them. My message to hon. Members in all parts of the House is simply this: we must not shy away from the burden of responsibility to take decisions and to lead. We must do this with honesty and co-operation. We cannot allow the virus to take hold. We must prevent the strain on our NHS from becoming unbearable, but we must also acknowledge the stark reality of the economic and social impacts of another national lockdown. The costs of doing that are not abstract—they are real: they can be counted in jobs lost, businesses closed and children’s educations harmed; they can be measured in the permanent damage done to our economy, which will undermine our long-term ability to fund our NHS and our valued public services; and they can be measured in the increase in long-term health conditions that unemployment causes.

This is not about choosing one side or the other. It is not about taking decisions because they are popular. It is not about health versus wealth, or any other simplistic lens we choose to view this moment through. The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he set out our desire for a balanced approach, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down, while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. The evidence shows that a regional tiered approach is right, because it prevents rushing to another lockdown the entire country would suffer rather than targeting that support and preventing a lockdown in parts of the country where the virus rates are low.

This is an imperfect solution. We have been consistently honest about the difficulties and hard choices that this moment presents. We have heard a lot about the SAGE advice. The SAGE minutes themselves say that Ministers must consider the

“associated costs in terms of health and wellbeing”

and the economic impacts alongside any epidemiological assessment. It seems like the only people not prepared to confront that reality are in the Labour party, which is surprising given that just days ago the shadow Health Secretary said a new national lockdown would be “disastrous” for society and

“would cause unimaginable damage to our economy and…wellbeing.”

[Mr Perkins]

The Chancellor’s response would have more credibility if he was not stood there following month after month of failure by a Government whose testing and tracing regime—whose entire approach—got us to this point in the first place. We all recognise how expensive this is going to be, but it has happened because of the failure that he and his party have facilitated.

[Rishi Sunak]

The debate following this will address test and trace. It is worth bearing in mind that more than £12 billion has been invested in our test and trace capacity. Testing capacity has increased from simply 10,000 a day at the start of this crisis to close to 300,000 today, on its way up to half a million, and ours now ranks as one of the most comprehensive testing regimes anywhere in Europe.

[Andrew Griffith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, faced with a choice between a national blunt instrument that would wreak enormous economic damage, and something that is more finely calibrated region by region based on the science, there is no choice to make?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a blunt instrument. It would cause needless damage to parts of our country where virus rates are low.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rishi Sunak]

Having spent weeks indulging themselves with political attacks on this Government’s efforts to protect jobs, Labour have now flipped and support a blunt national lockdown. They will not say how much damage that will do to jobs or livelihoods, they will not say how they plan to support businesses through it, and they do not seem to care about the long-term stability of the public finances. If they did—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, Chancellor. Please, I cannot hear the Chancellor. I want to hear him, and I am sure people outside the House want to hear him, so please, if he is going to give way—the Chancellor is a generous man—he will give way. In the meantime, I do not need people shouting.

[Rishi Sunak]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If they did care, we would hear from the shadow Chancellor how many jobs Labour’s lockdown would cost.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the generous Chancellor for giving way. Today, the North East Child Poverty Commission said that 35% of children in the north-east region are living in poverty. As a direct result of Conservative policies, we are going to see that number increase. What is he going to do about those children?

[Rishi Sunak]

The most vulnerable have been at the forefront of our mind throughout this crisis, which is why it is clear from the distributional impact of our interventions, which was published over the summer, that they have benefited those on the lowest incomes the most. It is there in black and white: a Conservative Government making sure the most vulnerable are protected through this crisis.

Any responsible party of government would acknowledge the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown. The Labour party may say it has a plan, but be under no illusion: a plan blind to the hard choices we face—a plan blind to and detached from reality—is no plan at all.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

In the Liverpool city region, which contains my constituency of Wallasey, there is £40 million of unspent support for business that the Chancellor generously granted in the first wave of the pandemic. Given that we are in tier 3, will he say today at the Dispatch Box that he will release that £40 million so that the local authorities in the Liverpool city region can apply that money to help their local businesses during this highest level of lockdown that we are suffering at the moment?

[Rishi Sunak]

I know what a difficult time this is for the hon. Lady and her constituents. With regard to underspends—I will come on to this later—I think it is wrong to think of them in that way. That was the Government giving an advance to local authorities to make payments to businesses. That was done on the basis that every local authority will have a wildly different degree of overspend or underspend, which we true up at the end of the process. We could equally have asked local authorities to make payments themselves and reimbursed them afterwards. There is significant financial support both for her local authority and the businesses in her area that have closed down. That was announced by the Prime Minister and I will come on to address that in detail later. It is right that that support is there.

Let me reiterate our plan. The House will be well aware of the gravity of our economic situation. The latest figures show that our economy grew by 6% in July and 2% in August, but it remains almost 10% smaller than it was before coronavirus hit. Business investment suffered a record fall in the second quarter of this year. Consumer sentiment remains well below its long-run average. Despite the significant support we have provided, the data is beginning to reveal the true extent of the damage that coronavirus has caused our labour market. The latest statistics published just yesterday show employment falling, unemployment rising and welfare claims rising. The revisions that the Office for National Statistics has made to its previous estimates show that unemployment was higher than it thought over the summer.

I have talked about facing up to the difficult truths clearly, and we are facing an economic emergency, but we are acting on a scale commensurate with this emergency as we address my single biggest priority: to protect people’s jobs and their livelihoods. We have put in place a comprehensive plan to protect, support and create jobs in every region and nation of the United Kingdom. Through more than £200 billion of support since March, we are: protecting more than 9.5 million jobs through the job retention schemes; strengthening our welfare safety net with an extra £9 billion for the lowest paid and most vulnerable; granting more than £13.5 billion to those who are self-employed, with further grants to come; and protecting over 1 million small and medium-sized businesses through £100 billion of tax cuts, tax deferrals, direct grants and Government-backed loans.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect jobs is to keep the economy open wherever possible? Most other nations are using a local-restrictions approach to deal with this situation, including Germany, which is using lockdowns at a district level, not even at a state or county level. Does he agree that that is the best way forward?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only sustainable way to protect jobs in the long run is to have an economy that is open and functioning. No amount of support can make up for that.

There are other things we have done: eased repayment terms on those loans through pay as you grow; delivered on our promise to give the NHS what it needs; backed hundreds of thousands of young people to find good jobs through the kickstart scheme and new investment in training and apprenticeships; created green jobs through the £2 billion green grant programme; showed that we are here for our cultural sector, with the cultural recovery fund and a further support package for charities; and invested hundreds of billions of pounds in the largest, most sustained programme of infrastructure investment the UK has seen in decades. That is comprehensive action to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. It undermines the credibility of the Labour party that, in the face of all that support, it continues to pretend that insufficient action is being taken.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Chancellor give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I will make some progress.

As the crisis evolves, our economic response will also evolve. What we will see over the winter is a complex picture of some businesses able to open safely and others being ordered to close to control the spread of the virus. Our winter economy plan provides a toolkit to protect jobs and businesses over the difficult weeks and months to come. The plan has three parts.

First, the job support scheme will protect jobs in businesses that are open or closed. If businesses can open safely, but with reduced or uncertain demand, the Government will directly subsidise people’s wages over the winter, giving those employers the option to bring people back to work on shorter hours rather than making them redundant. We are expanding the job support scheme to give more support to businesses that are ordered to close. For people unable to work for one week or more, their employer will still be able to pay them two thirds of their normal salary and the UK Government will cover the cost. This national programme will benefit people the same wherever they live and whatever job they do.

[Mr Perkins]

There seems to be a basic dishonesty at the heart of these tier 2 plans. There is no support for pubs. They are being told that they are allowed to stay open, but the measures being brought in are making them unviable. At least with our approach what we would see is a short-term hit, but then a reduction in the rate and more of a chance for us to return to normality. Will he at least admit that those pubs in tier 2 areas are not going to have viable businesses and say something about what he will do to support them?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am glad that there has finally been some acknowledgment that there will be a hit to businesses and jobs from what the Labour party is suggesting. It is right that there is support provided for hospitality, which is why the Government have provided a VAT reduction, a business rates holiday, direct cash grants, eat out to help out and now the job support scheme that is directly there to support those businesses that are open and operating but not at the same levels that they were previously. To give those businesses and their employees certainty, rather than the weeks that I heard about from the hon. Member for Oxford East, this scheme will run for six months through to the spring. This job support scheme is in line with those in most other European countries and, to support the lowest paid through this crisis, we have made our welfare system more generous and responsive too.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Chancellor will know from York’s economic base and the complexity of our economy that unemployment may rise to 27% in our city. What additional measures will he put in place to build the bridge to get us through this really difficult period? The job support scheme will just not deliver for my constituents.

[Rishi Sunak]

The job support scheme was widely welcomed not just by businesses groups such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses but by the TUC, which I was happy to work closely with to design the scheme. However, she is right. That is not the only thing that we will do to support jobs, which is why we have put in place the £2 billion kickstart scheme to provide fully funded job placements for those young people most affected by this crisis and most at risk of unemployment. Thousands of those young kickstarters will be starting their new jobs this autumn.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we all want simple solutions to this crisis—whether that is the Opposition suggesting full lockdown or an unlimited extension to furlough—there are no simple solutions. This is a highly complex problem. Every intervention and every support scheme will be nuanced and will have to be regionally effective There are no simple solutions. We should not be looking for simple solutions; we should be looking for the right ones.

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. It is not leadership to shy away from the hard choices and real trade-offs that these decisions take. She is absolutely right.

The second part of our winter plan is to support businesses that are legally required to close, and we heard about that previously. Those businesses will now be able to claim a cash grant of up to £3,000 per month depending on the value of their property. Those grants can be used for any business cost and will not need to be repaid. I have also guaranteed £1.3 billion of funding for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations so that they can choose to do something similar. The hon. Member for Oxford East asked whether other areas had received that support, and was under the impression that none other had. I can correct the facts. Bolton is the only other area that has faced hospitality restrictions in that way and Bolton Council has received, at the last count, I believe almost £200,000 of support to compensate its businesses because they have been closed in a similar way.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I fear that the Chancellor is confused. I was not talking about the much-trumpeted local restriction support grant. He is right; it has been applied so far only to that one area of Bolton. I was talking about the business support that was delivered to Leicester, Oadby and Wigston, which I believe has not been provided to any other part of the country.

[Rishi Sunak]

It is the same type of support—support provided to the local authority to help their businesses. That was the question the hon. Lady asked my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), and I am happy to answer it.

The third part of our plan is to provide additional funding for local authorities. Again, I am happy to correct what may be a misunderstanding of the situation for the hon. Member for Oxford East. It is not the case that that support is only for local authorities in tier 3. There is a scaled structure. All local authorities placed into different tiers will receive extra financial support on a per capita basis, using the funding formula that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is implementing. That funding will be worth up to almost half a billion pounds on a national basis, to support local areas and their public health teams with their local response, whether that is more enforcement, compliance or contact tracing. That comes on top of the almost £1 billion announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we will provide to all local authorities, as we talk to them about their needs over this difficult period, to ensure that they can provide the services they need to. That also comes on top of the £3.7 billion already provided to local authorities.

This Government are dealing with the world as it is. While the hon. Member for Oxford East may not wish to confront that reality, I do not have that luxury. We cannot just let the virus take hold, but nor can we blithely fall into another national spring-style lockdown, as the Labour party wants to, rather than following our regional, tiered and localised approach. We are dealing with a once-in-a-century event, and I can assure Members on both sides of the House that the Government are doing all they can to support the country through this crisis.

We need a balanced approach, we need a consistent approach, and—as you will have seen, Mr Speaker—we also want a co-operative approach. But any responsible party calling for a shutdown of our entire country should be honest about the potential economic and social costs of such a dramatic measure. At the very least, they should have the integrity to acknowledge that what they are proposing will cause significant damage to people’s lives and livelihoods. I have never said that there are easy choices or cost-free answers. This is the reality we face, and it would be dishonest to ignore that truth. So no more political games and cheap shots from the sidelines. The Labour party can either be part of this solution or part of the problem. It is called leadership, but from them, I am not holding my breath.

[Mr Speaker]

There will be a four-minute limit on speeches after the SNP spokesperson. I call David Linden.

13:32

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Recently the Government have quite rightly given stark and serious warnings of a second wave of coronavirus cases, with the numbers in hospitals increasing, the infection rate rising and further restrictions being put in place across the UK. While my SNP colleagues and I welcome what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said recently, it is clear that he and his Government are not acting with the urgency that the situation deserves. Quite simply, the plans that he has set in place do not go far enough.

I have had countless constituents get in touch over recent weeks who are concerned about potential job losses and financial insecurity, with many wondering how they will get through the tough winter months ahead. The SNP has consistently warned the Chancellor that his economic plans, as they stand, are inadequate. We have repeatedly called for support for the industries suffering most during the pandemic, for an extension of the furlough scheme and for the increase in universal credit to be made permanent, but those calls have, I am afraid, fallen on deaf ears. It is my hope today that the Government will listen to what needs to be done, especially considering the recent serious warnings about the devastating impact of the second wave in which we find ourselves.

The SNP welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement that further support will be given to businesses being forced to close in new local lockdowns. However, that scheme, like the other financial packages that the Chancellor has announced, does not go far enough. From 1 November, the Government will pay two thirds of each employee’s salary for businesses forced to close in new local lockdowns, but that does not apply to workers whose employers cannot afford wages due to poor trading conditions, rather than any new Government lockdowns. For them, from 1 November, the furlough will be replaced by the new job recovery scheme, whereby the Government will pick up a maximum of just 22% of pay. To be eligible for the job recovery scheme, a company must pay an employee to work at least a third of the contracted time, and the remaining wages are split into three. The UK Government and the company pay a third each and the worker loses the rest. That is, I am afraid, completely absurd. Most people simply cannot afford to lose a third of their salary. They do not get a third off their rent, a third off their fuel and a third off their shopping when they go to Tesco.

I turn to the issue of hospitality. Yesterday, James Watt, the owner of BrewDog, had a conversation with Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to discuss supporting jobs in the hospitality sector, which is a massive priority for us. He was very clear in his agreement with the First Minister that the end of the job retention scheme will lead to a “a tsunami of unemployment”. He continues to urge the Chancellor to extend the scheme, stating:

“The proposed ‘Job Support Scheme’ will not protect jobs.”

This is not me, as an SNP MP, saying to the Chancellor that this is inadequate. This is somebody who is highly respected in the hospitality sector, and the Chancellor would do well to listen to him and not fiddle on his phone.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is surprising to hear the hon. Member talk about the need to support tourism and hospitality sector when the SNP is putting forward rather puritanical bans on alcohol sales, no longer helping pubs and no longer helping the businesses in that sector. How can he lecture the Government on what form of support they should be giving after everything that they have done on the 15% cut?

[David Linden]

That was a wonderful addition to try to be a nice Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman clearly has absolutely no idea about the £40 million package put forward by the Scottish Government for the hospitality sector. Perhaps when he is sitting on the south coast of England dreaming up these lovely interventions to please his Whips, he would do well to read the full briefing paper.

The leaders of businesses across the UK agree that ending the furlough and job retention scheme is a very irresponsible and reckless decision, so to avoid mass redundancies, the UK Government must extend the furlough scheme in full. With the huge rise in covid-19 that we have seen so far with the second wave, and with the winter months approaching, now is not the time to be taking chances on job losses.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about the appalling health and economic consequences of this. Do he and his party support the advice from SAGE for a two-week circuit-breaker so that we can get on top of this health crisis and try to give the Government time to get test and trace to work? Does he support what the Labour party has called for?

[David Linden]

One of the things that we are seeing in Scotland is that test and trace is working a lot better, and that is because we have not hived it off to, for example, Serco. We have been very clear that we will follow the scientific advice and we will do our very best to get that balance. That is what we have seen with the restrictions that came into place last week in Scotland. We will see how that goes. We are always keeping things under review, but the reality is that we need to follow the advice and get a balanced approach. That is exactly what we are doing, and I am sure that we will see that bearing fruit.

I turn to the issue of the excluded 3 million. The SNP has consistently and continually raised the 3 million who were excluded from the Chancellor’s initial financial support packages back in the spring. Let us be clear that the Treasury continues, I am afraid, to exclude artists, freelancers and the newly self-employed from these recent economic plans. Three million people were shut out of the vital financial support that they desperately needed during the first wave of the pandemic and they were left to face huge financial insecurity, with their livelihoods and businesses put at risk. Rather than listening to the calls of these 3 million people, the Chancellor has decided to leave behind the self-employed yet again in his economic plans, with a 70% replacement of profits being replaced in November with just 20%.

Another group that has repeatedly been excluded from the Chancellor’s financial packages has been the arts and culture sector. We saw this week the closure of all Cineworld theatres across the UK, including the one in my constituency in Parkhead. I again call on him to provide sector-specific support for the arts and culture sector, which we know will continue to suffer during the second wave of the pandemic. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) chuntering away that the Chancellor has just done that, but many people in our constituencies in the arts and culture sector make it clear to us that that support does not go far enough. If the Chancellor has done that, why is Cineworld in Parkhead closing?

I have described thus far a very tough image of countless jobs being at risk. Many sectors are vulnerable and some businesses are wondering if they will make it to the new year, but the rising cases should emphasise to the House that we are still in the midst of this pandemic, which has already delivered severe blows to people’s incomes and financial security, with the most vulnerable people facing a disproportionate economic hit. That is why the SNP has repeatedly called upon the Government to make the £20 increase to universal credit permanent, especially after the latest findings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, warning that 4 million families could see their support slashed if the Tory Government refuses to make that £20 uplift permanent.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that nearly three quarters of a million more people, including 300,000 children, could be forced into poverty if the uplift is not made permanent. That must serve as a wake-up call for the Government. The Chancellor cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the vast inequality that exists right across the UK. With the winter months approaching, the poorest and most vulnerable people will suffer the most from the Chancellor’s economic plans, and it is quite clear that he has a choice in front of him and that he needs to do much better by them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is that not exactly right? One way or the other, the Government are going to have to pay for this. They are going to have to meet the costs, and they can either do that by extending job support schemes by looking at really imaginative, creative, long-term support such as universal incomes, or through universal credit and all the social consequences that come from long-term unemployment and taking us back to the Thatcherite 1980s.

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I have to say that I did give the UK Government a degree of praise at the beginning of the pandemic, because it did seem that they were moving in a way that perhaps was not part of traditional Tory ideology, with a lot more state intervention and a lot more Government support. I think there were quite a few of us in this House who, while we would disagree enormously on the politics, welcomed the fact that the Chancellor was willing to be innovative and try new things.

One thing I would say is that nobody prepares us for a global pandemic. Politicians and people in this House have seen recessions and people have seen wars, but nobody prepares us for a pandemic. Yes, there has to be a degree of flexibility on the part of all of us in this House, but the thing I am most concerned about is that the British Government seem to have moved away from those creative, innovative solutions they had at the beginning of the year. We now find ourselves in the midst of a second wave, and all of a sudden that dynamism and creativity the Chancellor has been credited with seems to have gone away, because of the pressure that comes from people on the 1922 committee. I do not think that people on the whole are going to forgive that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Does the hon. Member agree with the Opposition that there should be multiple circuit breakers, and if so, is that what the policy will be in Scotland?

[David Linden]

I am not sure that the official Opposition are proposing multiple circuit breaks, to be fair to them, but it is not my job to defend the policy of the Labour party. However, what I will defend is the approach of the SNP Scottish Government, who are trying to do this in a balanced way, but we would like to see a lot more financial flexibility to do that. It would help if the UK Government gave us those financial powers. That is what I would say to the hon. Gentleman on that.

I want to come on to that very point, and highlight the work that the Scottish Government have done in supporting business during the second wave of the pandemic. The Scottish Government’s total package for businesses is over £2.3 billion. That is more than the consequentials received from the UK Government. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), the Scottish Government are making an additional £40 million available to support businesses that will be affected by the new measures, and will work with affected sectors in the coming days. I am in no doubt of that. My city of Glasgow is one of those that have been under local lockdown restrictions, and the restaurants and bars in my constituency have had to shut down, but we have recognised when we have asked them to shut down, which is a way of trying to reduce the spread of the virus, that support must be coming.

The Scottish Government will continue to discuss with businesses how the support package we have offered can mitigate some or all of the employer’s contribution to the UK job retention scheme. We have put in place a £230 million “restart the economy” capital stimulus package to help stimulate the economy following the pandemic. We have announced details of a £38 million package of support for innovative early stage businesses. We have committed £2.2 million of funding to the Music Venue Trust, which will provide stability to grassroots music venues over the coming months.

What all this should highlight is that the UK Government’s financial plans have been and continue to be inadequate—excluding the self-employed, freelancers and artists; prematurely ending the furlough scheme; and refusing to make permanent the £20 increase in universal credit. Where we have had the power, the Scottish Government have spent £6.5 billion on tackling covid—above the Barnett consequentials—and they are doing all they can and all within their powers to support businesses across Scotland.

That is the issue at hand. There is only so much that the Scottish Government can do when the vast majority of Scotland’s tax and spending decisions are taken here in Westminster. The fact is that the Government cancelling the UK Budget simply demonstrates that Scotland remains an afterthought for the Tories. I would be more than happy to give way to the Chancellor if he can stand up and give some sort of clarity to Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance about what budget we are supposed to set when the Government have just gone ahead in this way.

[Rishi Sunak]

I have addressed this previously, in this place and others. There is absolutely no bar on the Scottish Government setting a Budget in advance of the UK Budget. The fiscal framework itself allows for that very possibility. That is exactly what happened at the start of this year, so there is simply no reason why that cannot happen. The OBR forecasts were provided as normal this autumn. Those forecasts are used by officials to make all the necessary calculations. It is simply wrong to suggest that the Scottish Government are unable to set a Budget until the UK Government have.

[David Linden]

Conservative Governments used to be really good on upholding the rule of law, and Conservative Governments used to be really good when it came to managing the economy, but we now have a Chancellor who appears to want the Scottish Government to set a completely blind Budget. For somebody who tries to advocate the idea of fiscal responsibility, that strikes me as rather bizarre.

People in Scotland are increasingly aware that the only way to move forward in terms of protecting our economy, managing our own finances and standing on our own two feet is with the powers of independence. With the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill destroying their hard-fought devolution, more and more Scots are supporting the SNP in calling for independence.

An Ipsos MORI poll revealed yesterday that 65% of people in Scotland think Britain is heading in the “wrong direction” compared with just 12% who think Britain is heading in the “right direction”. If we want to continue looking at polling, and I know the UK Government are doing quite a lot of polling on this issue at the moment—they are being a bit coy about releasing it—Ipsos MORI released a poll today showing that 58% of Scots now support Scottish independence.

I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that backs up the point that people in Scotland can see this UK Government are not doing enough, and therefore they want to see these powers being transferred to Scotland so we can take our own decisions on these issues.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend not think the Chancellor’s intervention was rather peculiar? The Chancellor is, of course, absolutely right that the Scottish Government can set a Budget, notwithstanding that it would be blind, but, depending on the Chancellor’s decisions, it may lead to subsequent in-year cuts or in-year changes. I am sure this Chancellor would not tolerate it if someone else was setting part of his Budget.

[David Linden]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.

I do not want to detain the House too much. In conclusion, SNP MPs have stood up in this Chamber and made calls for the UK Government to do the right thing and support the public through the second wave of covid-19 cases. What they have put on the table so far does not go far enough, and that is why we will vote for the motion before the House tonight. I am grateful for the House’s forbearance.

13:47

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Hospitality is one of Britain’s biggest employers. Some 3.2 million people across the country rely on hospitality for their jobs, including 4,300 of my constituents in Dudley South. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has always been a real and true friend of the beer and pubs sectors, in particular. He knows how much they have been affected by this pandemic, and he has delivered a comprehensive and unprecedented economic support package. Without such a support package, many thousands of pubs and breweries would simply not have survived the spring. They would not have got through the first phase of this outbreak.

I do not know whether the Chancellor has seen his rather fetching likeness on posters in pubs up and down the country, recognising the contribution that many of those support measures have made to making our pubs and other hospitality viable over the past six months but, as we are now firmly in a new phase of the pandemic, new measures are vital for those businesses that are not necessarily legally compelled to close. For those that are required to close their doors, the grant he has announced, although it may not cover the whole rent and all the fixed costs, will make a substantial contribution to the costs those businesses incur even before they pull a single pint or serve a single meal. However, there are also enormous challenges facing venues that are not legally compelled to close, those in tiers 1 and 2, where the legal restrictions that have been introduced make it impossible for them to operate. We know that one in 10 pubs has never reopened since March’s lockdown, and about two thirds of those that did reopen were already trading at a loss last month. That was before the introduction of 10 o’clock closing, mandatory table service, and of course the new restrictions that have come into effect today.

[Alex Cunningham]

Simon Longbottom of Stonegate, one of the largest pub groups in the country, has written to me about this, and he could have been making the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making now. He is very concerned that in tiers 1 and 2, he gets no help with his business costs whatsoever. Can the hon. Gentleman give the Chancellor some direct advice on what he needs to do about that?

[Mike Wood]

I would not presume to attempt to direct my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, beyond saying that pubs and hospitality cannot, of course, continue to operate with almost no income and without additional support that is proportionate to the legal restrictions they face. Those restrictions may not be in their immediate area. I have heard today from Titanic Brewery, a brewery in Stoke. The majority of its customers are in Liverpool and Merseyside, which are tier 3 areas, but that brewery will not receive support even though that is where its customers are based. These pubs need urgent additional support; otherwise, many of them are going to close their doors for good and never reopen, which would be a huge loss to not only our economy, but our communities.

13:51

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I rise very much to support the motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has moved, particularly the part that says

“this House believes the Government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions”.

My own constituency is in the Liverpool city region, which is under tier 3 restrictions. The Chancellor might not know the unemployment figures for my particular constituency, but I can tell him that probably not unlike many other places, they have doubled this year. That is about 5,000 people.

I also have 15,000 people still on furlough in my constituency. I understand that when the Chancellor introduced the national furlough scheme, he wanted it to have an end point, but surely he anticipated that it would be ending when the pandemic was waning. In Liverpool, the pandemic is surging. We have no intensive care unit beds in Liverpool’s main hospitals: they are now full, and covid is impacting on other critical care, so the health service in Liverpool is already being impacted severely. Furlough is going to end in two weeks, and those 15,000 jobs are severely at risk, right in the middle of a huge resurgence in the virus.

The Chancellor has introduced his local furlough—that is the colloquial term—for those businesses that are forced by law to close, such as pubs, gyms, and other such businesses. I think it is wrong that those people who benefit from that, especially if they are on the minimum wage, should only get 67% of it. The Prime Minister said today that the figure was 93%, but they should get 100% of the national minimum wage. There should be a floor—let us be clear about that—and I hope the Government can do something about that. One does not have to pay 67% of the bills when furloughed, and food does not cost only 67% of what it normally does, so something needs to be done to help those people.

However, the Chancellor should also be very clear that there are many other businesses in my area, such as restaurants, that have not been forced to close but whose business is severely impacted. They have to close at 10 o’clock, and they have fewer tables. In my area, there is advice against non-essential travel. It is not essential travel to go to a restaurant, so people are advised not to go there, but these businesses are not going to get any support to keep their restaurants open through the local furlough scheme, and many of them will go bust.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

I am afraid I cannot give way, because I have only four minutes and some points to make. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The point is that many businesses and many thousands of jobs are at risk. They will not be getting extra support—I am sorry that the Chancellor is not listening—from any of his schemes in a tier 3 area. Those jobs and businesses are going to go. Those people will be unemployed and the Government will still have to pay towards their support.

May I also make the point in the short time I have left that 77,000 people in the Liverpool city region have been excluded as self-employed people from any Government support? They are barely hanging on and now with tier 3 restrictions yet again there is no support for these people or these businesses. What is happening will turn this pandemic, by the time Liverpool comes through it—and we will—into a cause of severe poverty and penury. It is not right that the Government are not doing enough to help.

13:55

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. It is right that we have this debate and that across the House we talk about our national economy. It also gives me a great opportunity to thank the Chancellor on behalf of thousands of Grantham and Stamford constituents for the colossal support we have received. Some 16,000 of my constituents were furloughed, 99 of my large businesses received coronavirus business interruption loans worth £33 million and 1,527 small businesses received bounce back loans worth £44 million. We had £23 million of grants and, just last week, we received £230,000 of cultural funding, so I thank the Chancellor on behalf of literally thousands of my constituents.

There was a £200 billion package of support, which was unprecedented and globally competitive, and we must be mindful of our public finances. In the first five months of this tax year, our tax receipts were down 35%. At the same time, our debt-to-GDP ratio is the highest since 1963. That is a potent combination, which must be a sobering fact for everybody across this House, regardless of party politics. Therefore, it is right that we have a job support scheme that targets support to those who are facing depressed demand.

I encourage the Chancellor to continue with his £30 billion plan for jobs that will see the creation of green jobs through the green homes grant and new jobs for young people through the kickstart scheme. I encourage him to double-down and continue with that package of support.

I also encourage the Chancellor to focus on economic growth. That is what ultimately will benefit all of our country. There are three aspects to that for me. The first is to release businesses from the burdens they have had for so many years. We saw the success of the Chancellor’s policy to reduce VAT on hospitality businesses. We saw how well received the VAT tax deferrals were by the CBI. I encourage the Chancellor to look at regulations to ensure that we manage our national regulatory budget to ensure that any new regulation meets robust cost-benefit analyses.

The second thing I highlight is the mobilisation of private investment capital. The future fund—it is not spoken about in this place enough—is one of the truly innovative policies of this Chancellor and this Government. It directly intervened and supported pre-revenue, pre-profit businesses. We are the start-up capital of Europe, and this Chancellor and this Government supported those start-up entrepreneurs. The key aspect of that policy was the fact that it mobilised private capital. We shared the risk with private finance. They brought efficiency to those investments, and I again urge the Chancellor to look at initiatives such as a British development bank, which would help mobilise more private capital for infrastructure investments in the future.

Finally, the issue of productivity has been pervasive throughout the decades. Whichever Government are in power, productivity has been weak compared with our international competitors. Infrastructure investment is critical to this, but so, too, are skills. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts and his announcement around the lifetime skills guarantee. This will help constituents such as mine in Grantham, Stamford and Bourne and in all our villages to get the skills they need for the jobs of the future. I warmly applaud the efforts of this Government to date, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to lay that out.

13:59

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate in what has been a horrendous week for all in Merseyside. I would like to pass my thanks, through the Chancellor before he leaves the Chamber, to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury for agreeing to meet Merseyside Members of Parliament on the 20th of this month. Just as the Chancellor walked out of the Chamber now, it has felt to us in Merseyside that it has just been too difficult to get the attention of the Treasury during what has been the most extraordinarily challenging week. I ask the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to flag up to all his colleagues inside the Treasury how very difficult this situation is for us. We have uniquely been placed in the top tier of restrictions, and that surely demands a unique level of attention and a unique set of interventions to ensure that our economy does not go under. I know that the Minister will take those comments very seriously.

I want to take the short time that I have to make a couple of comments about Merseyside, but before I do so I just want to thank all those businesses in my constituency that have been in touch with me. I have had sobering conversations with the management of the Thornton Hall Hotel, and with James, who runs the Rose And Crown pub in Bebington. They have made it absolutely clear to me what the consequences are of this situation. They have done everything that could possibly have been asked of them. This situation is not of their making, and I hope that it is a cross-party endeavour in this House to back our hospitality industry. That is particularly important for the Liverpool City region. We have spent 20 years working to ensure that our visitor economy replaced much of what was lost in de-industrialisation.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you had said to me when I was a child that, one day, people would come for a mini-break to Merseyside, I would have laughed. Most people in the country—well, they did not think that much of us. All that work could go down the drain if we are not careful, so I say to the Minister: “Don’t do it. Help us.” I urge him to make sure that this place of opportunity, with these young and growing businesses, has the chance of an economic future that says to anywhere in our nation: “It does not matter how far down or out you are, Britain offers you hope.” There is a way to do that. Although our businesses are young and they do not have huge cash reserves, they are incredibly creative and, crucially, fast growing. If the Treasury wants to see growth, I heartily recommend it backing the creative, cultural and visitor economies such as Merseyside.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

indicated assent.

[Alison McGovern]

The Minister is nodding, and I thank him for it.

We really need that practical support now, so, if the Minister is prepared to work with us to help Merseyside—I know that I speak for the shadow Chancellor here as well—we will be there. We never want to go back to the dark days. I simply ask everyone in this House to work together to help.

14:03

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow such a good and impassioned speech.

Let me start with two important bits of context. The first is that this country and this Government are providing much more support to the economy and to preserve jobs and livelihoods than comparable countries. According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies earlier this week, while France, Germany and the US are spending about 7% of GDP to support jobs, the UK is spending about 12% of GDP, so it is a much more powerful intervention to help people and preserve livelihoods. That is quite right, because, of course, we want to avoid the scarring effects of unemployment and to keep businesses that are viable together.

The second bit of context leads on from that, which is that, according to the IFS, we will borrow £350 billion this year, or 17% of GDP. It is the case not only that we have never borrowed so much before in our entire peacetime history, but that it is more than we have often borrowed in wartime—more than we borrowed in the first year of the second world war. Although the vigorous action that the Chancellor and his Ministers are taking is quite right, we would be wrong to think that this is consequence free. We must spend on a grand scale and we must spend quickly, but we must also spend wisely.  

Although many Members may suggest different things we could do additionally, it is important to take stock of what we have done so far. We have had the furlough scheme and its equivalent for the self-employed, which have helped 18,300 people keep their jobs in my constituency alone. That is an amazing achievement: a huge public sector IT project delivered by civil servants without any problems. We should be thankful to them for that fantastic achievement. We now have the job support scheme, which is more generous than the equivalents in France and Germany. Unlike in the US, where no such scheme exists and people are just on their own, we are going to help people to keep their jobs. In addition, there are all the other things we are doing to keep jobs: the £57 billion-worth of loans across the different schemes, with £51 million handed out in my constituency alone; the VAT cut for hospitality and the deferment of VAT across the board, which has put £30 billion into businesses’ cash flow; the grants of up to £25,000 for businesses, and £20 million going to businesses in my constituency in hospitality alone; the business rates holiday; and the eat out to help out scheme, which has pumped half a million pounds into cafés in my constituency alone.

As well as protecting jobs, we have also protected incomes. We have boosted universal credit by £1,000 a year; we have spent £8 billion in total on extra welfare and a hardship fund; we have introduced a mortgage holiday that has helped one in six people with a mortgage in this country; and, most importantly of all, we are taking steps to create new jobs, with £2 billion for the kickstart scheme and a £1,000 bonus to take on new trainees. We are also abolishing stamp duty to get the housing market moving and creating new green jobs with home insulation schemes. We have the brilliant, visionary policy of giving every adult over the age of 23 the opportunity to get an A-level qualification wherever they are in their life course and not writing anybody off any more. That is a huge levelling up policy that we can be proud of.

A recent report for the think tank Onward pointed out that schemes such as the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the job retention scheme had helped to keep one in eight businesses in this country going and avoided a rise in unemployment of 5 million people. The Treasury can be rightly proud of averting that disaster, and I encourage the Chancellor, who has been so unorthodox in response to this unorthodox situation, to keep being unorthodox and keep thinking about ways in which we can create jobs. A lot of young people have lost out on their education and a lot of young people are looking for jobs, and perhaps we could bring the two of those things together. There is still more we can do to create employment and new opportunities.

The last thing I wish to say is about the big picture. Local lockdowns do work. Leicester’s did work, as we brought the cases down from 160 per 100,000 to 25 per 100,000. If we can make that work, it is much the best way for this country to go in order to avoid real hardship. There have to be real lockdowns. We have to crack on with it and act quickly, and I am frustrated that some leaders in the north are not doing that. If we can make a targeted approach work, that is must the best way to go and that is the best future for this country.

14:07

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On 10 May, the Prime Minister announced that the country would be easing out of lockdown, despite analysts highlighting that his calls were coming early, and that without a vaccine and a proper track and trace system we would fail to reduce the rise of the virus. In July, he set out plans for significant normality by Christmas and said that people should start going back to work if they could. He talked about opening sports stadiums and big venues by October. In August, the Chancellor announced his flamboyant flagship policy for people to eat out to help out. At the end of August, the Government launched an entire ad campaign to try to get people back into their offices for work. Three weeks later, the Government’s message changed to say that people in England should work from home if they could and that pubs and restaurants were to be placed under 10 pm curfews to reduce social mixing and slow the spread of the virus. If businesses, employees and this country needed one thing they could have hoped for during this crisis it was some sort of clarity in communication, but the Government and this Prime Minister failed to provide even that.

For those in constituencies such as mine, which have spent the past two and a half months in further local restrictions, the impact on the local economy has been far more drastic. The unemployment rate in my constituency is the highest in Yorkshire and the Humber, and seventh highest in the country, Figures released today by End Child Poverty show that Bradford West has had the highest rate of rising child poverty in Yorkshire and the Humber over the past four years.

The Government were late planning the furlough scheme. The first reported case of the coronavirus confirmed by the chief medical officer in England was on 31 January. The Treasury did not announce plans for significant funding to support businesses and individuals until the Budget on 11 March and it was not clear to the Treasury until the following week that the furlough scheme would even be needed. The furlough scheme had gaps where people who had started their new job after 11 March were not eligible for the scheme and were missed out. The self-employed income support scheme has failed many, especially the new businesses that have started up, as the scheme pays out based on profit made, not on actual business turnover, and most businesses make very little, if any, profit in the first few years, yet they still have expenditure.

Let me share some examples of people in my constituency. We have Art of Acoustics in Clayton. According to Musicians Union research, 87% of musicians will be earning less than £20,000 this year, well below the UK average income of £29,600, while 65% are facing financial hardship right now, 47% have been forced to look for work outside the music industry, and 36% do not have any work at all. John and Lauren, landlords of The New Inn pub in Thornton in my constituency, said today: “It’s the local situation. Our turnover is massively down, the pub’s appeal has changed, people feel uncomfortable coming into the pub.”

The Government need to listen to businesses more and seriously rethink this, as they are currently at risk from a health and safety perspective as well as facing the economic risk. The Image Mill in Thornton, which provides photographers, says: “We have fallen through the gaps as most do not have premises and are not eligible for business grants. With the 15-person wedding restriction, there are less weddings. We have missed the wedding season and we’re waiting until next year.” That has a real domino effect.

Becky from Thornton Furnishings says: “People feel the Tories are the party of business but their catastrophic mishandling of this crisis only proves they are the party of incompetence and one that does not care for small businesses or the health and wellbeing of people. I can say with certainty as a business owner I will not be voting Tory at the next election.” I think Becky really sums it up for the whole of my constituency regarding the failures of this Government.

Bradford West needs more support. I urge the Chancellor to address that. I said this yesterday and I will say it again and again: Bradford West needs some targeted support not just for its businesses but if we are not to fail the next generation.

14:11

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

These are without doubt uniquely challenging times. Every Government around the world has had to shut down their economies to save lives. The consequences and impact of having to do this have been brutal not just for our economy but the world’s economy. Covid-19 is a medical force majeure unlike any we have known in the modern era. Scientists and policymakers alike are still trying to get to grips with its medical and economic consequences. No one has the holy grail in these many regards. We simply do not know enough about it.

But what we do know enough about is this Government. They are a Government who put people and their livelihoods at their very heart, who have been resolute in their response to this pandemic, and who have put in unprecedented measures to protect jobs and businesses with their economic support packages, for which my constituents are truly thankful. In my constituency alone, we have seen 13,000 jobs protected by the furlough scheme, over £9 million to support the self-employed, over 1,000 bounce back loans worth over £30 million to small companies, 64 loans worth over £11 million through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, and over £15 million of business grants paid out. This has all come from a £200 billion package of support that has been committed since the beginning of this crisis.

This is a Government delivering world-leading measures to protect jobs and support businesses through this crisis. We know that we are facing demand-deficient unemployment and the risk of structural unemployment. Just hearing the words “recession” and “unemployment” inspires dread, particularly having seen the harm done by welfare dependency in the past. We should not forget that before this pandemic infected our lives, it was the Conservatives who had a history of protecting, supporting and creating jobs. In 2019 we saw the highest figures on record for employment, and roughly 3 million jobs were created in the decade before the pandemic. We should not lose sight of that. Nor should we lose sight of the political opportunism of others who blame and criticise, as we have heard today from the Opposition, but without their own plans.

This is a Government interested in responsibility and accountability because it is the right thing to do, with the Chancellor launching a £30 billion plan for jobs in July, including measures such as the £2 billion kickstart scheme to help young people. It is very clear to me where the commitment lies. They are a Government focused on providing new work opportunities and not pretending to people that there is always a job to go back to in perpetuity. We cannot, after all, as a society of taxpayers, fund what would be the Opposition’s classic policy of letting people fail. This is a Government prioritising support and resources for jobseekers and the provision of retraining for those who need it.

Unlike the Opposition, who seem to thrive on the perceived delights of hindsight, the Government thrive on foresight: as the crisis evolves, their policy evolves. The Government have put people’s livelihoods at the very heart of the covid-19 policy and continue to act in the national interest while balancing the simultaneous objectives of keeping schools open and the economic engine firing and saving lives in more ways than one.

The Conservative party is the party of economic competence and sound financial management. This Conservative Government have stood up and protected jobs, incomes and businesses with unprecedented measures. They have not cowered under the weight of the pandemic; they have not abstained under the weight of the pandemic. At their heart they have enterprise to create, support and extend opportunity to as many people as they can.

14:16

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

In my speech in the House yesterday I said that something remarkable happened in my city of Peterborough during the recent lockdown and covid pandemic. We looked after the vulnerable. We ensured that those shielding had food and supplies. We housed and fed our rough sleepers, thanks to restaurants and takeaways. We came together as one city. That made me very proud not only to represent the city but to have grown up there.

Having said that, I do not want to go through that again, but Labour Members would hit poor people in my city with another national lockdown, and it is for them to tell us how many jobs that would cost in Peterborough.

The remarkable resilience of my city is down to its people, but we did not do it alone. The Government protected jobs and businesses and provided the economic security needed to get us through this. They put their money where their mouth is: 15,600 jobs have been protected through the furlough scheme; 4.500 people claimed grants through the self-employment income support scheme; 2,185 bounce back loans were awarded; 70 coronavirus business interruption loans were awarded; and business grants worth more than £22 million were awarded.

What does that mean on the ground? It means that Eve Taylor, a fabulous historic skin and body care products company in Britain, has brought manufacturing capacity back in-house, expanding the business and employing more people. The Bottle & Board bottle shop in central Peterborough has been able to survive during this tough time. My friend Lisa Aldridge owns and runs Loxley Barbers, which had the dubious privilege of giving me my first haircut after lockdown. A bounce back loan has helped it to survive. My friends Billy and Tony Kertolli, who run a carwash in Carr Road, gave free car washes to NHS workers. There are countless further examples—all businesses that my office has helped. These are real people, real jobs and real businesses, and these people are my friends. Peterborough is a small but big city and we depend on one another, and when we needed Government support they were there for us.

The cultural recovery fund has been a lifeline for my city. We needed support and the Government listened. It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the businesses that could not be supported, including those who were moving business premises just before lockdown, sole traders with not enough money and those who paid them through dividends. I wish we could have done more, but this was one of the most generous schemes in the world, and I am pleased that the support will be there for businesses and individuals in Peterborough when we need it.

The job support scheme has been expanded to provide temporary and localised support to businesses whose premises are legally required to close as a direct result of the restrictions. The last thing my city needs are localised restrictions. They are not needed or wanted, as my city has done the right thing and rates are, thankfully, still low. Labour Members would put Peterborough back into national lockdown misery, whatever our successes and whatever our individual circumstances. I am going to make sure that local people in my city know who it is that wants to restrict their freedoms, take their jobs and make their businesses go bankrupt when there is no reason to do so. This is typical Labour, and we are going to make sure that the people of Peterborough know who would put them back into national lockdown misery.

14:19

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

At the start of this crisis, the Government promised to do “whatever it takes” to get our country and our economy through covid. They have broken that promise. My constituents, who have been subject to the tier 2 restrictions for weeks now—before the term was coined—are being left behind. We are in the frankly perverse situation where many pubs and hospitality venues would see more support to close that they would to stay open. This cannot continue. We need a financial package for tier 2 local authority areas and businesses to protect jobs as a matter of urgency.

Many sectors need additional targeted support, but the Government have so far been unwilling to stump up anything like the amount of investment required. Sector-specific support for aviation has not been forthcoming for my constituents who work at Liverpool and Manchester airports and in our local supply chain. Equally, sectors with large employment multipliers that are ready to create the kind of highly paid skilled jobs our country is crying out for are being stymied by Government inaction. The nuclear sector is perhaps the most egregious example of this. It directly employs almost 4,500 people in Warrington North alone, a growth of 700 on last year. It wants to grow further, but the Government’s tardiness in publishing the energy White Paper and making the necessary commitments to the next generation of new nuclear, including Sizewell C, is holding it back. If decisions are not made soon, we could lose those jobs forever, and at the worst possible time for our economy and the environment.

Just as whole sectors of our economy are being let down by this Government, so too are the lowest paid in our communities, from the new starters and newly self-employed who have been excluded from support to those expected to live on 67% of the national minimum wage. Do the Government not understand what “minimum” means? It is a rate independently set as the least that a person could get by on. I know that I could not get by on £5.84 an hour, and I do not know why anyone in this House thinks that a single one of their constituents should have to do so. For those not on the full rate of the national minimum wage, 67% of their salary could be as low as £3.04, which is less than the full rate of the minimum wage when Labour introduced it in 1998. If the Government will not commit to supporting all those on the job support scheme with a package at least as generous as furlough, the very least they can do is ensure that no one is being asked to live on less than the minimum wage.

The response to covid has been the worst of all worlds. The lockdown that was announced too late, that was too lax and that finished too early, ostensibly to protect the economy, and the social distancing purgatory that is failing to stamp out domestic transmission have hurt our economy far more than a national lockdown ever could. We could have modelled our response on New Zealand. It adopted a zero-covid strategy that meant short-term pain and enforced quarantine for all visitors, but its economy is now back open and people are allowed to hug their friends and families again. That should be our aspiration, too.

14:23

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am one of the 5.7 million business people in this country for whom this is not a theoretical concept but an existential crisis. I listened carefully to the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), when she talked about business confidence. I agree with much of what she says, although probably not that much in this debate.

One thing that really damages business confidence is when you flip-flop. To say on Monday that you are willing to support a local lockdown strategy and then to say today that it has to be a national lockdown is totally wrong. That damages business confidence, and it damages consumer confidence. One thing that has bolstered business confidence has been the unprecedented levels of support we have seen from the Treasury and the Government. This is the third recession I have been through in our business, including in the years following 2008, and I have never seen support like this.

We need to be honest with people when we talk about a national lockdown and a circuit breaker. Are we talking about just one circuit breaker, one hit? The reality is that the SAGE advice says we might need multiple lockdowns, multiple circuit breakers, to keep the virus at low levels. Imagine the devastating impact on businesses and consumer confidence. The shadow Chancellor has to be honest with the business community. She needs to say that this might mean—[Interruption.] I did not hear it in her speech. She needs to say that this might mean multiple lockdowns, multiple hits and multiple costs to the taxpayer, and a devastating impact on businesses. A circuit breaker will buy 28 days. It will put us back in the same place in 28 days’ time—that is what it says. Please be honest with the people. What I would like to hear from the Opposition are some ideas on how we keep the economy open. I have not heard anything from them about how we tackle this public health crisis while keeping the economy open. I have not heard that.

If we cannot look to the Opposition, we should look to best practice internationally. There is no European country I am aware of that has gone back to a national lockdown. The leader in managing this crisis is Germany, which uses not just a local lockdown policy but a sub-local lockdown policy. It closed down Gütersloh and Warendorf, with 300,000 people per district. That is what we should look at. We should stop looking at wide regional lockdowns and look at sub-local lockdowns. The hon. Lady is looking at a national lockdown, which is the antithesis of what we are talking about.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I regret the fact that the hon. Member, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, particularly when he campaigns on banking and other issues, has not listened to what the Opposition have consistently said about test, trace and isolate. He is absolutely right about Germany. We wish we were in the situation where test, trace and isolate was working effectively. That would mean we could have a fine-grained response. We do not have it in the UK and that is why we need a reset to fix that system. He should be honest about that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with that, but it is not either/or. Of course we need to improve test and trace, but that should not mean we have to lock down the entire economy. That is absolutely the wrong thing.

I have three solutions. The number one thing is that we look at this on a super-local basis. We know that the rate of infection in Liverpool is 670 per 100,000. It is 60 in parts of North Yorkshire, but it varies significantly across North Yorkshire. We need to look at a district-based approach that would increase the amount of ownership and responsibility local people have for managing the crisis through peer pressure and from understanding that their actions would be effective.

I fully support having different tiers. I supported them on Monday and I support them today. Having said that, the two higher tiers do lead to a difficult situation. Bars and restaurants in tier 2, and restaurants in tier 3, are not required to close. That means they cannot access furlough support. There are two things we could do: extend the furlough support, which is a hit on the taxpayer; or, instead of coming down from six households per table, as it was last week, to one household, we could go to two households. That concession would have a very important effect for lots of pubs and restaurants, which would then be viable.

The third solution is business support. We need a new iteration of the bounce back loan scheme and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which has been so successful. As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows, we also need to make non-bank lenders part of that new tranche of business support. We need forbearance for SMEs. We should phase support back in, so we move VAT from 5% to 10%, and not back to 20%. We should also phase back in business rates and perhaps stamp duty.

14:28

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). He made some interesting points, although he will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with most of them.

I am delighted to take part in this important debate, which, regardless of what the Chancellor says, is not about cheap shots and getting at the Government. I believe that all of us in this place are united in our determination to tackle covid-19, and to see the impact on the people’s health minimised, and their businesses and economy prepared for recovery. That is why I wish to make it clear today that the Liberal Democrats support the motion from the Labour party. More than that, we repeat our call for furlough to be extended to June next year. I know that that will cost £10 billion, but it is what the country needs, and it is a drop in the ocean compared with what will have to be spent if we get this wrong. The scheme also needs to be reformed and expanded to include the 3 million people in this country who are still waiting for any help from this Government; that is not good enough.

I also support the Labour party’s call for the Government to take on board the scientific advice and bring forward a two to three-week circuit breaker. I know that the thought of us all having to endure that again is not what any of us wants to hear, and particularly not businesses. My constituents in Edinburgh West, like individuals, companies and families up and down this country, have already endured unimaginable stress about their futures and their health, and some have endured very real hardship.

The situation that we face could have been avoided if this Government had used the summer to create a world-beating test and trace system—not one that they tell us is world-beating, but one that is. I am one of the people that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about who jump from one app to the other when they travel. I worry that I may be on the wrong app when I need to be traced; how will they find me? A circuit breaker must be used to ensure that test and trace can and does deliver. The Government also have to provide the support for a sustained and fast economic kickstart when the circuit breaker period is over.

Let us be clear: it is not the virus that is solely responsible or to blame for where we are. It is the Government’s incompetence and inability to use the time they had over the summer effectively. We need a strategy that sets out not only the support available but a plan for recovery—a route map out of this—to provide the certainty that every sector of the economy craves. That brings me back to the extension of furlough. The Chancellor said that we need to take responsibility, and he is right, but the Government are not leading; they are responding. There is no strategy or consistency. There is no improvement. What we have instead is an astonishing chop and change, knee-jerk reaction to support for business.

We were understanding in March—we had not faced this before—but seven months down the line, enough is enough, with 635,000 cases, more than 43,000 deaths and the mourning, the job losses and the suffering that people have already had to face. Unprecedented does not have to mean impossible. The Chancellor asked us to look at the numbers. We learned this week that the economy has grown by less than half the amount expected, and the Bank of England has warned of 3 million unemployed, which will only be exacerbated by leaving the EU without a trade deal. Just in case those on the Government Front Bench think that, because I am Scottish, I am nationalist, I am not. This is not about saying that the Scottish Government are wonderful, because they are not, even though they say so. It is about asking for what the country needs—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

14:32

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). The UK Government have spectacularly failed to use the time that we had to get a grip of this virus. It need not have been this way. The UK Government have failed to work collaboratively with all four nations to implement a coherent national strategy, putting people first and protecting lives. This is not for want of trying by the Welsh Labour Government, whose repeated efforts of co-operation have been ignored.

The UK Government have failed to produce a joined-up and effective test, trace and isolate system in England to halt the spread and shield the vulnerable. Where this Tory Government have squandered millions on failed attempts by companies such as Serco, the Welsh Labour Government, in contrast, have introduced test, trace and protect, delivered by local health boards and local authorities, with a success rate of over 90%.

When nations across the world such as Germany were extending and strengthening support to protect jobs and livelihoods and provide the level of flexibility needed, this Treasury was whittling away economic support, reducing the furlough scheme and failing to support the excluded 3 million. I recently asked my constituents in Cardiff North what they thought of the current crisis and how they were managing, and the overwhelming majority of businesses that took part were worried beyond belief. They are worried about their future. There needs to be a flexible economic approach that truly supports our businesses, families and people’s livelihoods so that they are not in fear for their future. The job support scheme needs to be reformed so that it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go. That is what constituents and businesses in Cardiff North are crying out for—an economic package that allows people to isolate if they have to and provides security and peace of mind.

Businesses in Cardiff North such as Tom at Mr Brightsides café in Llandaff North, Alwen at Iechyd Da in Whitchurch, the fantastic Birchgrove pub run by the brilliant Welsh Brains brewery, and Sue and Laura at Selah café in Llanishen, as well as the self-employed and local traders—local people who support local jobs and are at the heart of our community—have all told me that what they need is sustained economic support. The Welsh Labour Government have already brought forward a wave of measures to protect jobs and livelihoods, including the most generous package of support for small and medium-sized enterprises anywhere in the UK, and a resilience fund that has supported 13,000 companies and helped to secure 100,000 jobs in Wales.

Earlier, the Chancellor called what he is doing leadership. Really? My constituents do not see leadership; they see incoherent messaging, confusion and a Chancellor who is worried more about maintaining his brand than about showing real leadership, which means changing tack in the national interest even when it is uncomfortable. They see a Cabinet at war with itself on whether to protect health or protect the economy, failing to grasp that the two must go hand in hand. That is not leadership. People are suffering. Livelihoods are being ruined, and loved ones lost. We need a reset. Stop playing games and put people’s lives first.

14:36

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

This was never going to be easy—no Government were ever going to put everything right—but as millions of people face the prospect of Christmas without a job, the facts speak for themselves. Britain’s economic downturn is now the worst in Europe, and the OBR forecasts that unemployment will reach 11.9%. As a consequence, extreme poverty is set to double. In the first half of this year alone, the UK endured the worst recession of any G7 country, with GDP falling by more than 22%. We are left mired in the worst recession in our history.

Just this week, an Institute for Public Policy Research report revealed that 2 million jobs are at risk, but the job support scheme will save only 10% of them. That is because, in its current guise, the scheme simply does not incentivise businesses to retain their staff. Other countries, such as Germany and Denmark, have offered far more comprehensive packages that save a significant number of jobs. That report was followed yesterday by the announcement that redundancies are up by a record 114,000 this quarter and that the unemployment rate is at its highest for three years, leading the Office for National Statistics to revise its own estimate of the current employment rate to 4.5%.

That is why it is incredibly worrying that the support package recently unveiled by the Chancellor fell well short of what is required. Just days before the furlough scheme ends, it is forecast that between 10% and 20% of those on furlough will likely end up unemployed when the scheme ends. That means a minimum of 4,500 people in Ilford South alone losing their jobs. All this at a time when support for the self-employed will collapse next month to just 20% of profits, down from 70% currently.

More than 33,000 voters in my constituency are on some form of job support, be it furlough or the self-employment income support scheme, as a result of the pandemic. That is more than one third of the entire constituency. What am I supposed to tell those workers who are already struggling to put food on the table for their families? How many more people have to lose their jobs before this Government get a grip on the health and jobs crisis? Is the Chancellor honestly saying that, after decades of austerity, the infrastructure is in place to retrain all those who have lost jobs? Does he even know how long it would take a waiter who lost their job in Ilford to retrain as a Python computer coder? The Government’s new skills training initiative will not even be ready until April. They have their head in the clouds.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there is significant public backing for a new way of running our economy. A recent Survation poll found that 74% of the public are in favour of the wealthiest in our society paying more tax. I am sure Government Members will want to know that 64% of Conservative voters are in favour of that, while YouGov found that a staggering 94% of the UK public believe there needs to be a change from the status quo of the pre-pandemic economy.

The Government are simply burying their head in the sand and carrying on as though we are not still in the middle of a global pandemic. That is simply not the answer. We learned that if we had locked down the country just one week earlier during the first wave, the death toll would have been halved. The Prime Minister suggested on Monday that only very high-risk areas will get additional funding for local test and trace. I wonder whether he agrees that we need to fix test and trace across the country.

Redbridge has one of the worst infection rates in London. Time is simply running out to tackle this health and economic crisis. The UK Government have lost control of this virus and lost control of the message. They are no longer even following scientific advice. That is why Labour is calling for a circuit-breaker lockdown, coupled with the package of economic measures that we need to support and lift our people, and stop another generation going into poverty.

14:40

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The covid pandemic has exposed and exacerbated an already broken economic system that is rigged in favour of the wealthy while eroding workers’ rights and remuneration. The system is broken.

My constituency of Cynon Valley is a case in point. The local authority has endured £90 million of Tory Government cuts since 2010 and austerity. Some 23% of the population are living in poverty while child poverty rates are even higher—at 35%. Alongside that, we are one of the areas that have been hardest hit by the coronavirus like other of the poorest communities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have one of the highest rates of covid and of death from covid in Wales and, in certain points, one of the highest in the UK. Tory austerity measures have left people in my constituency poorer and therefore more susceptible to the virus.

Since the 1980s, we have experienced the demise of traditional industries and unemployment rates have risen sharply recently. A quarter of the workforce have been furloughed and workers are fearful for their future. Figures for universal credit claimants have almost doubled this year and they are above the UK average. The future is also bleak for our young people. The number of benefit claimants doubled between March and July this year.

The UK Government’s original furlough scheme was welcome and did provide a lifeline for many businesses but it fell short of what was required. The Chancellor’s belatedly announced job support scheme is woefully inadequate and is applicable only to certain groups. We have done things differently in Wales and the Labour-led Welsh Government have put in place an extremely generous package of support for businesses—the best in the UK. This includes the economic resilience fund, which is providing further grants to enable businesses to adapt to post-covid realities, to support the foundational economy and to assist businesses adversely affected by the local lockdown.

But the purse strings remain with the UK Government, and that places severe constraints on what we can achieve in Wales. The current arrangements between central Government and Wales are insufficient to meet our needs. We need a genuine four-nation partnership approach not only to eradicate the virus from our country—it can be done, because other countries such as New Zealand have done it—but to develop the right economic strategy and end the poverty trap that damages so many communities and individuals both financially and in terms of health. We need to end the dead hand of financial inflexibility from the UK Government so that the Welsh Government can carry over moneys from one year to the next and ease borrowing limits.

The current situation is not an inevitable consequence of the pandemic; it is the result of a political choice. With the UK entering the worst recession of any OECD country with estimates as high as 4 million unemployed, action is needed now and I urge the Government to stand by their commitment to do whatever it takes and provide an economic package that will cater for everyone. This could include reforming the job support scheme to reimburse everyone at 80% of wages or higher, provide sector-specific support, provide support for specific groups and end precarious working arrangements. Alongside that, we desperately need welfare reform to provide a safety net, and we can begin by reversing the £30 billion cuts in the social security budget since 2010.

We can afford that by taxing wealth. It is estimated that if wealth were taxed at the same rate as income tax, it would raise £174 billion a year. In 2008, the Government paid £500 billion to bail out the banks. We can do this if the political will is there. Do this Government have the political will to act to help people in communities like mine or will they continue to help the millionaire cronies with juicy contracts so they can profit—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

14:45

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter).

Yesterday, I received a message from a beauty salon owner, and she told me:

“5 out of 8 appointments cancelled today due to clients being in contact with someone who may have Coronavirus.”

Incidentally, before either of the Members on the Conservative Benches start patting themselves on the back that that was because of the track and trace system; it was not. It is all linked to a local outbreak in a local pub. This woman is a successful business owner, who is now left wondering how long she can sustain this level of cancellations without financial support. Having only been open for two months following the extended forced closure of the industry, she has been attempting a new normal turnover, which is already considerably less than prior to the pandemic. The spike in cases means that, this month, she is looking at being down 20% on that new normal. She is struggling; she is worried; and she is asking when the Government will recognise this industry, which has been constantly overlooked and undervalued throughout the pandemic, and offer it some financial support. My response to her is that I am wondering the very same thing.

Over the past six months, I have asked on countless occasions for support for this industry. I have sat in this Chamber while the Prime Minister openly sniggered when asked a question by one of his own MPs about supporting these businesses. His trademark flippancy and ridiculing of a sector struggling to survive is not welcome, and it has left some 370,000 employees, mostly women, feeling belittled, undervalued and angry.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing—with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—I have heard heartbreaking stories of job losses, businesses collapsing and financial insecurity for those who work in this sector. I have asked in this Chamber for the beauty and wellbeing sector to be taken seriously and to be treated with the same respect as other industries. I have written to Ministers, to the Chancellor and to the Prime Minister, and I have asked for a support package to help these businesses survive, but I feel my pleas have constantly fallen on deaf ears.

This multibillion-pound industry is currently on its knees. It is great to see the Chancellor outlining the money that will be available to support other businesses to help them survive, and I wholeheartedly support this, but where is the help for our beauty and wellbeing sector? The hospitality and leisure sectors have now had a VAT reduction to 5% for more than three months. It has been a real boost to industries that have struggled due to closures at the first peak of the pandemic and reduced income as they started to reopen.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I ask again: can this VAT reduction be extended to the hair, beauty, spa and wellness sectors? Can they, too, be given this financial support to help them survive with further measures looking increasingly likely, and if not, can the Minister ask the Chancellor please to tell me and the 370,000 people who earn their living from the sector, why not?

14:48

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be speaking in the debate today. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) raised a pertinent question with the Chancellor regarding the economic support available to individuals and businesses in the areas subject to additional public health restrictions. We have repeatedly spoken in the House about the Chancellor being out of touch with the financial needs of the businesses, employees and employers in our constituencies, and he is proving us right yet again. I ask him: what good is the job support scheme to businesses in Coventry North West if it does not provide crucial support to employees in tier 1 and tier 2 lockdown areas if businesses choose to close because of coronavirus restrictions? I will tell him: it does absolutely nothing.

The Chancellor’s sink-or-swim approach to the job support scheme is letting down my constituents who will not be able to access it. The job support scheme provides less security to employees than the furlough scheme. My constituents will go from receiving 80% of their wages to just 66% on the job support scheme—and that is only if people can work a third of their stipulated hours. If they cannot work, they do not receive anything. What does the Chancellor think will happen to people on lower incomes and people on zero-hours contracts? I will tell him: it will push them further into poverty, and possibly into financial destitution.

Financial support will apply only to businesses in regions under a tier 3 lockdown that are forced to close. The Chancellor has called the scheme a safety net for businesses, but it will not be a safety net for businesses that choose to shut down; nor will it be one for businesses that are told to close by local public health authorities. I do not know what the Chancellor considers to be a safety net, but this is not it. The financial support offered by the Government will do nothing for those who have been excluded from support from the very start of this pandemic, and it will do nothing for businesses that are not forced to close but need to. This is not fair and not right.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that there are several hundred thousand fewer people on payroll since the beginning of the pandemic, and economists expect unemployment to increase, so what is the Chancellor doing to safeguard employees? We have already established that many people will fall through the gaps in the new financial scheme on offer. The Bank of England has estimated that the unemployment rate may well be 7.5% at the end of 2020. In Coventry North West, unemployment claimant figures have risen to 4,815, and I fear that number could rise more.

The Chancellor needs to ensure that economic support goes hand in hand with the imposition of local restrictions. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all tier system: it is doomed to fail from the very start. Were Labour in government, we would put in place a job recovery scheme that fixes the problems with the Government’s scheme, so that employers can keep more staff on rather than having to let people go. This would ensure that no one on the scheme would fall into poverty, and it would be open to all businesses impacted by the restrictions. A tightly designed and targeted scheme would also ensure that money is spent where it is most needed.

14:52

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).

It is with something of a sense of déjà vu that I rise to speak with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury sat on the Front Bench, having had exchanges with him yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate on financial support for the events industry. I do not intend to go over the same ground today—I am sure that he will be glad to hear that—but, as with so many issues, the lack of support for those in the events industry extends much further. As I said, though, we covered much of that yesterday.

These are businesses that we just cannot abandon—businesses that are successful and will be successful again very soon. If support could be made available, it could see them over the hill. We cannot pretend that 22% of the wage bill will be even close to enough for employers to keep on staff when many are in a worse position than they were in March and when restrictions are still preventing them from carrying out their main business.

Many fantastic high-turnover businesses, such as Saltire Hospitality in my constituency, have seen the major events that they normally supply cancelled—they simply have not been able to take place during the covid pandemic. Saltire Hospitality has changed its business—it has pivoted and tried different ideas—again and again to adapt to changing circumstances, and it will have a full diary when events and conferences get up and running again. But where is the support from the Government to get it there? Such successful and viable businesses are put at real risk if the Government fail to listen.

I welcome the recognition that some extension of support was needed for wages, although it came late in the day, and I welcome the continuation of the 5% VAT rate for hospitality until 31 March, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) suggested, we would like to see that extended far more. Sadly, this support is simply not enough to halt the frightening tsunami of job losses that we can all see on the horizon.

The self-employed have all been abandoned, with the 70% profit replacement reduced to just 20%, and there is still nothing for the 3 million excluded from any support at all. The financial support available is half-hearted at a time when we need the Government to stay fully committed to doing “whatever it takes”, as the Chancellor said.

The Labour party is today asking the Government to go further, and I support that. The Scottish Government are already taking action to plug the gaps in support where they can, providing tailored packages above and beyond the Barnett consequentials, including the new £40 million fund for firms that are having to close. They are finding resources from a very limited budget and spending them wisely, something that this Government are not best known for; they could do much to learn from the Scottish Government. One wonders how many businesses could have been comfortably supported with the botched billions that have been blown on dodgy private contracts with Tory cronies and the unnecessary costs of building the Brexit border.

However welcome Scottish Government action is, without serious rethinking of the job support scheme, they are papering over cracks in a sea wall just before the tsunami hits. If this Government will not act, they should provide the Scottish Government with the fiscal levers that Scotland needs to take the right decisions to protect jobs and lives wherever necessary. Decisions on available support are not carved in stone; they are made by a small group of people with big responsibilities on their shoulders. It is a political choice, and based on the actions this Government are not taking at the moment, it is a short-sighted one. The Scottish Government calculate that extending furlough would save 61,000 jobs in Scotland. The good news is that these are decisions that can be rethought, and I urge the Government to do so for the sake of all our futures.

14:56

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson); I share a lot of his concerns, and I think it is vital that we recognise that the numbers often quoted in this place relate to real people, with real bills to pay and real children to look after.

Given the Chancellor’s absence yesterday, he may not be aware that my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf has been under local coronavirus restrictions for some weeks now, so I can speak from specific experience. Hundreds of people across Pontypridd feel utterly failed by the Chancellor and this Government. As colleagues from across the House will know, this is not the first financial hardship my community has faced this year. Pontypridd, along with the communities represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was hit only eight months ago with some of the worst flooding ever recorded. Storm Dennis decimated parts of our constituencies earlier this year, and the Prime Minister said that funds would be passported to help us rebuild. Where is that money? It just shows how much stock can be placed in a promise from this Government: all these months later, we and our communities are still waiting. That is absolutely disgraceful, and shows just how little care this Government have for the people of Wales.

This Government are still pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach to protecting jobs during this pandemic. For months now, the Labour party has been calling for a sector-specific support deal, and still this Government have not accepted responsibility and have not put in place a plan to support these industries. We know that the aviation sector is facing specific and substantial challenges because of the virus. In Pontypridd, major employers including GE Aviation in Nantgarw and British Airways in Llantrisant have sadly been forced to make redundancies. Across this country, 1.6 million people’s jobs and livelihoods rely on the aviation sector. We cannot just let those jobs disappear.

The coach industry, too, is facing specific challenges as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Like aviation, this is a seasonal industry that is very reliant on tourism. Industry experts estimate that up to four in 10 companies could go bust and 27,000 jobs could be lost if no support is made available. This will hit communities hard, as many of these companies are family-owned small businesses, such as Edwards Coaches and Ferris Coach Holidays in my constituency. It really does not have to be this way: this Government have the opportunity to save jobs with sector-specific support packages, but have instead decided to proceed with an economic support package that is clearly not fit for purpose.

The high street is also feeling the strain. Just this week, the group that owns Peacocks, a significant employer in my constituency, announced that it is appointing administrators. That puts 24,000 jobs across the country at risk, and other well-known high street brands are also feeling the strain. River Island recently closed its store on Pontypridd’s high street after being doubly hit, first by flooding from Storm Dennis and then by the coronavirus pandemic, and Pontypridd’s high street is sadly not alone.

Then, there is still the problem of all the people who have been left out of Government support altogether. Earlier this week, I asked the Minister about support for people who have been excluded from the Government’s support schemes. His response was that the Government had covered the issue. Well, the 3 million people who have been excluded from UK Government support during the coronavirus pandemic do not feel like this issue has been covered at all. When will the Government take some responsibility? They cannot govern with eleventh-hour announcements and leaks to the press. People in areas under local restrictions need clarity and guidance, not slapdash announcements that have not even been thought through. I urge the Chancellor and the Minister to consider their priorities deeply going forward, because our constituents all deserve a secure economic future, and people across Wales deserve better than to be consistently forgotten and betrayed by this Government.

15:00

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The Government have already conceded that fighting the spread of this dangerous covid-SARS virus in our country requires extraordinary levels of state action and support, but now, just as the fight is intensifying, it is clear that they have lost their nerve. We are not only battling this deadly virus; the Prime Minister is fighting his libertarian instincts and the right-wing ideologues in his party. They are opposed to the collective state action that is necessary to save lives and mitigate the damage from the pandemic. The delay that this fight caused in March left us with a double whammy of the highest per-capita death toll in Europe on top of the largest economic hit in the G7, and now, this unforgivable dereliction of duty looks like it is happening again.

As the Prime Minister dithers, the virus spreads. His failure to take timely and firm action will cost more lives and wreak more damage on our economy. As he courts his mutinous Back Benchers and abandons the science to keep them sweet, all the warning signs are flashing red again. He is behind the curve and he knows it, and since the SAGE minutes were published on Monday night, we all know it, too.

The Government have lost the trust that they need to lead the fight against this deadly threat. Their partisan, high-handed behaviour has made it worse, excluding Parliament completely. There are constant briefings to the media, and an obsession with outsourcing and centralisation has caused the failure of Test and Trace and the scandal of PPE supplier contracts to Tory donors. And:

“We will do whatever it takes”—

has now turned into the inadequate furlough-lite proposals that the Chancellor has recently come up with. Just as the virus returns, he has packed up the safety net.

For my constituents in Wallasey, who are now in tier 3 and facing a local lockdown, vital support disappears at the end of the month. In Wirral, 31,000 people are still on furlough and it will disappear at the end of the month, just as the virus comes roaring back. What replaces it is completely inadequate, as the Chancellor knows only too well, and those who are losing their jobs or their business do not want a lecture from him about how much he has already spent. Those who are excluded completely from this support in the first place—the freelancers, some of the self-employed—do not want that lecture either. They want a Government who will recognise the hardship that the pandemic has caused and be there to help. The least that the Government could have done was to repurpose the £40 million in unspent support allocated to the Liverpool city region, which is now in tier 3, to support local businesses, but again today the Chancellor has refused even that modest request.

Those forced to self-isolate to stop the spread of the virus need the support to do so and not to have to choose between feeding their family and obeying the rules. Wirral Council, which has been at the forefront of the fight against the virus, has not been reimbursed for what this has cost and, like many other local authorities, it is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

So what do we need? We need an increase in generosity of the furlough-lite scheme. It has to pay more to those whose jobs are affected. We need wider eligibility; it has to go to businesses that are affected, not only those that close. We need to include the excluded, which means freelancers and the self-employed, and we need to pay adequate sick pay for those forced to isolate. If we do not do that, the virus will roar back, and the economic cost will, in the end, be far greater and the cost in lives will be unbearable.

00:07

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Today I want to focus on the forgotten—those who have been forgotten by this Government in my constituency and right across the country. There are 3 million people who are excluded, not to mention the 4 million who are now reliant on the flawed universal credit system.

In Oxford West and Abingdon, the claimant rate has increased by 255% since March, and what scares me is that here we are again. They all suffered when we went into lockdown. We had meeting after meeting to raise these issues with the Government, and we were told that if we come together and clap for our frontline workers every Thursday, we will get through it, yet here we are with a three-tier system that will inevitably lead to another lockdown.

We are hearing that the Government have begun to abandon listening to the scientists and are instead following a strange balancing act, which they are trying to present as Goldilocks—the best of both worlds—when, in fact, we have some of the highest case numbers per capita in Europe and some of the poorest performing economic metrics. It is the worst of all possible worlds, not the best.

In my constituency, like many others, there are some horrific stories. The director of a small gym in my constituency pays himself via PAYE and dividends, and he is petrified of what he sees happening in the north, with the closing of gyms. He is wondering what is going to happen. Will there continue to be no safety net? He is worried about going out of business altogether.

These are the 99% of businesses in this country that form the backbone of our economy, and once they close, as the Minister and the Chancellor well know, it will be difficult for them to start up again. I have a constituent who is working two jobs, because neither pays enough to cover the cost of living. She gets nothing now, because 47% of her income is from self-employment, and the most striking thing in her correspondence with me, and in the correspondence of my constituent Christopher who works in the creative arts industry, is the real sense of fear and deteriorating mental health.

Reading the emails from the beginning of March to now, they are tetchy. They apologise to me for the tone of their emails, but it is not they who should be apologising. It is the Chancellor, the Minister and this Government who should be apologising to them for the stress they are under. Christopher has not earned a penny since March, and he makes the point that he has spent his whole life paying his taxes and that he has a contract with this country, and I totally agree.

We need to improve furlough. We need sector-by-sector bail-outs where needed, but Christopher has received absolutely nothing. He is supporting his wife and two children, and he has paid taxes his whole life, and he feels completely abandoned. He is now talking about feeling depressed and anxious. The long-term effect of the lack of Government support on people’s mental health is one consequence of this pandemic that we are not taking seriously enough, so I hope those constituents and others across the country who are hearing the speeches from the Opposition know at least they are not forgotten—even if they might be excluded by this Government. All I would like to say is a plea on their behalf. Please, this is not dealt with. Yes, there are support packages for others, but it has not reached them.

15:08

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I agree with so many of her points.

In my constituency of Jarrow, people have been living under local restrictions for over a month without any clear support package in place. The Chancellor’s indecisiveness has left workers and businesses across all constituencies, particularly in areas under local restrictions, in complete limbo and often confused by ever-changing rules and regulations. It is no secret that wealthy areas, including the Chancellor’s own seat of Richmond, are avoiding being locked down, despite higher covid-19 rates than in less wealthy areas that are subject to restrictions.

It begs the question: if London and the south of England had been asked to live under the same restrictions as those implemented in the north, would the Government have found new strategies a long time ago? This utterly stinks of classism and serial incompetence at the heart of this Government, and the empty Government Benches tell me how much the Government are not listening.

The Chancellor has made a U-turn of sorts, but people in my constituency have already suffered, and for many this has come far too late. It feels to many like an intentional managed decline. This is not levelling up; it is levelling down.

Let us take the example of Kieran, a bar manager in my constituency who got in touch, heartbroken that his bar has turned from a hiring business to a firing business in the weeks since the local restrictions were introduced. Kieran’s business saw infection rates staying stable for the two months after reopening, so like many of us he is at a loss to understand why the hospitality industry is being made a scapegoat for the rise in cases, when no concrete evidence has been produced by the Government to prove that, despite Members from all parts of the House asking repeatedly for that evidence.

There is nothing new for the self-employed, nothing again for those who have been excluded from the start and nothing for businesses that are not forced to close, but are suffering because of their local restrictions. In fact, some local hospitality businesses and others have told me they would rather be in tier 3 than tier 2 due to the lack of financial support. The Chancellor’s chaotic habit of trying to fix problems of his own making at the last possible minute is costing jobs and causing chaos. The UK is on course for a 1980s-style jobs crisis, and the Chancellor’s name is all over it.

I fully support the proposals by the shadow Front Bench team that would put in place a job recovery scheme that fixes the problems so that many employers can keep more staff on. If the Chancellor’s current plans are not reformed, millions of people will be pushed into unemployment, yet the Government will still be required to offer financial support through many benefits, such as the inadequate universal credit. Households will feel the squeeze and the prospects for recovery will be hampered by a lack of income and low confidence among British households. The legacy from the last period of mass unemployment already casts a shadow over the British economy, particularly in the north, and I can only imagine what the legacy of the Prime Minister and this Government will look like. Nobody is asking for the furlough scheme to go on forever, but workers and jobs must be protected if we are to return to any kind of normality when we finally defeat this virus. The Government should put the correct levels of support in place, make the correct political decisions and save jobs by supporting all businesses, no matter the size or the sector.

15:12

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow a fellow north-east MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). The UK has one of the highest covid-19 death rates in the world, with thousands of lives lost and families torn from their loved ones far too soon. The UK is also on track to have one of the worst recessions, with millions out of work and people looking for employment in the most hostile conditions imaginable. Yesterday, it was announced that the UK unemployment rate had surged to its highest level for over three years at 4.5%. The disastrous mix of the pandemic and Tory incompetence continues to decimate our jobs market.

While the national picture is devastating, what is happening in the north-east of England is utterly catastrophic. We have among the highest mortality rates for deaths involving covid-19 and our unemployment rate has soared to 6.6%, the worst in the UK. As Niamh Corcoran of the North East England chamber of commerce said yesterday:

“The North East now finds itself with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest employment rate and the lowest average hours worked of all British regions…Although the Government’s amendments to the Jobs Support Scheme offers some support for our region in the event of tighter restrictions, it does not go far enough.”

For thousands of families, their income is precarious, dwindling or has disappeared, and new child poverty statistics released today by the End Child Poverty coalition show that the north-east has seen the biggest rise in child poverty. In my constituency and next door in Stockton South, the proportion of children living in poverty has risen to 34% and 29% respectively, with others in the Tees valley higher still. Those are not empty statistics, but represent thousands of living, breathing children plunged into poverty as a result of poorly paid jobs or no jobs at all for their families.

The Tees valley is haemorrhaging jobs. Some 12,565 have been lost since March, and thousands more are now destined for the scrapheap thanks to the Tory response, yet businesses in tier 2 lockdown, such as those in my constituency, have no safety net whatever. They are not legally mandated to close, yet we know for a fact that many of them will, and many will not open again. They will have few, if any, customers, but they will get no proper support from the Government. Simon Longbottom, CEO of the Stonegate Pub Company, which has 10 pubs in my constituency, said:

“Whilst we are continually working to protect jobs, with every new instruction from Government our delicate business balance fractures further.”

Even businesses that are mandated to close will only get partial support for wages, which can only mean another wave of job losses.

Across the Tees valley and the north-east, we are crying out for serious and sustained economic investment. Our Tory metro Mayor promised job creation for the Tees valley, but he has spent £100,000 on each job he has created in the last three years. Then there is Houchengate. The Tory Mayor proudly donned his hard hat to announce that he was spending £1 million on a new gate to an industrial estate, with few, if any, jobs. That £1 million could have provided 100 vulnerable businesses with a £10,000 lifeline and probably saved many of them from closure. Sadly, it has been spent on a gate. There is no protection scheme for jobs. For every job announced in the last three years, five have been lost in the last six months.

We need a serious vision from the Government—one that is not just about creating a few eye-wateringly expensive new jobs but about protecting the good jobs that already exist. If the Government do not act, not only will we see the poor suffer even more in communities like mine in Stockton North, but many families who have never experienced poverty in their lives will experience it for the first time. That is not a place that we as a country want to go.

15:16

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The last seven months have been extremely difficult for individuals, families and communities across our country, so I want to start by paying tribute to those in my constituency who have kept our economy and our community going. Key workers and community groups have pulled together in an incredibly resourceful and compassionate way to get us through these difficult times, while local businesses have turned their hands to manufacturing PPE at the drop of a hat and showcased an amazing amount of skill and flexibility. It has been an inspiration to witness.

However, many of my constituents have been badly let down by the cracks in Government schemes or by incoherent UK Government communications. For instance, holidays are not seen as a reasonable excuse to leave a lockdown area, yet because the flights are going ahead, some travel companies and insurers are refusing to give refunds or pay out. One constituent of mine lost £1,800 on a trip to Turkey by trying to do the right thing in staying home, and another faced hardship over a trip to Portugal. I would like to hear what the Government are doing to apply pressure on those firms and to compensate customers where a firm has gone bust.

There is still a lack of support for self-employed people during local lockdowns, and many of Aberavon’s pubs and hospitality firms are increasingly concerned that they are not receiving sufficient compensation. The Chancellor needs to recognise those problems and listen to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have been constructive and consistent throughout this process. Labour has stated clearly that the Government should put in place a job recovery scheme that fixes the problems with the Government’s schemes, so that employers can keep more staff on, rather than having to let people go; that ensures no one on the scheme falls into poverty; and that is open to all businesses impacted by the restrictions.

We need the Government to recognise the large number of holes in their recovery plan and actively strive to fill in those holes, rather than simply ticking the boxes and turning away. That is why Labour is stating clearly that a two to three-week circuit-breaker lockdown should be accompanied by the reopening of the Government’s closed £1.3 billion fund, using the underspend to support businesses in need.

By far the biggest employer in my constituency is the Port Talbot steelworks, yet Tata Steel has fallen through the cracks in Government schemes and is yet to receive a single penny of covid-related support. Steelworkers are key workers. The steel industry continues to operate and serve Britain through the crisis as we look to rebuild our economy. It is the foundation of our entire manufacturing sector. We need our steel, but the industry can only get through this crisis with urgent support from Government.

Make no mistake about it: steel underpins our entire manufacturing sector, from defence to aerospace, automotive and construction. It builds resilience and reliance into our economy. It is also far greener to make steel in the UK than to import it. There are some fantastic projects such as SPECIFIC in my constituency, which is about creating photovoltaic cells with a steel-based film. The Government must offer long-term support to steel in the form of a sector deal, such as the one that aerospace and construction have, but they must first offer immediate short-term support to get us through this crisis. The message is clear: we need our steel. Steel is a 21st-century industry that forms the backbone of our economy, and there can be no post-pandemic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry.

15:20

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I received the latest claimant figures for my constituency, and its rate of claimants has doubled since the pandemic began in March. The level of joblessness in my constituency is one in five, and this includes those, like many of the ExcludedUK members, who do not feature as they are unable to claim any support whatsoever. Now that Liverpool has been declared a tier 3 zone, our leisure facilities and gyms, and our hospitality sector, are being forced to close. Across Liverpool, approximately 30,000 people are employed in this sector and they all face at least four weeks without work. The job support scheme offers less support than comparable schemes in other countries; it will provide only 67% of earnings, and this will force many people into poverty. The point has been made this week by colleagues that bills, rent and food costs are not reducing by 67% to match that. The support for those who are self-employed and reliant on the hospitality and leisure industries for business reduces to just 10%.

I watched the interview with Natalie Haywood on ITV this week. She is the owner of Leaf and OH ME OH MY, two of our city’s leading hospitality independents, and it was heartbreaking to watch her despair at having fought hard to recover from the first lockdown and now being faced with losing the iconic businesses she has built up, and worse, possibly having to lay off her staff. She is far from alone. Another interview was with the owner of Lunya, a business that has paid more than £10 million in taxes in its 10-year history and employs dozens of local people. The business has been adapted to ensure its survival throughout this first lockdown, but he now risks losing his business and his home. Yellow Sub, one of the best-loved children’s indoor play areas, was one of the last businesses allowed to open. It missed the busy summer season and will now miss the half-term, with the business being put in jeopardy, jobs being axed and more people without work. Many of these businesses accessed the Government grants in the first lockdown and saved their businesses, and they reopened, even on a limited capacity basis, in September. This unforeseen enforced lockdown, without that support, has left them reeling and looking at the bleakest of futures.

Liverpool’s hospitality and leisure industries are critical to our economy. In one of the top five UK destinations, the sector contributes £5 billion to the Merseyside economy and sustains 50,000 jobs. Forcing this entire sector to close for an indefinite period, without the financial support that was available in the first lockdown, will decimate our city and our region.

I must thank our metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, and the six local authority leaders for pulling together a £40 million support scheme for the sector, without which we would undoubtedly be facing a domino effect of shutdowns in our city centre, but we need more. The local restrictions grant scheme will not provide enough to cover the overheads of most of our small independent businesses, the ones that make Liverpool so unique. I call on the Government to repay the city the unspent discretionary grant fund and allow us to invest in our economy. I am a very proud Scouser and I am privileged to represent such a resilient city, which always fights back to protect its people. But let us have a fair fight. Give us the money we need to protect jobs and livelihoods, and keep our economy going, and we will respond by supporting our businesses and workforces, and we will come back stronger.

15:23

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Never has a relationship between the health of a nation and the wealth of a nation been laid quite so bare as it has over these past six months. We were promised “world-beating” by this Prime Minister and his Health Secretary, and we got it—the UK has seen not only the worst rate per 100,000, but the worst economic impact among G20 nations. In response to calls from Labour and the TUC, the Government wisely introduced the furlough scheme, and the initial financial support from the Government was a lifeline to many of my constituents. Some 16,000 people in Warwick and Leamington were furloughed. Business grants and loans kept our local economy going, and the district council was superb in how it did that. Why then, as we head into a second wave, are the Government hellbent on pulling the plug on that support? On 11 March, the Chancellor promised to do “whatever it takes”, but the job support scheme incentivises keeping on one employee instead of two. People working for businesses that have closed under local lockdowns will receive no more than two thirds of their salaries, even on a minimum wage—imagine that, the minimum wage is no longer a minimum. The winter economy plan offers no additional support for those businesses that are required to close. There is no support for those viable businesses severely hampered by the ongoing situation. There is still no answer to the calls of the 3 million taxpayers who have been largely excluded from financial support since the beginning of this crisis, and the offer to self-employed people at 20% of average monthly profits is miserly.

The chart and data published by the OECD, an independent international body, shows how the UK was the hardest hit of any major economy from April to June. Growth is slowing and the economy is still 9% smaller than before the pandemic struck. Our unemployment rate has hit the highest level in more than three years. Our young people have been hardest hit, but across our communities we know that there are many more job losses to come. The number of claimants in my constituency is already up 135% since the start of the pandemic. Whole sectors have been flattened. Automotive manufacturing, which is so important to my constituency and to many others, was brought to a standstill. It has had its worst September sales this century, and this is resulting in the UK industry facing massive financial pressure.

Across the economy, from our assembly workers to our energy engineers, our brewers to our baristas, our dancers to our designers, all too many fear losing their jobs, but it did not need to be this way. If we look at the countries that have the strongest economies now, they are those that took clear early action to suppress and eradicate the virus. China, Taiwan and other Asia-Pacific economies are on course to grow in 2020. They took early action to suppress covid-19 to extremely low levels and put in place highly performing track and trace systems. The only consistency from this Government was their inconsistency. Barbers could work, but beauticians could not. We could spend four hours alongside 300 people on an aeroplane, but not with 50 people on a coach or bus.

The Government had the whole summer to produce a plan for schools, a plan for universities, a plan for care homes and, most importantly, to fix test and trace, instead of which they spent their time telling us to eat out to help up and they blew their budget. We could have eradicated the virus with a proper strategy, but the Government dithered and delayed. They ignored the approaches from personal protective equipment manufacturers in my constituency—businesses such as Staeger Clear Packaging in Coventry and Tecman more locally to me. These businesses could have helped us through, but they were ignored.

The Labour party has called for the Government to follow the science and immediately implement a circuit breaker to regain control over the virus and implement a proper strategy to protect public health and therefore the economy. I just hope that they listen.

15:27

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

This debate is about fairness, because the costs and sacrifice faced by businesses in certain sectors are clearly not equal. That is often just down to definition and description contained in regulations. The word “unprecedented” has been used an unprecedented number of times in this House throughout 2020, but asking businesses in sectors that have remained closed since March to keep their doors closed for the winter months ahead really is unprecedented. Their simple guilt is that they supply the events and hospitality sector. They supply the flowers, the laundry and the lighting for events. I do not challenge the science. These businesses understand their responsibility, and the extraordinary circumstances that we are in, but their sacrifice cannot continue to go on unsupported.

Although the businesses that I am referring to today are from my constituency in south London, where additional restrictions are not yet faced, they are reflective of businesses and industries right across the country. I quote directly from an incredibly sad letter from Mary Cole, managing director and founder of Skyline Whitespace, a very successful modular reusable exhibition production company in my constituency. Mary, a single parent, has built the business up over 20 years while having leukaemia and a bone marrow transplant. She employs 52 people and had a substantial turnover and profit in 2019, but the closure of her industry means that sales have plummeted and, with winter events now ruled out, her company is in freefall. Put simply, it is on the brink of collapse. Government-backed adverts crassly suggest that she should rethink, reskill and reboot, but that is hardly welcome news for her staff, who may face imminent redundancy. The Chancellor promised to do everything that he could, so can the Minister make it clear to me how the business is expected to survive? I quote directly:

“We do not expect special treatment as a sector. We simply want to be treated like all others that have been allowed to reopen under Government-approved guidance. We currently do not feel like our industry is being treated fairly.”

That is no isolated case. I have been contacted by actors, musicians, dancers and organisations that support the events industry—floristry, lighting and linen businesses: Larry Walshe Studios, Just 4 Linen, Dash Linen, Crystal Everest Linen, Tuxedo Express, Lightwave Productions, White Light Ltd, Focus Lighting, Oxygen Event Services, La Credenza, and so many more. They are all unable to open, yet they are receiving little or no support.

This is about fairness. How are they supposed to survive? Stipulations and support must come hand in hand, so what message does the Minister have for those businesses today? A harsh winter appears on the horizon and must not be made even harsher. The entire sector is on the brink of collapse.

15:30

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

This pandemic has hit our country hard. It has hit families, businesses and communities back home in Newport West and many other communities across the UK.

The motion has my full support. We need the Government to do whatever they can to support people through the crisis. I say this with no relish, but the Chancellor’s dithering over whether and how to support people living under local restrictions has put jobs at risk, left workers in limbo and, as we have heard today from many colleagues, created a sense of chaos, fear and concern in the midst of a pandemic.

Over recent months so many people from across Newport West have got in touch about their experiences. I have listened carefully to each of them and made many direct representations to Ministers, some of which remain unanswered. I think of John Atkins, who owns the Events Agency, a business based in Newport West. His business is part of the exhibitions and events sector, which now finds itself on the brink of extinction. John’s business has been closed since March 2020 and unlike other parts of the economy it has not been able to open since.

We need proper financial support for businesses such as John’s. He is part of the creative arts sector and his business will be viable once we have resolved the current crisis. He does not need to retrain, as the Chancellor has suggested, because his business will be back up and running, and he will contribute to the local and national economy by paying taxes and shopping locally. He needs financial assistance now to ensure his business is able to continue in the future.

I think of Sam, who runs the pub in Newport city centre—a pub and social enterprise that employs people, helps those in need of food and contributes to the local economy. Businesses in the hospitality sector such as Sam’s need a Government on their side, not one who walk on by.

I think of Charlie Magness, a wedding photographer living and working in Newport West. Three years ago, she set up her own business and has been reinvesting and building it up ever since. As a result, she is not eligible for the financial support she so desperately requires—another local viable business that will thrive in the future but needs financial support at the moment.

John Lewis is a local electrician who gets his salary through dividends in the limited company he was advised to set up. As a result, he has received no financial support during the pandemic. His is a vital small business giving a great service to the local community that again has had no help, and he has fallen through the financial safety net.

Many of my constituents are hurting and need Ministers to wake up—and wake up fast.

15:33

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Chancellor told us in March that no one would be left behind, but that has now become: Government support is not a universal scheme.

I very much associate myself with Members who have spoken of the excluded: the newly self-employed, many of whom are on zero-hours contracts; freelancers; and artists, including comedians. You would think that the Government would have shown some solidarity with comedians, but, no, they have not. I make a serious point, which was made very well by the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) about the creative arts. The creative arts sector is very important, particularly in bringing young people into work who do not want to go into a conventional office environment, factory environment or the rest. The creative arts has that place. It is important that the Government reflect on the support that they could give the creative arts, but also on the support that they are going to give, and should give, to those who have not received anything at all since March.

I very much agree with the criticisms of the job recovery scheme and what it means for individuals who are currently being paid the national minimum wage. Now that we are in this crisis, I ask the Government to look at poverty-proofing their policies. I hope that the Minister might want to say something about that. I have a very real concern that the lack of support they are giving will put more people into poverty.

That brings me quite nicely on to universal credit and making the temporary £20 uplift permanent. I am a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, which will be looking at this and we hope that it will be debated in the Chamber in future. I hope the Minister will reflect on this because we are in the middle of a global pandemic that has delivered a severe blow to people’s incomes and livelihoods right across these islands, and vulnerable households are taking a disproportionate economic hit. Far too many people are living under the constant threat of poverty and the coronavirus pandemic crisis is only exacerbating the financial challenges facing those families and the impacts on their health, particularly their mental health.

The findings are that 4 million families could see their support slashed if the Government refuse to make the £20 uplift to universal credit payments permanent. I hope that they will reflect on that. Making the £20 uplift permanent is the bare minimum that we would ask them to do to rebuild social security, with the findings showing that it would undo, at most, two thirds of the benefit cuts made since 2015, let alone those made during the time of the coalition. With mass unemployment on the horizon and other key support schemes being prematurely ended, it is critical that the Government heed the warnings from anti-poverty charities and strengthen that support by extending the £20 uplift. I hope that the Government will also look at sector support, particularly for aviation; I have many constituents employed in that sector.

It is ludicrous that there is not going to be a Budget. That impacts not just on the Scottish Government but on local government, which will have to be in the dark in trying to put its budgets together next year. That is a ludicrous position and I hope that the Government will reflect and think again.

15:37

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I was really frustrated by the sense, in some of the interventions on my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, that the Labour party, in making this extremely serious suggestion, was taking lightly the economic consequences of going into a circuit-breaker arrangement. We should not be starting from here. We have all been saying throughout the course of the past seven months that the approach the Government are taking was not working. They failed on PPE. They were slow into lockdown. The testing and tracing regime has been an expensive fiasco.

We have seen the approach that the Government have taken that has got us to this point and has been failing, and they then turn to us and say, “Don’t you realise there are costs to the economy of trying to get on top of this health crisis?” Of course we know that it is costing the economy: we have been saying that throughout the course of the past seven months. But we have now reached a point where the Government have lost control of coronavirus and only the measures proposed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, recommended by SAGE, are likely to get us back on top of the virus. So there is no naivety from our perspective about the costs that are attached to this, but we also see the costs that are attached to constantly, inch by inch, surrendering ground to the virus, as we have done over the course of the past seven months.

Many people are confused. They do not know which area they are in. We look at Sky News and it tells us that Derbyshire is in tier 2. In actual fact, only a very small part of Derbyshire is in tier 2. The majority of it is in tier 1. I have people saying, “Well, am I allowed to travel into tier 2 to get a meal? Can someone from tier 2 come into tier 1?” because they have booked a table and want to meet their friends in an area where they are allowed to do that. There is utter confusion about what is actually happening out there.

As I have said to the Chancellor previously, saying that pubs can stay open in tier 2 areas, but you cannot meet anyone there other than your own household is really disingenuous. All the publicans I speak to say that moving to that approach, on top of the other restrictions, simply makes their businesses unviable. In most cases, they would be better off not paying staff and staying closed than they would be opening under those terms, yet the Government say, “You’re allowed to open, so we do not consider we have anything else to do.”

The Chancellor is fond of saying how much he has spent, but how much has he wasted? My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East alluded to a variety of things that are leaving people out in the cold. We all know 3 million self-employed people have been excluded, but what about all the self-employed people who were given money unconditionally when many of them were carrying on working? There was no conditionality on the self-employed scheme which said, “The money is there for you if you are forced to not work, if you are in a business that is unable to carry on,” yet 3 million people are left out in the cold.

The Government have let people down. The strongest sign of that fact is how few Conservative speakers there have been in this debate. Just six Back-Bench Tories wanted to stand up and speak up for the approach the Government are taking. That speaks louder than any speeches we have heard.

15:41

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

We have heard today from many Members on the Opposition Benches, but, sadly, rather fewer from the Government side. Owing to time constraints I am afraid I cannot mention every Opposition Member who spoke in today’s debate, but the House will have heard the despair that so many of our constituents feel at the prospect of their jobs disappearing, the very real difficulties their businesses are under, and the growing anger that while the Chancellor thinks it is too hard for the Treasury to provide targeted support, he is very happy to write off businesses and jobs as unviable. What all those contributions have in common is the need for the Government to provide clarity and consistency. Health restrictions and economic support must go hand in hand, or else the restrictions will not work and the costs will spiral.

What is extraordinary is that we are having to have this debate at all. At the start of the pandemic, the Chancellor—what a delight it is to see him with us today in the Chamber, gracing us with his presence—set out an economic support package for individuals and businesses. The Government were clear, and our party supported them, that, if restrictions on people’s ability to earn a living were necessary as part of a national endeavour to bring the virus under control, support was also necessary to prevent destitution and the collapse of businesses across the country. But since June, as area after area has been placed under local restrictions, we have seen the Government slowly retreating from that obvious common sense.

Today, millions of people, not just in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, find themselves living under fresh restrictions. They may be local in scope, but the people of my constituency, and all the other areas facing such restrictions, rightly look to this House for answers. The restrictions strike at livelihoods, whether they are employed or self-employed. For others, it strikes at the heart of the viability of family-run businesses that for so many years they have put their life and soul into building up. It is heartbreaking to hear their stories and to hear the fear in people’s voices about whether they will still have a job by Christmas.

Families and businesses do not expect handouts from the Government; they expect fairness. They expect that, if the Government stop them working, the Government will step in to make sure they do not go hungry or lose their homes. As the shadow Chancellor rightly said, we cannot see people left to sink or swim. As well as the support needed to stop people’s jobs disappearing, the shadow Chancellor set out the Government’s failure to provide a safety net worthy of name for those whose jobs have already gone. I am aware that time is short, so I will not repeat her questions, but I note that, sadly, none of them was answered.

These are not new concerns. In July, we warned the Government that what was needed was not a stopgap statement, but a full back to work Budget. We warned that removing furlough too soon—a one-size-fits-all approach—failed to recognise the very different challenges faced by different sectors in the months ahead, with so much uncertainty about the future of the pandemic. We warned then that what would be needed was targeted support, and that the Government should be planning on that basis. We asked the Government then what they planned to do to support the excluded—the people who fall between the gaps of the Government’s schemes.

The refusal to think and to plan ahead and the refusal to fix problems until it is too late is becoming a theme of this Government. Five weeks ago today, Conservative Members argued and voted that

“any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy”.

Only a fortnight had passed before the Chancellor was dragged to this House by the shadow Chancellor and deviated from his plan—to announce a winter plan, a replacement for furlough. Within weeks, he was at it again, on television this time, announcing yet another deviation. Of course, we cannot claim perfect foresight, but I do not think anyone in this House would have foreseen, even in our darkest nightmares, that the test, trace and isolate system would still be such an almighty mess almost seven months after the start of this pandemic.

Whatever our frustrations about the mishandling of this crisis, what matters above all else are the jobs and livelihoods of the people we represent, and Labour’s alternative is clear. We would put in place a job recovery scheme that fixes the problems with the Government schemes so that employers can keep more staff on, rather than having to let them go; that ensures that no one on the scheme falls into poverty; and that is open to all businesses impacted by restrictions. We would ensure clear, consistent and fair funding to every local area as soon as local restrictions are applied. We would reopen the Government’s closed £1.3 billion fund to support businesses in need. We would fix the yawning gaps in the Government schemes for the self-employed. We would stop wasting money on failing private contracts to deliver test, trace and isolate. The money should instead go to local areas, and should not be delivered only once infections have skyrocketed. Our scheme would be designed and targeted so that public money was spent where it was most needed, not splashed on unnecessary bonus schemes or without proper safeguards for workers.

It is not too late for the Government to listen—to the Opposition, to businesses, to families, to trades unions and to everyone whose livelihood and business is now at risk—and I urge the Government and the Chancellor once more to stop, to listen, to think again and to put in place the support our country desperately needs.

00:05

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Government. First, I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their insightful and considered contributions. From listening to those contributions, it seems to me that we can agree about the nature of the challenge, which is to find a flexible and sustainable response to the twin health and economic emergencies caused by the virus. This Government have designed and implemented such a response. The Chancellor called for a toolkit to protect jobs and businesses over the difficult weeks and months to come, and in closing today’s debate, I will outline its newest elements and respond to some of the points made by Members across the House.

On Monday, the chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, observed that we face two potential harms:

“a harm for society and the economy on the one hand and a harm for health on the other hand.”

In other words, the decisions we take are about finding that right balance. The need for balance as we evolve our economic response was expressed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has provided wise counsel over recent months and set out very clearly how the Government’s intentions are to keep as much open as possible for as long as possible. In formulating the Government’s economic response to the pandemic—the subject of today’s debate—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has sought that balance. He said earlier that we must not shy away from the burden of responsibility to take decisions and lead. We have not, and we will not.

The primary goal of our economic policy remains unchanged: it is to support people’s jobs. That is why we have progressed the next phase of our winter economy plan with the express intention of laying the track for economic recovery by protecting jobs through the coming months. As the Chancellor said, the new phase of that plan has three key elements: the job support scheme; cash grants for businesses that are forced to close; and additional funding for local authorities. These more targeted measures will come into force as the furlough scheme winds down at the end of the month. That scheme has supported more than 9 million jobs, but the House will understand that it cannot continue indefinitely, as the Chancellor made clear from the outset.

First, we will expand the job support scheme. This will help to protect jobs in businesses that can continue to operate as well as in those that cannot. For those businesses that can open safely but where there is reduced or uncertain demand, the Government will directly subsidise employees’ wages, meaning that those employees can work shorter hours rather than being made redundant. Businesses that are forced to close will also be aided by the scheme. In circumstances where staff are unable to work for a week or more, they will still be paid two thirds of their normal wage up to £2,100 a month. This will be covered by the Government and will apply right across the whole of the United Kingdom. Crucially, because the scheme will run for six months, it will give people and businesses the certainty they need. We have intentionally designed the scheme so that there is no gap in support for employees. Staff can remain on the furlough scheme until 31 October and will benefit from the new job support scheme from the following day.

Throughout this crisis, we have not forgotten about the self-employed, which is why we are extending the existing self-employed income support scheme for a further six months. This is in addition to the support through initiatives such as business rates relief, bounce back loans and the local restrictions support grant. For those who question the generosity of the job support scheme, we have looked closely at schemes implemented by our friends in countries such as Germany and Italy, and they are very closely in line.

Importantly, businesses can also access a wide spectrum of other help that we have made available in recent months. As the City Minister, I have been most closely involved in the temporary loan schemes that have been rolled out at pace to meet the needs of businesses large and small and recently extended to ensure that businesses that still want to access them can do so. As of 20 September, more than £57 billion has been provided to businesses of all sizes through Government guaranteed loan schemes.

At the same time, the welfare safety net available to those most in need has become more generous and responsive. Treasury analysis shows that covid-19 welfare changes, together with Government interventions since March, have supported the poorest working households most of all, reducing the scale of losses for working households by up to two thirds. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who is no longer in his place, about the continuing need to address carefully the needs of the most vulnerable. The universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element have both been increased by £20 per week for 2020-21, and given the way in which universal credit replaces 63% of lost income for the lowest earners, this means that someone on the job support scheme at 67% of their original earnings will see universal credit make up at least 63% of the 33% they have lost. This will mean that they will end up, in many cases, with nearly 90% of their original income.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I take the Minister back to the loan schemes, which were delivered at pace and were a fantastic success? Does he agree that we will need a new iteration of those loans scheme to take us through the next phase and that, wherever possible, we should make those loans available to all businesses, regardless of where they hold their business account, including those that hold that account with non-bank lenders?

[John Glen]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is something that the Chancellor and I are working on as a live issue, and we will report back to the House in due course.

The second element of the winter economy plan is cash grants. Businesses in England that are required to close for health reasons can now claim a grant of up to £3,000 depending on the value of their property. That is a cash grant, not a loan, that they will never need to pay back and they can use for any business cost. Should the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales adopt a similar approach, we will make an additional £1.3 billion available to them to help—part of a £7.2 billion total package—further demonstrating the importance of the Union as we face these challenges together.

I turn to the third component: local authorities. I pay tribute to the efforts of local authority leaders and their officers throughout the crisis, and I pay particular tribute to my own in Wiltshire. Up to £465 million will be made available to those local authorities at high or very high alert to support public health and local economic initiatives. That is on top of the £1 billion to protect vital services, which itself is in addition to the £3.7 billion we have already provided since the spring.

Let me conclude by saying that, as we have throughout this crisis, we will continue to listen carefully to represent- ations of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, keep the whole of our support package under review and, where necessary, adapt and evolve our response. Members from across the House have made representations today, and the Government will reflect carefully on them.

I vividly recall coming to the House in March, 209 days ago, prior to the launch of the furlough scheme, to answer an urgent question on jobs. The House made its view plain on that occasion, as it has today. We were listening then, and we are listening now. We will do everything possible to carry this country through the crisis, in the knowledge that we can and we will succeed. We need what the Chancellor has called a consistent, co-operative and balanced approach. The Government will continue to strive for that crucial balance, protecting lives and livelihoods flexibly and sustainably for as long as it takes. That is why I urge the House to support the Government amendment.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

15:57

Division 136

Ayes: 261

---

Labour: 195
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 10
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1

Noes: 338

---

Conservative: 336
Independent: 1

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government’s package of support worth over £200 billion to help protect jobs and businesses through the coronavirus pandemic, including the eight-month long Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, £1,000 Job Retention Bonus, unprecedented loan schemes, business grants and tax cuts; further welcomes the pledge to protect, create and support jobs through measures in the £30 billion Plan for Jobs such as Eat Out to Help Out, VAT and stamp duty cuts and the £2 billion Kickstart Scheme; acknowledges the further support for jobs with increased cash grants and the expanded Job Support Scheme to support those businesses legally required to close due to national or local lockdowns; and further acknowledges that this is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support anywhere in the world.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon during Prime Minister’s Questions, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said:

“this morning, the council leaders in Greater Manchester that he just quoted, including the Mayor and the Conservative leader of Bolton Council, said in a press statement that they support a circuit break above tier 3 restrictions”.

The leader of Bolton Council has since clarified that he made no such remarks, nor was the press statement unanimous as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. The press statement also qualified support for a circuit break, which the Leader of the Opposition inadvertently failed to represent. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me on how I can secure a correction from the Leader of the Opposition so that the record accurately reflects the statement made by council leaders in Greater Manchester?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given me notice of her intention to raise this matter. I trust that the hon. Lady has informed the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

[Sara Britcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that she is nodding, so she has informed him. It is very important for good order in the Chamber that if a specific criticism is being made, the Member being criticised should be informed. That is perfectly in order.

The hon. Lady asks me how she might draw attention to—excuse me, please stay back there. I am addressing the hon. Lady; you have to sit down. [Interruption.] Yes, no matter what is going on in here, it is important that we keep social distance, and are seen to keep social distance, at all times.

The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for remarks made and points brought forward by right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, nor is it for me to adjudicate as to whether what has been said is or is not accurate—which is fortunate, because that would be a full-time job. However, the hon. Lady has asked me how she might draw attention to the point that she has made, and I would say to her that she has already done so.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of making corrections, this morning during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that 93% of the current income of people in pubs and the hospitality industry would be ring-fenced or supported, which is actually untrue and is very confusing for my constituents. I did not have the honour of informing him, but given that Twitter is awash with it, I am sure that he is well aware of this.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

First, I must say to the hon. Lady that she heard my answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). This is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. I have to say to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) that as she was criticising a Member—whoever that Member might be—she ought to have informed the hon. Member that she was intending to do so. Once again, it is a point of debate and it is not for me to adjudicate on the accuracy of statistics, but she has drawn her important point to the attention of the House and, indeed, to those on the Treasury Bench.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what you say, but my understanding was that you did not have to notify Ministers. Ministers are, as it were, fair game, because they are accountable to the whole House. That has never been the rule that has operated previously and, of course, there is a specific reason for that, because Ministers have an opportunity to correct the record. The Prime Minister, if he wanted to, could correct the record, but as you say, he might spend all day every day correcting the record.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

And I might spend all day every day adjudicating between one side of the House and the other, and that is not what I am here for, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has made. I am very anxious not to eat into the time on the important motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which we are about to debate.

Local Contact Tracing

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

16:17

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the consistently high performance of local contact tracing systems when compared with the centralised system established by the Government; notes the wealth of evidence that the considerable sums of public money spent so far on the national system would deliver better public health outcomes if devolved to local authorities and public health experts; and calls on the Government to extend the additional funding for contact tracing available in Tier 3 areas to all parts of the country and ensure that councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require.

This Government are obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing. It is failing to reach people who come into contact with someone with the virus, it is not getting information to local councils who need to act on it, and it is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that could be spent on a local response using local expertise. It is not too late for the Government to change course, and I urge them to do so today.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the case for a short, sharp circuit break of restrictions lasting two to three weeks to firmly apply the brakes on the rising infection numbers that we are seeing. A crucial aim of the circuit break is to drive down infections, but there is another purpose as well: it would buy the Government some crucial time to fix the failures in contact tracing.

The current model of contact tracing is broken and it will get worse, not better, while corporations such as Serco are allowed in the driving seat rather than local public health teams. We might ask: how bad is the Government’s approach to contact tracing?

One director of public health said:

“It needs someone with the courage to say”

it “isn’t working”, and it was described as a

“catastrophe…the very worst system I’ve…seen”.

Well, we do have the courage to say that it is not working and I urge the Government to have that courage, too.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight Serco. Does she agree that another problem with test and trace is the number of consultants being employed, with more than a thousand from one firm alone—Deloitte—that charges several thousand pounds a day for its senior consultants? Should we not be told how much it is costing and what these people are doing?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes his point well. He has been a staunch advocate of transparency and value for money in the delivery of public services. The Government’s own Minister in the Cabinet Office in the other place has made those points as well, saying that the Government are spending too much money on consultants when that work could be done in-house with better value for taxpayers. I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meeting from three weeks ago on 21 September, as well as suggesting a circuit break to deal with the rising infection numbers, reflected on the performance of the Government’s approach to test, trace and isolate. The minutes said that

“relatively low levels of engagement with the system…coupled with testing delays…is having a marginal impact on transmission”.

All that money spent, yet this key part of the Government’s system to keep us safe is only having a marginal impact on transmission.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that this is a unique situation? This is one of the worst crises that this country has ever faced, and I invite her to assist the Government, rather than constantly opposing every measure that the Government are taking in what is an extremely challenging situation.

[Rachel Reeves]

That is exactly why I am urging the Government to use the local expertise we have in all our local authorities around the country. We should not reinvent the wheel, but use that local expertise, rather than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

The Prime Minister promised a world-beating test and trace system, yet we have one that is barely functioning. We have a system that is now so broken that SAGE is saying it is making next to no difference. We are all paying the price for these terrible mistakes. The truth is that as soon as the Government looked to a privatised solution, a political choice was made about how to respond to a public health crisis.

Serco is not integrated into the fabric of any of our communities. Ministers could have spoken to the Local Government Association. They could have spoken to the Association of Directors of Public Health. Instead, they chose to speak to Serco. There is a cosiness between the Conservative Government and these outsourcing companies, despite their failures to deliver.

Let us look at Serco’s record. Last year, Serco was fined £23 million as part of a settlement with the Serious Fraud Office over electronic tagging contracts. In December, two former senior executives at Serco were charged for that offence. In 2018, Serco was fined £2.8 million after it was revealed that it was providing asylum seekers with squalid, unsafe slum housing.

One would think that whenever Serco bids for a contract, sirens would be going off all over Whitehall, except that Serco did not bid for the contact tracing contract. It was handed it on a plate, with no competition, no rigour and no transparency. Ministers may claim that it is a coincidence that hundreds of millions of pounds of public contracts have been awarded to companies with clear links to the Conservative party, including Serco. That would be a heck of a coincidence, wouldn’t it?

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am glad to see the old tendency is back in the Opposition of private bad, public good. With the hon. Lady’s proposal around local authorities wanting to do more on test and trace, presumably they would not be doing it for free. They would have to be paid, and it would cost a lot of money. Presumably she has costed that. Will she just put on the record for the House at what price she has costed that?

[Rachel Reeves]

Let us be clear: there are places that are doing this—for example, Wales, to which I shall come later—and the difference between what we see with Serco and what we see when it is done in-house is that with the latter more people are being traced, which means more people are going into self-isolation and a slower spread of the virus. That protects all our lives and means that our economy can get back on track. The Government are the ones who are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a system that is failing—a system that is letting us down.

Outsourced contact tracing is part of £11 billion of public procurement in this pandemic that has not gone out to competitive tender. The Government do not even know whether they are getting value for money because they do not even bother to test it in the marketplace or against what local authorities can deliver. For the outsourcing companies this is a gold rush. I have called for the National Audit Office to investigate, and I look forward to its findings later this year. I am sure that all Members will look forward to the findings from that investigation so that they can check for themselves that they are getting the value for money that they seem to believe they are getting.

One issue that I hope the National Audit Office addresses is the murky subcontracting of the Government’s contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) asked the Government how many companies Serco has subcontracted its work on contact tracing to; the answer was 29 companies other than Serco. The amount subcontracted to other firms represents 80% of staffing. Who are these businesses? The Government have refused to say—because Serco decided that it was too commercially sensitive. We now have a Government that outsource even decisions to private outsourcing companies. The situation is frankly ludicrous.

It has taken investigative journalists, whistleblowers and the Good Law Project to start to piece together the jigsaw. Why the shyness? Presumably because if the Government revealed what was going on, it would not stand up to public scrutiny. One business to which Serco has subcontracted work is Concentrix, which was previously involved in scandals relating to tax credits.

In September, it was reported that another Serco subcontractor, Intelling, was paying bonuses of £500 to staff despite poor contact rates. One contact tracer employed by Intelling was reported to have said:

“I couldn’t believe it when I got my bonus. It’s an absolute disgrace…I’m getting paid and now given a bonus for doing nothing…I really want to help and be involved and make calls and be useful. But I’m not being given anything to do. The system is on its knees.”

This evidence is devastating because it shows that people who should have been contacted are not being contacted and that, far from what the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, the Government are handing out money to companies without getting the value for money that we should all be demanding.

I challenge the Minister today to name all Serco’s subcontractors and to publish details on how much they have been paid and for what. I will give way to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), if she would like to tell the House that information. This is revealing: either they do not know, they do not care, or they will not say. I fear that the more we know about what is happening under the bonnet in contact tracing, the worse it gets.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I fear that the hon. Lady may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. She told the House that the Government did not speak to local government authorities throughout the country, but on 22 May, many months before Labour even started to talk about involving local authorities, the Government provided £300 million for local authorities to set up local test and trace services, so what she said at the Dispatch Box was patently untrue and she should apologise.

[Rachel Reeves]

Local councils are desperate to take on the responsibilities from Serco. They are begging the Government: “Hand over the resources and the responsibilities, because we can do it better than you.” I will come later to the issues relating to what the Government are doing with tier 3 compared with the other tiers.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is making an excellent speech. If local authorities undertake similar procurement, they have to utilise best value and have a social value framework. If they conducted procurement as the Government have, the Government would bring in commissioners. This is an absolute scandal.

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend will know that in Leeds, which we both have the privilege of representing, with the expertise we have on the ground, our local authority and director of public health could be doing a much better job than Serco is doing. Indeed, when we have had local outbreaks in Leeds, it has been the local authority going out and knocking on doors to ensure that people know what is going on—something that Serco cannot or does not do.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that £300 million had been given to local authorities to do tracking and tracing. My recollection is that it was not given for that purpose. It was given to local authorities to help them develop outbreak control plans and set up outbreak control committees. There has never been any general amount of money given to local authorities to do tracking and tracing. That has been a demand, but it has not been responded to by the Government.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, who is better informed than most in the House.

In the last Parliament, I had the honour of chairing the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and it was a privilege to see the work of so many businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. I also chaired the inquiry into the collapse of Carillion—a house of cards built through outsourced contracts from Government. When I see the endless contracts and the enormous sums of money handed over today to outsourcing companies, I cannot help but conclude that the Government have learnt none of the lessons from that collapse and that failure. It makes me really angry that, despite all the work done and all the evidence presented, the same thing is happening again.

There are clear alternatives, and there always were. The World Health Organisation issued clear guidance for contact tracing, which states:

“Critical elements of the implementation of contact tracing are community engagement and public support”.

That should have been the model for England, so why was it not? We do not need to travel halfway round the world for a successful alternative. We can look to Wales—a model where contact tracing is devolved to local communities. In the most recent figures for Wales, of the 2,190 positive cases that were eligible for follow-up, 91% were reached and asked to provide details of their recent contacts. Of the 10,516 contacts, 83% were successfully contacted. That is in stark contrast with the Government’s Serco model, in which just 69% of contacts were reached—a figure that is getting worse week in, week out.

Perhaps if the Welsh Government were a private outsourcing consultancy, the Government would have paid them a small fortune to take over the system in England. Instead, the Government turned to outside consultants, paid £563,000 of public money this summer for producing a report on test and trace—a report that we have all paid for, but none of us has seen. The Government could have learned valuable lessons for free. They could have gone to Mark Drakeford rather than to McKinsey.

Knowing all this, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and I wrote to the Health Secretary in August, urging him not to renew Serco’s contract and to put public health teams in charge. However, Serco’s contract was not terminated—it was extended. Out of necessity, with Serco tracing failing, many councils have had to create their own tracing systems with a fraction of the money. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government knows that this is a problem. On Sunday, he said that local councils are

“bound to be better than Whitehall or national contact tracers.”

That begs the question, why not give those resources, powers and responsibilities to local government if even the Secretary of State realises that they would do a better job and deliver better value for money? Instead, the Government have wasted over half a year on a system that is failing, with mounting evidence of that growing by the day.

It is quite simple. As Liz Robin, director of public health in Peterborough, has pointed out, people were always more likely to answer a call from a local phone number, and unlike national contact tracers, local tracers are able to knock on doors and visit people if they are not responding. Peterborough has managed to contact between 80% and 90% of the cases that the national tracers were not able to. As the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said:

“Council leaders in many regions have been relying on volunteers but this cannot continue. It can’t be done on the cheap—councils have to be given more resources to employ expanded, trained teams.”

The resources need to be shifted from Serco to our local authorities.

The Minister will argue, I am sure, that local and national teams are working perfectly well together, but if she were to show some humility and some honesty, she would admit that it is clear that local services are delivering better. In fact, the national system is hugely flawed, in that it is totally disconnected from the communities while hoovering up most of the resource. This week the Government said they would provide funding to councils for contact tracing in areas with a tier-3 alert level, but what about tiers 1 and 2 to stop them ending up in tier 3? It is a bit like a fire brigade handing out smoke alarms to a family whose house is already ablaze. They needed that support some time ago. If they had had it, they might not have ended up in this situation.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make some progress and conclude to give others time to speak.

Ten years of austerity, fragmentation and privatisation have left our country less resilient to face a pandemic like this. Public health budgets have been slashed by cuts from central Government. Sustained new investment is needed to rebuild our public services during this crisis and beyond. The Government have squandered enormous sums of money on a centrally dictated outsourcing model, and Ministers should hang their heads in shame because it has failed.

The consequence of this failure means we are not getting the virus under control after months of sacrifice by the British people, so my message today is simple: sack Serco and give those resources to local councils, save lives, protect livelihoods and learn these lessons before it is too late.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the Minister to respond, I give notice that we will start with a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches, and it is likely to be reduced quite soon.

16:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “when” to end and insert

“working in conjunction with NHS Test and Trace; welcomes the huge expansion of testing to a capacity of over 340,000 tests a day; applauds the efforts of all involved in testing and contact tracing both at a national and local level; recognises that 650,000 people have now been asked to isolate thanks to the work of NHS Test and Trace, and supports the Government’s efforts to expand testing and tracing yet further.”.

I agree with the final sentence of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that this is about protecting people. The entire focus of the Government from day one has been on driving a system that can protect people. It is not a zero-sum game, and it is not an either/or.

This pandemic is the most unprecedented public health emergency we have faced in a generation. We knew that our response would require a phenomenal national effort and that we would need to work closely with others. Local authorities and directors of public health have played an enormous part thus far, including in the delivery of test and trace. They have worked exceptionally hard to prepare and support their communities throughout the coronavirus outbreak, protecting the most vulnerable and saving lives.

I take this opportunity to say thank you to all the public health teams and local authority staff for their hard work thus far, and I know I speak for everyone in this place, irrespective of where we sit, and beyond when I say how grateful we are that they have been there.

Local partnerships have been at the heart of both covid and of the NHS Test and Trace response. As this House knows, Test and Trace was stood up at incredible speed and has developed at scale and pace. As would be expected, the Government responded at pace.

The hon. Lady mentioned Serco on more than one occasion but, as she well knows, having reacted to the changing situation at pace, Serco and Sitel went through a full tendering process to became one of the suppliers to the Government, and they can be drawn down at short notice. They gained their place through fair and open competition via an OJEU procurement process. Value for money and capability are part of those assessment criteria.

On 8 May, the Prime Minister announced that we were bringing Test and Trace into a single service, listening to those people who were asking us to respond, and it was formally launched on 28 May. We have brought together a huge range of people and organisations into the system, from the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, Public Health England, local authorities, academia, epidemiologists, the private and even the not-for-profit sector. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) will be speaking. Milton Keynes is just the most glowing example of using people’s skills.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister mentioned the private sector. Three weeks ago in named day questions, I asked her Department for details of the private consultants working at the Joint Biosecurity Centre, but she still has not answered, even though some of the information has been published in the press since. What have they got to hide about the employment of consultants and their cost? Will she now answer those questions and publish that information?

[Jo Churchill]

As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, in the current circumstances the Department has a vast amount of correspondence. I will chase his inquiry personally when I return.

As I said at the start, it is not a case of either/or, as the Opposition motion makes out. The pandemic requires us all to work towards that common goal of beating the virus. Contact tracing is an excellent example of partnership in action. We have Public Health England’s epidemiology expertise to ensure that the operationalisation of the tracing model is built on a strong scientific base. Through NHS Test and Trace and its partner organisations, we can do it at scale. The national framework enables us to reach tens of thousands of people a day. It would not have been possible to do that on the existing infrastructure without placing an unbearable burden and strain on the system. To support this, we have local health teams who know their local areas and can provide expert management locally. Probably one of the finest examples of that was the response in Leicester, where local teams responded phenomenally to the challenge presented to them earlier in the summer, with the national oversight identifying that there was a problem and then the local response. We know we need people on the ground locally who can reach the most vulnerable and those who are disengaged from local services.

The local health protection teams form the first tier of the NHS Test and Trace contact tracing service, consisting of public health specialists. NHS Test and Trace and Public Health England work with local government colleagues, including the Association of Directors of Public Health, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Local Government Association and UK chief environmental health officers, on part of this programme. It is, therefore, simply untrue that contact tracing does not include those experts front and centre, helping us deliver.

[Mr Betts]

I very much welcome the plan in the Liverpool city region, where the local authorities have been given £8 per head to take over responsibility for tracking and tracing. It recognises the most serious problem in the country, the Liverpool city region, and the funds have been given to local authorities. If that is the case, why does the scheme not extend to at least tier 2 regions, such as Sheffield, so we can avoid becoming a tier 3 region in due course?

[Jo Churchill]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say we have provided £8 per head, giving Liverpool some £14 million to assist with its local public health attack on the virus and to help drive down the rates. Tier 3 local authorities get that help. The Government will work with local areas to accelerate local roll-out and to allow conversations to be ongoing, with additional money to protect vital services. Further details, I am sure, will come from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in time.

As I said, it is untrue that public health experts are not there front and centre. There are about 1,000 tier 1 contact tracers working within the core contact tracing system in health protection teams and field services across the country. More local recruitment is under way. We have more than doubled the size of local health protection teams since the pandemic began. The next layer of the test and trace contact tracing services is NHS clinicians, who signed up to contact people who have tested positive and talk them through the process to find out where individuals have been and who they may have been in contact with. Those clinicians do the most phenomenal job every day, stepping forward with their wealth of expertise to assist.

Today’s motion refers to local contact tracing and that has, in fact, been getting rolled out to local authorities across the country since August of this year. Has it always gone seamlessly? Has it always been perfect? I am always the first at this Dispatch Box to say that nothing ever does, much as we may want it to. Nothing ever does. We put the best efforts into making sure that individuals at a local level are supported in this difficult work every day.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to say that we want everything to go well, but what we can do is learn the lessons. In my constituency in Brent, people were trying to get access to the NHS database—the Contract Tracing and Advisory Service—and they were met with just “No, no, no” so many times. Will the Minister tell the House the average wait time for local authorities to get access to CTAS? That is vital if they are going to do local test and trace.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I will be coming on to access. As she rightly points out, it is hugely important that local and national systems are in lockstep so we get a better picture of the virus and how it is affecting our local communities.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will my Hon. Friend give way?

[Jo Churchill]

I will push on a little and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Today’s motion talks about local contact tracing, which has been rolled out since August and is something that NHS Test and Trace is actively driving forward in its commitment to local systems. Since August, NHS Test and Trace has provided local authorities with dedicated teams of contact tracers working alongside local public health officials to assist and give a more specialist service. Local public health officials can access and use the data shared by the NHS on a daily basis. Together we can increase the number of people contacted. We have more than 95 lower-tier local authorities across the country that have gone live with local tracing partnerships. There are more going live in the coming weeks, and any local authority that wants to be involved can be. The national programme is doing an unbelievable job of helping people who might unknowingly be putting their loved ones at risk, but so is the local programme.

In England we have reached more than 650,000 people who have tested positive and their contacts and advised them to self-isolate. Every person who tests positive is contacted by NHS Test and Trace, which consistently reaches more than 80% of contacts when details are given. Because everybody, whether national or local, is locked on to the same system—this is vital—we can see how the virus is spreading. It gives us important knowledge. All the data that we publish on NHS Test and Trace include data on local performance. At this point, I recommend to everyone the coronavirus dashboard, which has been improved and updated, and gone live only this morning. It gives fantastic information about what is happening locally. As local testing partnerships are rolled out, we expect to see performance improving further.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) set out, the system is not working. The statistics speak for themselves and, while the system in Wales is delivering, it is not in England. Will the Minister say why the private companies do not just hand the test and trace system over to local directors of public health? Are there any financial penalties or anything in their contracts that preclude them from doing so?

[Jo Churchill]

We are better together. It is as simple as that. It is about a national programme. Let us imagine that the national programme is the spine and the local authorities are the ribs that wrap around us. The combination of the rigid spine and those solid ribs protects the organs, and this is what test and trace will do. We need both elements of the system.

[Alexander Stafford]

Clearly, this spine is very important, and one of the key elements is the app, which 17 million people have downloaded—that is a great success. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is in stark contrast to other systems, such as the StopCovid app in France, which has been an abject failure, as only 2.6 million people downloaded it? When we compare that with the figure of 17 million people in the UK, we see that we are getting it right compared with other countries.

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and highlighting that 17 million individuals have downloaded the app. I am sure many in this House are using it frequently, because that helps us to test and trace. He also raises the point about talking to other countries, which we do in order to learn. When we have spoken to other countries, they, too, have reinforced the fact that this is not only about local systems and it is important to have an overarching national system and local systems as well.

As the Secretary of State said to the House yesterday:

“Local action has proved to be one of our most important lines of defence.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 198.]

Beating this virus is about a series of building blocks. Every day, week in, week out, we are in constant dialogue with local areas to make sure there is support on the ground for extra measures and that the local perspective is combined with the wealth of data we now have, and share, on the spread of this virus. The next evolution of this, thanks in large part to the wealth of data and the insight of Test and Trace, which we did not have at the early stage of the pandemic, is introducing the three covid alert levels that the House voted to approve last night, demonstrating our commitment to respond on a much more targeted and local basis, working closely with community leaders and communities.

Over the past few months, we have built a massive national infrastructure for testing. That work has involved local authorities identifying and setting up testing sites that work for their local areas, and deploying mobile testing where it is most needed. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Army, as we know that its deployment and mobility around the country has given us another tool in the toolbox in order to be able to fight. It is with great thanks to the local authorities that we now have more than 500 testing sites; many more are local walk-in sites to make it easier and quicker for people living in urban areas. The median distance travelled in person to a test is just 3.7 miles.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

[Jo Churchill]

I have already given way to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so I will give way to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda).

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point, as I wish to ask her to investigate something for me. In Reading, we have been waiting for some time for a new testing centre, and this is in a university town that is currently in the bottom tier but which could rapidly progress to the second tier or even the top tier if the spread is not arrested now. Students have been told that they will have to travel only 1.5 miles to the nearest testing centre, but in fact the nearest testing centre is in Newbury, which is more than 15 miles away. I know of residents of Reading who have had to go as far away as the Welsh valleys and Tewkesbury to get a test. Will she now investigate the need for speeding up the provision of a testing centre at the University of Reading?

[Jo Churchill]

I believe that the Minister for Universities answered an urgent question in this House last week, and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman refers the challenges he has on the university to her, she would be more than happy to work with him. I just refer him back to the fact that we are working with all local authorities.

While talking about testing, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House about the scale of testing. It was 2,000 people a day when the pandemic began in March, and when NHS Test and Trace began our capacity was over 128,000. The capacity is now over 340,000. We have processed over 25 million tests, and one in eight people in England have been tested for the virus. I am really keen that we understand the size of this challenge. We have built the largest diagnostic network in British history, including five major labs, 96 NHS labs and Public Health England labs, and we are expanding further. We have pilots going with some of our greatest universities. We are working with hospitals, with the addition of new Lighthouse laboratories in Charnwood, Newcastle and Bracknell, as well as new partnerships only last week with Birmingham University and Health Service Laboratories in London, so we are expanding.

Right at the start of NHS Test and Trace, we worked with all 152 local authorities to help them develop their local outbreak plans. We have ensured access to data, and when it was highlighted that there was a need for better data flow, we worked on it to provide them with additional support to respond to outbreaks, such as with enhanced testing. We have also published the covid-19 contain framework—the blueprint for how Test and Trace is working in partnership with local authorities, the NHS, local businesses, community partners and the wider public so that we can target outbreaks. We introduced new regulations to give local authorities additional powers when they ask for them to stop the transmission of the virus, giving them the ability to restrict local public gatherings and events, and the power to close local business premises and outdoor spaces if it is deemed necessary. This includes more support for local test and trace, more funding for local enforcement and the offer of the armed services in areas of very high alert.

[Steve Brine]

I feel sorry for the Minister and her colleagues now that constructive opposition has ended, but let me ask her about the local tracing partnerships she mentioned. She will remember the thousands of volunteers who signed up to help during this pandemic. Have Ministers given any thought to using that army of volunteers for the local tracing partnerships?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend. Those local volunteers were in some cases employed in other jobs and have returned to those jobs, but where they have indicated they are available, obviously they have been used.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Churchill]

No. I am just coming to a conclusion, and I did give way to the hon. Gentleman.

In a few short months, we have made huge strides forward to tackle this deadly virus. It has been a collective commitment. It is not about us or them; it is about all of us—one team, working day and night together in the different areas, and using expertise to bring the virus under control. We will keep working side by side with our important local partners in the months ahead.

Some quotes from directors of public health have been bandied about, and the hon. Member for Leeds West said they supported the motion. I would merely like to say that the Association of Directors of Public Health

“supports the need to implement, at scale, a contact tracing programme. No single organisation or agency, whether national or local, can design and oversee this operation alone. The success of contact tracing will depend on a truly integrated approach between national and local government and a range of other partners across the UK.”

That is from its press release. On that note—I think it very firmly puts the Opposition motion where it needs to be today, which is to be defeated—I commend our amendment to the House.

00:10

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)]

It is often said that the principal duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe and secure. That applies not just to law and order. If my recollection of policing history is correct, the City of Glasgow police, formed before Sir Robert Peel’s Metropolitan police, had public health duties, not just the duty to address violence and crime. Then, of course, the scourge was cholera, but it remains true today not just in the ethos of Police Scotland: Governments and agencies have a public health duty and that is at the core of keeping citizens safe and secure.

It follows on from that that actions and ideology are used and need to be scrutinised and investigated. It is the duty of the Administration to deliver, but it is the duty of the Opposition to challenge. At the heart of this debate and, indeed, at the root of the subject under discussion lies the charge that the Government have supplanted good governance with ideology and that the choices they have made were based not on best practice, let alone best value, but on ideology; on how they fitted in with their free market ideology and, worse still, how they benefited their friends and cronies; it was not just about the underlying ethos regarding centralised or local systems.

Why are we having this debate? It is because there has been, and is, clear policy failure. Let us remember that, at the outset of the pandemic, our never knowingly modest Prime Minister boasted that we would have a world-beating test and trace system. Why? Because, then and now, test, trace and isolate is key to addressing this pandemic, as it is to addressing other such viruses. Previous pandemics show that that was fundamental. Indeed, all the evidence from abroad, where many, if not most, countries are doing significantly better, shows that it remains fundamental. But what was bragged about by the Prime Minister is far from the reality and experience of those on the ground.

Monday’s minutes from SAGE, released shortly after the chuntering broadcast by the Prime Minister, when, once again, soundbite rose over substance, were not just critical, but fundamentally caustic. They disclosed that the scientists—indeed the scientists behind the science that the Prime Minister claims to be following—had neither faith in the strategy nor faith in the direction being taken. The current situation on test and trace, let us remember, is critical and is, in the Prime Minister’s words, meant to be world beating. Importantly, some insurers may argue with those seeking to claim some recompense that this is an act of God that negates any pay-out for what they have been paying in over months and years, but this strategy most certainly is man-made and the fingerprints of the Prime Minister are all over it. It is a deliberate policy choice that has been made and it is a consequential failure that is rooted in those ideological choices, for there were, and are, other options, as the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and others have commented on. It was not forced on the Government by events; it was chosen by them through dogma, as they have disclosed in other policy positions throughout their tenure. They could, had they wished, have gone with the experienced practitioners who were tried and tested and who had done this before, but they rejected them and accordingly that failure is their policy—their political choice, on the basis, sadly, of their political prejudice.

Let us look at the evidence. In Scotland and Wales, test and trace is built on the public health experts who are in place. They are the local officials on the ground who have been tested over previous pandemics such as flu. We have, as others have mentioned, a 90% success rate. In England, through Serco, it is 61%. That gap threatens lives. It cannot be explained away by the greater population of England, or indeed by the greater urbanisation or density of England. Why is that? If we look at pillar 1 in England, which is being delivered by Public Health England and by public health officials, there is a success rate of 95%, which exceeds that of Scotland and Wales. Therefore, it is not England per se, but the system that England is using for pillar 2 that is failing. That is clear, as the public health-based systems in Scotland, Wales and England are delivering, and it is the privatised Serco-based model in England that is failing.

That brings me to the next subject: speed. Speed is an issue in this debate. It is an aspect of health actions and of the delivery of policy choices. Speed is essential for infection control. It is also vital to changes in normal Government procurement rules, yet it seems that what should be a mitigatory factor for changes to the usual competitive tendering rules is, in fact, a condemnatory matter for Government policy choices based on ideology.

Speed is vital in health actions with regard to this virus. That is clear in all pandemic control, but especially for covid. Why is that? Because people can be infectious two or three days before they are aware of the symptoms. Hence test, trace and isolate is fundamental, or, as we are sadly seeing, the R number simply increases exponentially. Speed is also acknowledged in competitive tendering rules. Latitude is understandably given where urgency is required in cases of emergency, such as we face at the moment, but value for money is still to be sought even if the best-value rules are overridden. However, as with the need for safety and security in policy that I have detailed, there also needs to be probity in office and in the actions of Government.

Let us look at what has happened. The Government are charged with failing to deliver an accurate or speedy response, as the 61% showing testifies to. The reality is that they did not deliver a speedy response to the pandemic, but they delivered an entirely inadequate testing system based on a procurement system that has used speed as an excuse, if not cover, for making ideological choices. If truth be told, they have failed to secure their citizens, but they have certainly satisfied their cronies. Transparency and clarity there must be, but probity and competence are also required.

Let us consider the facts, because that is where I believe the Government are found wanting. Pillar 1 in England, as in Scotland and Wales, has delivered. Why is that? Because it is built on Public Health England, and on local public health agencies in Scotland and Wales—the same people who have dealt with viruses in the past; those who have dealt with meningitis outbreaks and norovirus, and indeed, in past generations, the cholera that I mentioned. In public health emergencies, they come to the fore; they are trained for them, they prepare for them and they are experienced in them.

Of course, that does not preclude the private sector or deny the need for recruitment of additional staff. That is self-evident when we face a crisis on this scale. But all that should be done under the guidance and the direction of those skilled and experienced staff who are trained in public health, who know what they are doing and—this is core to the motion—know the area that they are serving.

However, ideology has overridden that. The most damning evidence is from the independent adviser to the independent SAGE, Sir David King, who said that the Government claim to be following the science but have ignored the scientists. Instead of those tried-and-tested experts and others—new and old, experienced and not, but working with and to them—we got an army of consultants. Not medical consultants, who would have been welcomed by the population at large, but management consultants and consultancy firms who are neither qualified nor—again, this is fundamental to the motion—local, such as Sodexo, Serco and Deloitte.

We got 50 Deloitte testing centres, which then subcontracted to Serco, Sodexo, Mitie, G4S, Boots, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all to carry out their mandate and, indeed, to staff and resource them. What should have been a local response delivered by public health officials has become a centralised service, divvied up and shared out among corporate pals—given to their pals; their family and friends, without going into other aspects; their corporate friends, and indeed big business donors. Who cares what their experience is in public health as long as they are on side politically? Why let public health get in the way of old pals’ needs?

It gets worse. On 9 October, Sky News mentioned 1,114 consultants from Deloitte employed on test and trace, as well as 144 from McKinsey, BCG, PwC, KPMG and EY. Who cares what the acronym is, what knowledge they have, or where they are based? To be in charge of public health is a beanfeast and a bonanza for consultants when it should be about caring and providing for our citizens. It is management over medical and it is centralised, not localised. If it was not so tragic, it would be farcical, if not comical. If only the percentage of tests delivered met the increasing percentage of consultants being hired.

Neither public health nor public procurement is being satisfied with the current policy. Daniel Bruce of Transparency International warned, regarding the circumventing of competitive tendering proposals, about a blank cheque, but it is not a blank cheque for public health officials—it is a blank cheque for consultancy profits. It is not a de minimis amount, either, for we know that the magic money tree has been found and is being well and truly plundered. Although much is welcome, this most certainly is not. There have been 117 contracts worth £1.7 billion, 115 of those under fast-track rules dispensing with normal competitive tendering requirements, and two contracts of £200 million administered by Whitehall Departments. We even have contracts going to firms with Tory MPs as paid consultants. I am implying nothing, but when less scrutiny is required, more care should certainly be taken by those in office. This plethora of deals to family, friends and cronies does a political disservice and is as unhealthy as the virus in terms of the public good. While best value has been dispensed with, value for money is still required, not just by Daniel Bruce but by civil service rules. Fundamentally, as ever, probity and rectitude should be followed in government.

This debate is not simply about localised versus centralised. At its heart, it is a question of strategy by the Government, who have chosen, in addressing this pandemic, that it should be seen, and rather tragically has been seen, as increasing the percentage of consultants rather than the percentage of public health officials. Instead of seeing increasing largesse in public contracts going to consultants, not public health officials, we should have been seeing it going to those on the frontline who are dealing with need. Truncated procedures are needed, and they are acceptable, but the fact is that taxpayers are paying the price and citizens are bearing the cost, while, at the same time, corporate profits are being increased and public health officials undermined. It has become corporatism, with centralised cronyism, when it should be public health, localised and competent. It is, frankly, a national scandal.

17:13

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate.

Effective contact tracing is going to help us to tackle this virus, and all of us here want the best possible version of that tool in the toolbox. The question is how best we do that. Despite what the Opposition might have people believe, there are no easy answers to this problem. It is easy to stand up in this place or go on TV and say, “Fix it”, but anyone with any real-world experience of organising any kind of project or undertaking that is even a fraction of the scale and size of this one understands the incredible challenges that are inevitably faced. Over recent months, the Government have built a huge testing regime capable of processing 340,000 tests a day that has tested over 7 million people in a matter of months. At the start of this epidemic, the yardstick for all this was Germany. Now that we are testing more people than Germany, France, Italy and Denmark, and many others, that yardstick has quietly disappeared.

Yes, there are challenges. Supply and demand are not uniform across the country and supply needs to be increased, but, whatever Labour Members think about the Government’s approach to testing and tracing, if they describe testing 69% as a complete failure, what does that say about the Welsh Labour Government’s programme? To be brutally honest, I am struggling to understand what exactly Labour Members are trying to say today, beyond of course, “We could have done it differently. It would all have been different and fantastic, and nothing would have gone wrong.” That is basically their position on everything to do with the coronavirus.

Let us talk about some of Labour Members’ common criticisms. They say we should not have the private sector involved, and that there is insufficient capacity. At the same time as criticising the Government for not having enough testing capacity, they are telling them that they should immediately and drastically cut out a chunk of that capacity because it does not suit their ideology. This is all based on their blinkered mentality that if the private sector does something it will automatically be bad and if the public sector does something it will automatically be good.

That brings me to the question of whether doing everything locally would have been the right approach at the outset of the programme. I simply do not accept that asking all 152 directors of public health to go off and set up their own approach at the outset would have been in any way feasible. Were they all supposed to come up with their own laboratories, their own contracts and their own apps? That just is not a credible solution in the short term. It was common sense to begin with a central programme, although even at the outset, when it was clear that something centrally driven was needed to kickstart the process, the Government recognised that local systems had a role to play. Many months before Labour was calling for it, £300 million was provided to help local authorities to develop their own test and trace programmes and, importantly, we have now 93 local authority test and trace regimes up and running.

So what is it that Labour Members are saying? Is it that we should immediately hand over everything that is being run nationally to local authorities?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No.

[Dr Mullan]

Well, it is.

Many of us in this place who have had dealings with local authorities—as well as lots of our constituents and probably millions of people across the country—would agree that getting everything done by the local authority is by no means a guarantee of success. Just this morning, in news that I am sure was greeted with groans in the Labour Whips Office, it was revealed that Birmingham City Council’s local programme dropped off 25 used swab kits to homes in Selly Oak. Does that mean that local authorities are incapable of delivering? No, of course not. We have problems in the private sector, and that should not bar them from involvement, and we have problems in the public sector too.

Local authority solutions are not a magic bullet. The quality of leadership, management and organisation varies enormously among local authorities. We all know this, and the Opposition know it. At the election, so many bricks in their red wall fell because residents were fed up not just with Labour at national level but with inept, Labour-led local authorities. After decades in power, they were taking people for granted, with leaders and councillors who were not even up to the job of taking away the bins on time, let alone organising a test and trace programme. The national programme inevitably has challenges, but do Labour Members really think that each and every one of the local authorities will deliver on this flawlessly?

Local leaders are political. Sadly, time and again we see Members on the Opposition Benches putting politics first. In the past 24 hours alone, they have said that they support local lockdowns but then did not vote for local lockdowns; that national lockdowns were a disaster, but now they want a national lockdown—and they cannot even make up their minds whether they want a two-week or a three-week lockdown. And they want the country to believe that if they had been in charge, all this would have been going smoothly. That is not accurate. When it came to getting children back to school, the national Labour party was kowtowing to national union leaders and doing what they said, and we all know that the local Labour parties are just as likely to be influenced by the unions. I absolutely recognise that there is work that needs to be done, but I am afraid the idea that if we just flick a switch and give it all to local authorities everything will be fine is complete and utter nonsense.

17:18

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

For months, the Labour party has been calling on the Prime Minister to get a grip of the crisis, yet, characteristically for his Government, all we have seen is dither and delay, U-turn after U-turn and a failure to provide effective testing and tracing of this deadly virus. Back in February, the World Health Organisation advised nations that a key component of their pandemic response should be “test, test, test”, but despite spending over £12 billion of taxpayers’ money, this Government have failed spectacularly to deliver even a functioning test and trace system, never mind the Prime Minister’s self-avowed “world-beating” programme. Instead, they have blamed the public for wanting too many tests, misplaced records for 16,000 positive cases, and launched their app months late.

While Ministers continue to bore us ad nauseum with their soundbites about world-beating capacity, they ignore the reality that the system is broken and, in the words of SAGE, is having only “a marginal impact” on controlling the virus. They continue to hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to private companies—many with Conservative party connections—trying to paper over the cracks without addressing the failures of a privatised and centralised model. Just last week, only 68% of contacts of those who had tested positive for coronavirus were reached by the Government’s central system. That is the worst weekly figure since test and trace began, while cases are among the highest. In comparison, 97.1% were reached by local protection teams, so the picture is pretty clear.

In my constituency of Slough, because of Government failures the council was compelled to set up its own tracing system to protect our local community. This came after the Department of Health and Social Care significantly curtailed the working of our local testing centre, causing absolute chaos. I have been contacted by constituents who were directed to drive hundreds of miles, or even to catch a ferry to the Isle of Wight, just to get a test; by parents unable to send their children to school after waiting an entire week for test results; and by key workers simply unable to book test appointments. One of my own staff, a key worker helping me provide support to the more than 1,400 constituents currently requiring my assistance, had to self-isolate for two weeks because one of her relatives at home was taken to hospital by ambulance with a high temperature and struggling to breathe. No test was offered, either to my colleague or her relative; instead, they were instructed to self-isolate for two weeks. It is just not good enough.

Without effective and timely testing, contact tracing is rendered useless, and this is part of a pattern. Local councils have been failed at every turn; there is diminished national testing capacity; there has been no blanket additional support to set up local track and trace systems; and only limited financial support has been offered, with all this coming after a decade of austerity that has stripped much-valued public services to the bone. How can they effectively respond without adequate Government support?

Whenever the likes of me ask basic questions that are of serious concern to our anxious constituents, the Health and Social Care Secretary decides to gaslight or even wag his finger around, accusing us of using divisive language. Given that he does not seem to know the answer, perhaps the Minister can advise us and the good people of Slough as to when our test centre will go back to being a drive-through and walk-in facility, so that locals can actually access a test when they desperately need one.

The British people want to do the right thing—get tested and follow Government advice—but they are being badly let down by a Government whose dithering and incompetence has resulted in our Slough now sadly having seen the largest unemployment increase in the whole of the UK since the start of this outbreak. It is incredible that while some nations prioritised their public health, and others their economy, this Conservative Government have managed ineptly to sacrifice both.

17:23

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It feels like a world ago when I was taken aside by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and told that Milton Keynes would be hosting a coronavirus quarantine centre for the repatriation of British nationals and their dependants returning from Wuhan. Shortly after that, we heard the sad news that one of the first deaths of a hospital patient who had tested positive for coronavirus had occurred in Milton Keynes University Hospital. I think about that moment a lot.

Since then, the world has changed. We learn new things about this virus and our ability to deal with it every day. We have had challenges, and we have overcome them. There will be more challenges ahead. We know that this virus thrives in cold, damp environments with low levels of ultraviolet radiation from sunlight and that transmission overwhelmingly occurs indoors. Cold, damp environments where we are overwhelmingly indoors are known in the UK as autumn and winter. These seasons are against us, and positive cases are rising.

That is why we all have a part to play. We must control the virus, protect lives and protect livelihoods until a vaccine can keep us safe. A big part of that is the app. The good people of Milton Keynes are famously tech savvy, and I am sure that many have already downloaded the NHS covid-19 app, but I must strongly encourage everyone to do so. It is a huge part of dealing with the virus and a huge part of test and trace.

It is not just about downloading the app; it is about what we do with our lives. It is about hands, face, space; the rule of six; understanding the rules and restrictions in our local tier; and, crucially—I say this to Opposition Members—it is about working together to defeat the virus. With winter just around the corner, now is not the time to be promoting alternative test and trace systems or undermining public confidence in the work of our NHS and public health professionals. We continue to expand our support for the local approach with a national framework. The experience of other countries shows that we need a national approach, because otherwise, the local test and trace operations simply will not join up.

My hon. Friend the Minister referenced the Lighthouse lab in Milton Keynes. I am immensely proud to represent Milton Keynes North in this place. We have robots, e-scooters and driverless cars. We have companies that are mining for water on the moon, and we have the most fantastically productive and brilliant people in this country. Of course Milton Keynes was selected to host one of the first Lighthouse labs. We now have robot freezers capable of processing up to 150,000 test results a day. Milton Keynes makes a fantastic contribution to our national effort.

The stunning achievement of getting that lab up and running has been down to amazing co-operation between the public sector, the private sector and the military—all working together, as we should in a national emergency. The Labour party wants to remove the private sector from test and trace. We have been able to ramp up testing to more than 134,000 a day only with the support, co-operation and innovation of the private sector. Some 22,000 of the 30,000 ventilators were produced by the private sector. The vaccine trials are being run by the private sector, including the potential game changer in Operation Moonshot. Dexamethasone, the first proven therapy for this horrible disease, is being produced at scale by the private sector. Thirty-two billion items of PPE have been provided by the private sector, keeping our health and social care professionals safe as they do their heroic work. Now is not the time to play ideological games with our response to a public health emergency. Now is the time to work together. Now is the time to use every lever possible to save lives, protect the NHS and beat this virus.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes—[Hon. Members: “Three minutes?”] Yes, because the debate ends at 7 o’clock. Members should not be surprised because they can see the call list. I call Dawn Butler.

17:28

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my contribution to factual information, unlike some of the speeches that we have heard today. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging and apologising for the failures of the test and trace system the other day.

Here are some general facts. The minutes from SAGE on 1 May reported that any delay beyond 48 to 72 hours before the isolation of contacts results in a “significant impact” on the R rate—so every time this goes wrong, there is a significant impact on that rate. SAGE also reported that “at least 80%” of contacts of confirmed cases would need to isolate to ensure an effective track and trace system.

Therefore, every time it is said that Serco has reached 60%, that means that it is failing because it is not an effective test-and-trace system. It also states that 65% of people who test positive have no symptoms. It is wrong, therefore, for the Secretary of State to say that people who have no symptoms are not entitled to go for tests.

Randox won a £133 million contract—unopposed—for a test-and-trace system. It disposed of 12,401 used swabs in a single day, voided more than 35,000 used test kits and disposed of 750,000 unused coronavirus kits owing to safety standards. Even though there is an ongoing investigation it is important that we know where taxpayers’ money is being wasted. I would like the Minister to confirm whether Randox is charging the taxpayer for voided tests. How many tests has Randox voided to date, and how much is the taxpayer being charged for each voided test?

Professor Jon Deeks says that New Zealand tests people at least three times, whereas we in the United Kingdom have a leaky testing problem in contact tracing and run the risk of missing the disease. That is the problem. There has been a backlog of 185,000 Covid-19 tests, and some tests have been sent to Germany, and some to Italy. How many of our tests are processed in the UK, and how many are processed in Europe, which, incidentally, said we are not a priority? I wonder why.

Serco is one of the top outsourcing companies. Serco and Sitel are going to be paid £1 billion for their work. I would say that the money should be given to local authorities.

The BMJ released details of a leaked Government briefing stating that there will be 10 million Covid tests a day as part of a £100 billion expansion. That £100 billion should be given to local authorities.

17:32

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I know that in some early listings I appear as the hon. Member for Ipswich. I am not the hon. Member for Ipswich—I never could be!—but if he was here I am sure he would agree that the Opposition’s brass neck takes some beating, in a week when we have seen craven, callous political opportunism of the worst kind from Labour Members. First, they were anti-10 pm closures; then, they were for 10 pm closures. First, they were against the tiered system; then, they were for the tiered system. First, they were against a circuit-breaker approach; then, they were for a circuit-breaker approach. I hope that Labour Front Benchers have cleared their position with the Leader of the Opposition, because for all we know he will be on TV in half an hour announcing a different position from the one they have taken here today.

The Opposition’s tone in opening the debate was quite depressing. We could have spent these few hours talking about how we work together to address the issues with the test-and-trace system, but, no, all we heard was typical Labour public good, private bad. Labour might have a new leader, but it is the same old Labour.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Government’s aim and objective is to save lives. We accept that there are issues with the test-and-trace system, which is why we are working with all stakeholders—public, private, not for profit and local and national organisations—to get this right. It is not either/or. It is not public or private. It is not local or national. We are working to create a system that uses the best of all worlds.

We are providing £300 million to help local authorities to set up local test-and-trace services. We are extending the partnership between NHS Test and Trace and local authorities to reach more people who test positive—[Interruption.] They say we are not, but we are: it is a fact. We are bringing together the efforts and data of local and national services so that we can spot local flare-ups and take measures to control them more easily.

NHS Test and Trace—the Opposition would not say this—is delivering results. We are testing more than any other comparable European country today, and that is something of which we should be very proud. Test and trace plays a crucial role in our fight against coronavirus. It is not a question of national or local, but rather both working together to control and suppress the spread of this virus, and I really hope that the Labour party drops its recent approach and moves back to where it was in March, working constructively with the Government so that we can defeat this virus and save lives.

17:35

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The world-beating test and trace system set up to control covid-19 has been an expensive failure. Covid-19 is having a devastating effect on lives and livelihoods at the speed we saw back in April, especially in less affluent areas and communities, such as Liverpool city region. The Government have difficulty admitting that, when the system has cost £12 billion, but recognise it and act they must, as lives are at stake.

For test and trace to work, the Government must learn lessons from the experiences and outcomes to date. Local knowledge is the key to success. When a business is looking to expand into new markets, local expertise is hired to help. This situation is no different. One centralised, outsourced system was destined to fail. For months, many people have called on the Government to support local authorities and public health and expand their role. Their teams have proven to be successful at controlling the outbreaks, once they have got over the business of testing and the lack of PPE in care homes in those areas.

National Test and Trace teams contact positive cases by phoning and leaving a message, but many do not get back to them. Sometimes, they pass those failures on to local government, and local government goes out, knocks on doors and gets responses, and that has been proven. These teams have invaluable knowledge of the people and places where they are working year in, year out. Higher contact tracing rates lead to reduced covid-19 spread. It is the only way to get it under control. Local authorities do not have the capacity to do it all themselves—they are already beyond stretched. One outsourcing company subcontracted 28 different companies with no knowledge or experience to succeed, and that has proven to be a failure.

Often, the solution is simple. We currently have too much of a disconnect between local and national teams. By the time the subcontractors contact local teams to help, days have passed with covid-19 on legs, spreading. Effective information-sharing leads to faster contact tracing. Redeploying the national pool of contact tracers directly with local teams would help that. That is how the country can get a test and trace system working, which is what we all want.

Local authorities and their public health teams should be given the lead on test and trace and the resource to do so. Adequate funding is necessary so that they can expand their teams, but it takes time to recruit, and that is why I urge that the 25,000 tracers employed by the private sector are redeployed somehow into local teams.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry, Marie, but we have to leave it there. I call Margaret Greenwood.

17:38

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

A comprehensive and effective track and trace system is essential if we are to tackle this virus. Sadly, the Government have failed to deliver on that. Wirral headteachers have written to me about the damaging delays in receiving test results, which have meant teachers in local schools being absent as they wait to find out whether they have covid-19. One NHS doctor wrote to describe how she, her husband, who is also a doctor, and other family members had multiple phone calls from different people giving them different advice on quarantine periods. Another individual told me how he received a letter dated 3 October that told him he had to self-isolate until 8 September.

In the latest weekly statistics, more than 51,000 people tested positive for covid-19 nationally, but only two thirds of those were transferred to the contact tracing system. Council officers in Wirral tell me that the national system is only reaching 63% of close contacts in Wirral, meaning that 37% are not being provided with timely advice. I have written to the Secretary of State three times since May calling on the Government to share the vital data that Wirral Council public health department needs to aid it in its test and trace measures and outbreak plans.

Instead of putting contact tracing in the hands of councils or local public health teams who know their communities well, the Government have decided to award huge contracts with eye-watering sums of money to private companies to run test and trace. The Government have allowed their obsession with privatising the national health service to overshadow the need to provide a comprehensive and effective system. The public are quite rightly angry about that.

Serco was initially given a contract for £108 million for 14 weeks with the option to extend for a longer period, with a value of up to £410 million in total. However, we need to know how Serco’s performance is being measured and whether it has been subject to deductions for failing to meet standards of delivery. That transparency is denied to us under this Government.

Along with the additional restrictions that have come in for the Liverpool city region this week, the Government have at last confirmed £14 million for the region for a range of activities, which include enhanced contact tracing, but we need clarity from the Government. Will the Minister clarify how that money will be spent, and will she commit to an expansion of our local authority public health teams?

It is time that the Government took a sober look at the landscape in which we find ourselves. They must once and for all hand over control of contact tracing to councils and local public health teams across the country, and that must be backed up with the necessary resources, so that we can defeat the virus and save lives.

00:00

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Arguing about what restrictions should be in place is no use—it is completely irrelevant—unless we have an effective contact tracing and tracking system. We will not get the R number down. We will not control the virus. I am just asking for an effective system, not a world-beating one. It should not be too much to ask.

The Minister mentioned walk-in centres—great. Darnall in my constituency had a high level of infections. A walk-in testing centre was introduced. Within a few days, people could not walk into it anymore, but they could phone up. When constituents phoned up to make an appointment at the local centre, they were diverted to another centre many miles away. That is no way to run an effective system. And then, of course, people wait days for the results to come back, meaning that other people are either walking around when they are infectious, when they should be isolating, or isolating when they have no need to. What a waste of people’s time. What a risk to health.

The Sheffield Star has done an excellent job in giving local people information. The other day it said that on the most recent figures, only 60% of people who should be contacted because they have been in contact with an infected person are actually being contacted through the track and trace system. Towards the end of September, only 60% of infected cases were being put in the system in the first place, which means that only one third of those who should have been contacted were actually being contacted. This is a major failure—a system that is not effective; it is simply failing. Compare that with the 97% contact rate that has been achieved where contact tracking and tracing is being done at a local level by local authorities and local directors of public health.

I am not against a national system. I am not saying that everything is going to be invented locally. I argued to the Prime Minister, however, when he came to the Liaison Committee on 27 May, that when the national system was developed, it should have been developed in co-ordination with and with the advice of the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Public Health. That advice should have gone into it in the first place.

I have believed from the beginning that we should have had more stringent penalties in the national system to ensure that people complied with the requirements, and people should have been compensated for a loss of income when they isolated from the beginning. I am not against the private sector being involved, but it is about where the expertise is. The private sector’s expertise is clearly in developing a vaccine. It should be allowed to do that, but the expertise for contact tracking and tracing is with directors of public health. That is what they do as a profession—control infectious diseases—and very simply, if we are going to be effective, it is much more effective for a director of public health to recruit a local person to go and knock on someone’s door than for that person to get a phone call from someone else 200 miles away who does not understand the local area.

00:00

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

My constituents’ experience of the test, trace and isolate system run by the UK Government is that it has been a complete and utter fiasco at every single stage.

On the tests, when people go on the website, regularly there are absolutely no tests available anywhere in the whole of the United Kingdom, or if they are lucky, they will be sent from the Rhondda to Aberdeen or Aberystwyth, presumably because that is alphabetically at least close to Aberdare, even if it is not physically close to the Rhondda at all.

There are no home test kits nearly all the time. A high percentage of my constituents have no car, but they are not allowed to go on public transport, so it is pretty difficult for them to get to any of the test sites. Even today, people had booked a walk-in appointment in Treorchy—they walked 6 miles there and were going to walk 6 miles back—but when they arrived they were told that they could not have their test because they were not in a car, even though it was meant to be a walk-in site.

The results service is shockingly poor: according to the Government’s own figures, just 2% of people got their results within 24 hours last week. Just 2%—how on earth could someone intend to keep a contract with a company that was failing so badly? Why is it that this company cannot do what hundreds of other private sector companies in the country do, which is allow people to track their result? People can track their Amazon delivery—I have never had one because Amazon does not pay its taxes properly—by can logging on and finding out exactly when it is going to arrive. Why can this company not do the same? It would save hours and hours of time—not least in constituency MPs’ offices, I suspect—if there was a proper system for that.

The isolate system has also been a complete failure, because the Government do not seem to understand that for many people, including many tradeswomen and tradesmen and people who work on an hourly or daily basis, the cost of self-isolating is a complete disincentive to doing the right thing. People simply cannot afford to put food on the table for their kids and be able to self-isolate for two weeks. The system the Government are introducing is far too late. It came into place only on 12 October, and so far I am not sure whether anybody has actually managed to use it. And it is not generous enough, either.

The tracing system has been a complete disaster. The target that the Government set was 80%; they have never met it in a single week—and last week it was the worst result ever. I do not understand why Baroness Harding is still in her job. It is an absolute mystery to me. Incidentally, it is a constitutional aberration that a Member of the House of Lords who votes on party political issues is also working in effect as a civil servant.

I hate this concept of “world-beating”. Every time the Prime Minister tries to look Churchillian, he just looks like Neville Chamberlain to me. Lockdowns are a sign of the failure of this system, but I bet that is where we end up.

17:47

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support Labour’s motion. This is not about ideology; it is about what works. In the midst of a public health emergency and an economic crisis the likes of which we have never seen before, it is about not politics but what works. We in the Liberal Democrats have been calling since April for tracing to be locally led, because we understand that local authorities know their communities best and local directors of public health have the expertise to do the tracing.

There has been a lot of talk about testing and I have talked a lot about testing, so I shall not go over that, given the time available, but the one thing I will say about it is that we must—must—turn around tests within 24 hours. That turnaround time has dropped to around 25% and tracing is not effective if the tests are not turned around quickly enough.

I have heard about local tracing for myself from directors of public health and local councillors. In Watford, they have a 93% local tracing rate. This morning, I talked to councillors in Liverpool, where they have a 97% local tracing rate. Until today, they had had only £300,000 to do that tracing, yet on average they have to trace around 5,000 contacts a day. Yes, more resources are now going to tier 3, but that resource needs to go everywhere.

Sky News has just broken the story that it has uncovered Boston Consulting Group contracts that suggest BCG consultants are paid £7,000 day rates to work on test and trace. Just imagine how far that money would go if it was given to local authorities. These consultants are being paid weekly the equivalent of what a nurse earns in a year. I do not have an ideological issue with the private sector, but, as the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), said, it is about having the right expertise in the right place.

On isolation, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it is important that we have in place the right package of support, both financial and practical, as we have seen in other countries, including Korea and Germany. There is a local element in Italy and Iceland, where local service providers are also supporting enforcement with their local populations. It is not about slapping £10,000 fines on people for not self-isolating, as this place has legislated to do.

I say to the Minister humbly: please recognise that you cannot get everything right in a pandemic. Change tack or we will be stuck in this yo-yo situation forever. The only way to keep the virus under control is by testing, tracing and isolating, so for the sake of the British people, to save lives and to save jobs, turn around tests in 24 hours, devolve tracing locally and double down on isolation. That should be the ultimate condition if there is to be a circuit breaker. We need a major overhaul of the system.

17:50

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The only thing I agreed with in the coalition Government’s reform of the health service was the devolution of public health to local councils. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) says, that is because they know how to do it. They do it every week for sexually transmitted diseases, TB and other outbreaks.

The hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) accused those of us on the Opposition Benches of being ideological. Let me put it on the record: I have no ideological issues with using the private sector when it adds benefit. It is this Government who have been ideological. Their national test and trace system ignored local authorities. With the school meals vouchers, they did not give the money to local authorities to put systems in place; it was a national system. PPE was a disaster. Even the national volunteering programme, where people who signed up were unable to volunteer, was all done nationally. That national approach has been the biggest failure throughout this crisis. That has been the ideological mindset of the Government. The issue with getting test and trace in place has become all about the number of tests. No, it is not. It is what you do with those results afterwards. For example, in Cumbria test and trace is being done locally. It has lower rates and those rates are going down.

The system is broken. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that the Government have given local authorities £300 million. So what? They have put billions of pounds into the hands of private companies, which have then completely failed. If we were employing them ourselves directly, we would have sacked them a long time ago.

The Government can bring in as many tiers and as much information as they want, but there are two things that have to be done with public health messages: make them clear and explain why they are being done. On those two things, the Government have failed completely by chopping and changing. They can bring in as many fines and restrictions as they like, but unless there is effective testing and, more importantly, tracing of individuals, they will not get on top of this crisis. Added to that, the national contract means that my constituents who work in care homes are waiting seven days to get a test result. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work.

It is no good the Government saying they are working with local authorities. They are not. They are basically throwing over to local authorities the positive test results they cannot trace themselves. In many cases, it is too late. My local director of public health says she is getting information 48 hours late. That is of absolutely no use. So, come on Government! Wake up! Get out of your ideological bubble and actually ensure you engage with local authorities.

17:53

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is very difficult to convey the real strength of feeling across Liverpool at the utter failure of this Government on care homes, PPE, and test and trace. Constituent after constituent has come to my office with heartbreaking stories. One was sent to south Wales on a 70-mile journey, two-and-a-half hours in the car with an autistic child, only to find that the test and trace centre had closed for the day because it had run out of tests. The petrol cost them £40 that they simply did not have.

The anger and frustration are not just at the fact that the response is failing, but that it is failing because the Government refused to enable and invest in local authorities and public health teams, and instead chose to pump billions into scandal-ridden Government contractors that have a record of failure after failure. Under the cover of this pandemic, billions of pounds of public money has been handed to faceless corporations, including Tory-linked firms, without competition or transparency, and without democratic accountability—or any accountability to the public, for that matter. It is money that should have been invested in our national health service and that should have left a legacy for the British people by building up the properly funded public services we can all rely on in the future, but instead it was siphoned off.

The most egregious example is the eye-watering £12 billion of public money handed to private companies, including Serco, for this failing test and trace system. The failures of Serco are well documented so I will not repeat them, but when I asked the Government what penalties will apply to private sector companies that fail to meet the terms of their contract, the answer came back and it was clear: none whatsoever. In fact, Serco is being rewarded for its failure with more and more lucrative contracts. The cronyism is well documented as well. Conservative Baroness and business executive Baroness Harding was appointed as the head of Track and Trace. The Serco chief executive officer is the brother of a former Tory MP, and Tory MPs are on the boards of companies winning contracts. If we have a problem with any of this, why not take it up with the Government’s anti-corruption champion—Dido Harding’s husband and a Tory MP? The whole thing stinks. This Government’s incompetence, cronyism and ideological obsession with outsourcing and rip-off privatisation have undermined our NHS and put lives at risk.

17:56

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

We are at a crossroads in this crisis and the Government, rather than knowing which way to turn, are instead caught in the headlights. This Government have had seven months to get their test and trace system in place, but, tragically for the almost 50,000 people who have lost their lives already since this pandemic started, it has failed. There can be no excuse when our European partners have had an effective system in place since May.

This is a deeply worrying period for my Stockport constituents, given that Greater Manchester and the north-west are witnessing some of the highest infection rates in the country, and we are now in the Government’s tier 2 category. Indeed, in the borough of Stockport alone, there are now more than 4,000 cases of coronavirus, and it is being reported that the Government will today convene a gold command meeting where Greater Manchester may be moved into tier 3—the highest category.

Despite this, the Government are offering little beyond lockdown measures to stop the spread of this deadly disease. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has been calling for proper funding for test and trace for months, and only today the leaders of all 10 councils in Greater Manchester and the Mayor, Andy Burnham, released a statement in response to the new restrictions. In it, they call for testing

“to enable targeting of known or emerging points of transmission.”

They also raise valid concerns about this Government’s attempt to bounce Greater Manchester into the higher risk tier 3 category.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

To pick up the hon. Member’s point about specific venues and contact tracing, in my constituency, pubs and restaurants have been successfully using track and trace now for several months. Venues such as Candid Beer, the Bird in Hand and the Market Vaults are already using contact tracing very well. Does he not agree with me that contact tracing is actually playing a vital role in helping keep our hospitality industry open for business?

[Navendu Mishra]

I understand the points the hon. Lady is making, but I think contact tracing in Greater Manchester and places with very high rates of infection has not worked as well as it should have. I am pleased to hear that in her constituency it is working well, but I think the Government need to come forward with a proper package to support jobs in the hospitality sector if they are going to force regions like the Liverpool city region or Greater Manchester into tier 3.

The Government are dangling the carrot of local control of test and trace. However, this should be on offer for all areas, and is more likely to be effective in areas that are in tier 1 and tier 2. If this Government pursue their current strategy, they will leave large parts of the north of England trapped in tier 3 for much of the winter. Given that cases are forecast to rise sharply as this Government lose control and refuse to provide the substantial economic support that tier 3 areas will need, I fully support the call by a number of local authority leaders in Greater Manchester for a national circuit break. This would also create the conditions for a reset of the test and trace service into a more locally controlled option, which will hopefully drive cases down to a lower level and be more likely to succeed.

The only way to defeat the virus is for national and local government to work hand in hand, upskill the local test and trace system, delegate sufficient powers and provide the financial support that is so desperately required after 10 years of austerity and having stumped up millions during the first phase of this pandemic. But instead of addressing the failures of a privatised and centralised contact tracing model, this Government choose to keep pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into the likes of Serco to lead the effort on tracking and tracing. This is despite the recent poll by Survation revealing that 74% of the public wanted to see local public health teams, rather than profit-making companies, leading on this. Our European partners have had systems in place since May, yet almost six months later this Government are rushing to hand the nearest contract to big business with no track record of delivery or success.

It is clear is that we cannot have more of the same from this Government such as the shambles of being informed by a Health Minister that a new testing centre was being opened for my constituents on a University of Greenwich campus 240 miles away in Kent. I have already made it clear to the House that I am willing to accept that the letter was an error, but it further exposes the Government’s complete mishandling of this crisis. In the absence of any effective form of test and trace, frontline staff, including all workers in hospitals, schools and local authorities, must be provided with access to adequate personal protective equipment.

18:00

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is nearly nine months since the first case of covid came to my constituency and, in that first instance, we had an effective test and trace system. But my goodness, what has happened since? We know from across the world that effective test and tracing is beating the virus but here in the UK the virus is beating us. That is why it is essential that we get on top of the essential ingredients of an effective test and trace system. Filling the pockets of all these private companies with contract after contract is failing, and we know why that has been done—the lack of investment in our NHS and in public health for years. That has meant that they are bereft of the resources they need.

We need to turn this round and we have the opportunity of this debate to address the issue effectively. We know from the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) set out earlier that, if about two thirds of people who have been tested are then transferred to the contact tracing system, only 17% of them are reached. That means that fewer than half the people are effectively contact traced. That simply is not good enough in the midst of this pandemic. Time is of the essence and we need to address this now Any transfer that we see to local authorities must also see the transfer of resources. We cannot just see the transfer of risk without the money coming with it to back it up and enable local authorities to run effective systems locally.

I have talked to my local director of public health and she has led an excellent fight to put the case not only for local testing but for saying where we need the centres to be. We need another testing centre in York and we have been working with the university and a local lab to prove that we have a test processing and trace system for our city. That is what we need for a fast turnaround of results. Time is of the essence with this virus and the faster we get the results, the faster we trace people who are potentially carrying the virus. We will then be able to lock the virus down, which is what we want to do.

I am confused, and I am sure I am not the only one, as to why York today is in tier 1 when the infection rate there is higher than in some of the places in tier 3. It does not make sense. I want the Minister to explain the rationale for that. Yesterday, there were 95 infections in York, and 246.4 per 100,000 and growing fast. We need to understand the rationale, not least because the infection is transmitting in our city and we know that because we have been holding a mirror tracing system that has seen it go from household to household. Yet tier 1 does not bar such contact. If we are really serious about understanding how to stop the virus, we need to go through the proper processes and involve the local directors of public health who could tell the Government that we need the controls to stop the spread at this critical time before it gets completely out of control.

It is because of the failures that I have described that the Labour party has been saying that there will be a need for a circuit break. If the Government could respond with proper measures, we would not need it. The Government only need look in the mirror to see why we are in this place.

Some incredible science is being done in our universities and local labs, and I look forward to my meeting on Friday with the Minister on what is being done in York, where the capacity, efficiency and effectiveness of testing can seriously outstrip many of those procured labs which the Minister and her Government have already engaged in.

This is a real opportunity. We have to use the best science, and I trust that we will be able to do so.

00:00

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I am glad to be called in this debate, so thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will make one point before speaking about tracking and tracing in the Wirral.

It is disappointing to listen to Conservative Members criticising a political party’s position or what its briefings might have been earlier this week or last week, before SAGE’s minutes and reports were published on the next steps that are needed. I would far rather that the Labour party had to correct its press releases than that we fail to save lives that we otherwise could. I am sorry that Conservative Members take a different view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about the need for improved, larger public health teams, particularly in the Wirral. I am thankful for Julie Webster and Elspeth Anwar, our director and deputy director of public health in the Wirral, who have been absolutely first-class public servants. They have explained to me that, although they now have much more data about the outbreak in the Wirral and the rest of Merseyside, we do not have enough analysis.

That is to say that we cannot easily understand the story the data is telling us, because we do not have enough specialists working on this, particularly in the Wirral. I have learned through three years on the Treasury Committee and wading through reams of economic data that it is not actually about the figures in front of you; it is about understanding the story that the data is telling you and acting accordingly. It is not numbers for the sake of numbers; it is the instructions those numbers give.

In an outbreak like this, we need a hypothesis about the methods of transmission so that we are able to test it against the data. I say to the Minister that we not only need to help local authorities with the data; we also need analytical capacity in every town hall in Britain, because this virus travels through local areas in different ways. In London, many people are able to work from home. In a manufacturing environment, as we have in the Wirral, that just is not possible. People cannot make cars and airplanes from their front room.

The virus travels differently in places where public transport is more frequently used. Some places use buses rather than trains, and they are a different environment. That is why I say again to the Minister: give us data analysts in every town hall in Britain, so we can understand how this virus is travelling through our country and put a stop to it. If we had proper analysis and local understanding, we would have half a chance of finding out how this virus works.

00:00

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) said.

NHS Test and Trace is not working. Billions of pounds have been poured into a system that has sidelined existing local expertise in primary care, public health and science. The resulting system is labelled NHS Test and Trace, but it has hardly anything to do with the NHS. Stop denigrating the NHS by associating it with this failing system.

We are stuck in this world of uncertainty, with a rising infection rate and the virus out of control, and we are without the ability to properly track it, as my hon. Friend has just described. It is like “Groundhog Day”. Until we have a vaccine, we will not get out of this without a functioning track and trace system.

We are the fifth richest economy in the world, and we have one of the best healthcare systems. We have leading science research universities, yet we have spent all this money contracting out the system to Serco. Now, on top of that, we are spending millions of pounds bringing in private contractors to try to sort out the mess. It costs more in one week than we pay an experienced nurse in a year. It is a disgrace, and it feels like a wasted opportunity to build on the existing expertise and experience to strengthen the local systems in primary care and local authorities. Doing that now is the only way out of this nightmare scenario.

The outbreaks we have seen in the universities in Newcastle, for example, were not identified by the national system—it seems incapable of doing that at present. The outbreaks were identified based on local intelligence and local knowledge, and by piecing the pieces together. We know that co-operation between local health services and authorities is the way to control infectious diseases. GPs, NHS and public health laboratories, and local public health officers all play a key role. Winter is approaching and GPs will be the people who can see the overlap in covid symptoms such as fever and a dry cough, and the classic flu symptoms of fatigue, sore throat and headaches. We need that integrated public health expertise to truly make this testing and tracking system work. We have 1,200 primary care networks in England. They will be best placed not only to run test, track and trace, but to deliver the vaccine when we finally have it—we will be ready for it.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I hear time and again from this side of the House people talking about giving more to the primary care networks. As a GP, I worry that this could be a concern for my public health colleagues as well because they already serve a function—of non-covid health service. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of others on this concern: what happens if we keep putting more pressure on public health and GPs, who are already dealing with non-covid stuff? How do we deal with this? It makes a lot of sense to bring in a national service to try to do that; we did that with the Army to help with test, track and trace. What does the hon. Lady think about the possibility of extra pressure there?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Absolutely, spend the billions of pounds that we have wasted—spend it on bumping up the capacity and ability of our local GPs and health services, which can do a better job.

I wish to say a word about asymptomatic carriers. Research published by University College London last week found that 86% of those sampled who had tested positive for covid-19 between April and July had had no symptoms—that includes cough, fever or loss of taste and smell. So many people who are asymptomatic test positive, as we have seen at Northumbria University, and that is hugely concerning. It shows that we need a much more robust and expanded testing strategy to control the virus.

What are the Government doing to ensure that we can capture these silent spreaders? Is the system anywhere close to having the capacity to address this, given that we cannot even test those who have symptoms and have been instructed to take a test? The Government wasted the time we spent in national lockdown and failed to get the apparatus of proper track and trace system in place once those restrictions were finally relaxed. We are now living with the consequences of that decision. As we now appear to be entering another era of harsher restrictions across much of the country, the Government owe it to the people who continue to endure hardship, uncertainty, loneliness and bereavement not to waste this time again.

18:12

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

May I start by placing on the record my thanks to my local director of public health, Sarah Muckle, and her team for all their hard work during this pandemic? Labour has been calling on the Government to learn the lessons, help curb a rise in infections and save lives. The Government continue to use this phrase “NHS track and trace system”, which is more widely and truthfully known by the British public as, “Huge amounts of cash going to big private companies”—companies with links to the Tory party, and companies with truly abysmal track and trace records and poor results: in short, Serco and Sitel. The Government are doing this instead of funding local contact tracing and addressing the failures of a privatised and centralised contact tracing model.

Bradford, which contains my constituency, consistently seems to perform bottom on tracking and tracing the contacts of those who test positive for covid-19. The average percentage of contacts reached in Bradford over the last nine-week data period was 48.1%, but some weeks the figure has been lower than 40%. That is half the Government’s target. The rising infection rates are the direct result of a broken track and trace system, the Government’s inability to use straightforward communication and sheer incompetence on the part of this Government.

Here are some examples to illustrate how poor the Government’s communications have been. Two days ago, the Secretary of State told me that Bradford will be in the high tier of restrictions. Later that same day, in the press conference, the chief medical officer praised Bradford for our response to the situation. Then yesterday, we heard that the Government had started discussions to place Bradford in the highest tier of restrictions. Today, there is a pre-paid, pre-booked full-page Government advertisement in the Telegraph and Argus, Bradford’s local paper, saying that Bradford is in the medium tier of restrictions. So which one is it? Are we in the medium, high or higher tier?

Hold on—there’s more. On a Zoom call two days ago, I asked the Secretary of State what his Department was doing to address the issue of low numbers of people being tracked and traced in Bradford. Two days later, I still have no response, and yet the Secretary of State expects Members to be on a call with 20 minutes’ notice, and that is if they are lucky enough to get the email and not be on a train travelling down here.

The privatised track and trace programme is not working. My constituents deserve better. We need to get ahead of this virus. I will come to this Chamber time and again to highlight the Government’s incompetence and hold them to account for the sake of my constituents, because my constituents deserve better.

18:15

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I spent an early part of my career in the sales industry, selling in the IT sector. I just wish that at some point I had come across a customer with as much money as this Government, and one so easily impressed and willing to give money to suppliers and then to defend them when they let them down. I never came across a customer nearly as naive as this Government.

Occasionally, a story seems to demonstrate a much wider point. So it was today with the scoop revealed by Ed Conway of Sky News that the Government are paying £7,360 per day to the management consultants at Boston Consulting Group, who are in charge of test and trace. That is the equivalent of a £1.5 million salary to preside over this shambolic system that is letting down all the people in my constituency and so many others. We will not find dedicated public servants being paid £7,500 a day or £1.5 million a year, but we will find a basic competence, a knowledge of their area and a desire to ensure that systems work before they are implemented. That is what we need right now in our system.

It is telling that, in a debate of this importance, with every Back-Bench Member of Parliament invited to contribute, just three Conservative MPs wanted to put their name on the list and say, “I will go in and speak up for the Government, because I think they are doing a good job.” That is because people in their constituencies know what is happening, and Conservative Members do not want it to be on their record that they were the ones speaking up for the Government, so they leave it to us to come here and expose the reality. That is what is happening. There are 365 Tory MPs—where are they? They are off in their offices hiding, while people in my constituency are being let down. [Interruption.] I accept that three have turned up, and I thank them for that, but I am talking about the rest of them.

We all remember when Leicester first went into lockdown and everyone said, “Oh my God! The rate in Leicester is appalling—those poor people.” The infection rate was less than 100 per 100,000 then.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend share my worry that the proportion of people being reached by Test and Trace has decreased over the last three weeks and is now at a level similar to the one seen in the first week of the programme?

[Mr Perkins]

Yes, I do, and I had an experience of that recently.

Leicester had a rate of 100 per 100,000 when it went into lockdown. In Chesterfield, we have a rate of 143 per 100,000, and we are still in tier 1. The scale of how bad this must be before the Government are shocked is changing all the time.

I was recently in self-isolation because a friend told me that he had been diagnosed with coronavirus four days before Test and Trace got in touch with me. The date that Test and Trace had was nine days after I came out of self-isolation. The whole system is not working, and when you experience it yourself, you can see why this failure is happening.

18:19

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The purpose of test, track and trace is to save lives. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise of a “world-beating” system, the system that we have is shambolic. Health contracts worth £830 million have been handed to private companies using public money to run ineffective systems, instead of investing in our public services. In Wales, we have established a successful public sector “test, trace, protect” system, and recent figures show that 96% of close contacts have been reached—much higher than the Serco private sector system. Currently, however, testing in Wales is still partly dependent on the UK Government’s privately run and centrally managed testing system, which has caused confusion and placed people at risk.

I will illustrate the point with my experience in Cynon Valley, which has one of the privately run centres. It is a case study in how not to do things. On 17 September, because of a worrying increase in covid cases in my constituency, serious local restrictions were placed on us that meant that people could not travel in or out of the local authority area without a reasonable excuse. A Serco covid-19 testing site was established in the village of Abercynon, where it became apparent that operational failures were compromising the new restrictions brought in for the area. There was a shortage of testing kits, which resulted in the site being closed for several hours, and there were problems with the administration of the testing regime.

I was astounded to find that the centrally administered, privately run system was allocating appointments that required people to travel hundreds of miles across the UK, including families with children and vulnerable people. That was unacceptable and extremely dangerous to those coming into the high-incidence area, as well as to the local population in my constituency. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on that day in September with a series of questions, but I have yet to receive a response. That is totally unacceptable.

Thank goodness that in Wales we have a measure of independence from this Tory Government, and that we were able to act to address the problems through a system co-ordinated by a proactive local authority health board and the Welsh Government. As the public are asked to make sacrifices to reduce the transmission of covid-19, it is imperative for the Government to keep their side of the bargain and get the test, track and trace system right. Most importantly, I know from experience that local decision making in action is best, as are publicly owned services. Let us learn the lessons of Abercynon, invest in our public services and not let private profit and greed override the health needs in our communities.

18:22

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Deputy Speaker. I simply must use this opportunity to echo the sentiments of my constituency neighbours and hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) about the Welsh Labour Government’s approach to contact tracing. In Wales, contact tracing is managed by local authorities and health boards and allows for a more cohesive approach to contacting those at risk of contracting the virus.

I truly feel sorry for my colleagues who represent areas across England, both in this place and at local authority level. Shockingly, councils across England are rapidly losing faith in the Government’s shambolic track and trace system and are being forced to take action themselves. By contrast, the Welsh Labour Government have taken a cautious yet clear approach to the coronavirus, with local contact tracing at the very heart of their policy. I have said it many, many times and I am happy to keep saying it: where Wales leads, England should follow. I sincerely hope that after this debate the Minister will be able to convince England’s Health Secretary to follow the localised approach of track and trace, which is clearly the best option if we are ever to get a grip on this virus.

Sadly, even with our fantastic Welsh Labour Government, this Government’s chaotic handling of the coronavirus has still had a significant impact on people in Wales. Colleagues will have heard that the First Minister of Wales has now had to announce that he has been forced to introduce new regulations to protect the health of the people in Wales, after this Government have yet again stood back. The Prime Minister fails to engage with the Welsh Labour Government, and in doing so he has failed the people across Wales. Hundreds of people in my constituency of Pontypridd have been pushing for restrictions on travel into Wales for people who are living in coronavirus hotspots in England, yet the Prime Minister ignores them.

The UK Government are cherry-picking what they want and when they want to support the devolved nations, but on coronavirus testing, tracking and tracing, they are causing more delays, damage and destruction. It simply is not fair to the people in Wales, and we deserve better. The Minister may also be aware that there are a number of coronavirus testing sites in Rhondda Cynon Taf, including one in Treforest in my constituency. I do not believe that any of us in this place are in a position to refuse help for local authorities with coronavirus testing, but I am flabbergasted that the UK Government have gone ahead and launched the site without consulting the Welsh Government. I could get over this if I had faith in the UK Government’s system in the first place. Thankfully, in Wales we have the Welsh Government, who have been able to step in where possible, but this simply should not be the case.

I fully support the collaborative approach to tackling the virus, but this can only work when the UK Government can admit, acknowledge and act on their own mistakes and failings. I hope that ultimately the Minister sees sense and acknowledges that the system for track and trace across England is on its knees. Only when we have a robust, local authority-led track and trace system in place across the UK will we ever have any hope of seeing coronavirus rates reduce across all our nations.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 6.46 pm.

18:25

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Let us be clear from the start: the test, trace and isolate chaos that we are currently facing has been caused by outsourced companies running what should be public services for their own private profit. The current restrictions were never inevitable; they became inevitable as a result of this Government’s failure to get a properly functioning test, trace and isolate system in place. The system has been given to private companies with no qualifications for this work, overseen by business executives with no experience in public health. Just days before local restrictions came into place in the north-east, my Jarrow constituents were asking me to find out what has happened with the “shambles”, as they put it, that is the covid testing system. One constituent, Tracy, told me how a family member did a 110-mile round trip from Gateshead to Hawick in Scotland for a test. This was while there were appointments in Newcastle just a few miles along the road, but the centre had IT problems and the QR code was not being generated. She was rightly furious that her family member, while displaying symptoms, had to drive this distance. My Jarrow constituents are right: it is an utter shambles.

This Government’s approach to contact tracing is not just shambolic—it is dangerous. The evidence shows that contact tracing works much better on a local level. Both the South Tyneside and Gateshead local authorities covering my constituency have been constantly telling the Government this, but they are just not listening. I pay tribute to Alice Wiseman and Tom Hall, the directors of public health for those authorities, and their teams, for their dedication and hard work.

From Oldham to Peterborough, from Manchester to Cumbria, and across Wales, we have seen how local councils bring back much higher contact rates and can curb the spread of infection far more than the outsourced model that the Government keep throwing money away on. The Government know it is not working, yet the same old Tory ideological commitment to outsourcing continues. According to the Government’s own data, local health protection teams are reaching 97% of contacts and asking them to self-isolate, while, in contrast, outsourced cases handled online or by call centres return 62.4% contact rates. The most striking thing is that the Government have had plenty of opportunity throughout the summer to address the failures of a privatised and centralised contact tracing model, yet they have chosen to keep pouring money into the likes of Serco to lead the effort on tracking and tracing.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)]

There must be a common-sense approach at both ends of this. Does the hon. Lady accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, the NHS and public health authorities do not have the capacity to cope with the vast number of tests, and we need this national approach as well as local involvement?

[Kate Osborne]

No, I do not. The Government can put this right by putting more money in, of course.

As my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah), among others, have said, we have to stop calling it “NHS Track and Trace”, as it clearly is not. It has failed, it is wasteful, it is throwing taxpayers’ money down the drain, and the people of this country deserve better. In fact, only this afternoon, as already highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I heard that the Government paid Boston Consulting Group about £10 million for a team of 40 consultants to do four months’ work on this failed testing system between the end of April and late August. Yet our local public services, hollowed out by 10 years of austerity, are being left with no support to pick up the pieces of a failed system.

Our local authorities in the north-east were crucial in the frontline against the first wave of this virus. That is why the Government must recognise their value by extending additional funding for contact tracing available in tier 3 areas to all parts of the country. The Government must ensure that local authorities and public health teams receive the resources and powers that they need.

18:29

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which I chair, led hearings all through the summer; the very first ones we held back in July were on test and trace, and then we did it again last week. It was saddening to see that a lot of the predictions many of the experts made about the issues with test and trace back in July have since come to fruition. The things they were saying were very much common sense.

First, and I hope this is self-evident, this stuff is not easy. It may seem easy when we have read a briefing from the Library or whatever else, and the basic principles are easy, but the specifics of running a massive lab are very niche and require a lot of expertise. There are very few people in this country who can do this incredibly well, so when we say it should be a locally led test and trace system, of course it needs to be backed up by national capacity, but it should be led by those who are closest on the ground. We also took evidence from experts in Italy, who were also pointing to what Germany has done, and what they have in common is that that is how they run it: the people closest to the ground lead it, backed up by national systems and national resourcing. That is what we are asking for; it is what we have been asking for for the past three months, and here we are on the verge of what is likely to be an inevitable second national lockdown, because yet again we are not listening to the scientists.

[Andrew Bowie]

It is not inevitable.

[Layla Moran]

Well, we will see. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but unfortunately, we have not done enough listening to the experts.

Speaking of experts, I want to put on record my thanks to Oxfordshire’s public health director and his team, but also the councillors, the councils and the lab technicians—the people behind the scenes, who very rarely receive thanks. They do an incredible job, and one of the things I would like to highlight while the Minister is in her place is that concerns have been raised about pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing labs not talking to each other. There is not enough transparency coming out of the community testing Lighthouse labs, and we cannot be assured of their quality. Those concerns have been raised by people who are really expert in this area and would like to be able to help, so I have a plea to the Minister: can we please be more transparent about what is coming out of the Lighthouse labs, so that it can be scrutinised by real experts in the field?

I will end with a heartbreaking story of what this means. I heard from the mother of a disabled child in my constituency whose carers were unable to receive tests, so the mother was not able to visit them for two weeks during September. That child is unable to read their facial expressions owing to PPE and therefore struggles to interact with them; and because the carers were unable to receive tests, the mother is incredibly worried and that child is left without the proper care. This all comes back to real stories and real people.

18:32

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Today, Sheffield’s director of public health, Greg Fell, said that it is not a matter of if, but when, Sheffield heads into tier 3 lockdown. Yesterday, he reported that the number of cases in the city stands at 450 in 100,000, taken as a rolling seven-day average.

Sheffield has two fantastic, world-class universities. Since the return to teaching, we have seen a large spike in cases among the 15 to 25-year-olds in my city, but the virus is spreading beyond that group. Our public health team is reporting a significant increase in cases among the over-65s. We have also seen more people admitted to hospital, and more people given oxygen and ventilation. I am sure there are Members from across the House who can report very similar experiences.

Sheffield’s local public health team is clear that getting this under control needs a quick turnaround of test results, and rapid and complete contact tracing. People in my constituency and across the country desperately need a functioning test, track and trace—and do not forget isolate—system, but the Government are failing them. Many people in my constituency have contacted me to say they have struggled to access a test, and that when they have finally got hold of one it has taken far too long to receive results, with one in four people receiving their test results later than the 24-hour period promised by the Prime Minister.

I am one of the few Members in this place who has experience as both a biomedical scientist and a deputy leader of a council, so I am in a pretty unique position to talk about the research that is going on at the moment in our universities. In research conducted by Unite, we heard some shocking reports from NHS scientists about the under-utilisation of NHS testing labs. Meanwhile, the privatised network of Lighthouse labs has seen backlogs of 185,000 tests.

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Olivia Blake]

No, I will not give way because we are short on time.

Why are the Government prioritising those private labs over our NHS to implement the testing system when those labs are clearly failing? We have seen some really good success in our labs in Sheffield, which have been testing staff at the teaching hospitals, and that could have been a lesson learned and applied across the country.

I have conducted polymerase chain reaction tests. I know that it is not that difficult. Moonshot is a complete and utter dream. I can safely say that I have been watching the testing system with frustration and I have suddenly become very popular with my ex-colleagues. They have been very enlightening when describing the conditions in which they have been working—often as volunteers while they are furloughed from their other labs.

In Sheffield, we heard that a recruitment drive was requested by the Prime Minister in September—a little bit late and a little bit after the horse has bolted. By that time, the planning for teaching was well under way and the contracts of many of them had ended and the seconding of staff was no longer available.

I have much more to say on this issue. I could go on and on and on, but the last thing I wish to say is that the numbers speak for themselves—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

18:35

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Liverpool is proof, if proof is needed, that the Government’s privatised test and trace system has failed. The Government have had months to get an effective system in place, but we are still waiting for it. The proportion of people being reached by the test and trace system has decreased over the past three weeks, coinciding with the sharpest increase in infection rates that we have seen since the first wave in the spring. We cannot afford to have an ineffective test, track and trace system.

[Suzanne Webb]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Johnson]

No, thank you. I cannot give way.

Let us be clear: it is not the NHS test and trace system that is failing us because the NHS has not been given the contract. It is a privatised system, wasting billions of pounds, that is failing us and the people of this country. We can no longer depend on a national system that 74% of the population believe is not working. Contracts are handed out without competitive tendering, which is what happened with the company that was set up on 12 May 2020 by an associate of a Conservative peer. It had no track record and received a £122 million contract. There are all those favoured Government companies with a track record of failure, such as Serco, which was fined £23 million by the Serious Fraud Office last year for overclaiming on its tagging contract, or its subcontractor Concentrix, which was previously involved in scandals around tax credits. Millions of pounds have been gifted to privatised companies, whether or not they are successful. Serco’s track and trace programme is reaching only 68% of close contacts. My local health protection teams have managed to communicate with 97% of contacts. People’s lives are dependent on an effective and swift test, track and trace programme.

Half of the wards in my constituency are in the top 20% of deprived neighbourhoods. Poverty is strongly linked with the incidence of covid-19. We have a large black community who are more susceptible to the virus and prone to a disproportionate number of deaths. As of this afternoon, Liverpool has no intensive care unit beds in the city, and the virus is impacting other critical care wards. It is time that this Government stop playing ideological games with people’s lives and handed responsibility back to local authorities, regional public health directors and our NHS to run this critical programme, save lives and protect our NHS.

18:38

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on local track and trace in England, which is highlighting the failure of the centralised, private, not NHS, track and trace system.

Public health has been embedded in local structures since the Public Health Act 1848, which came about following the devastating cholera outbreaks. Directors of public health have been tracing and tracking, and so tackling, outbreaks of disease in England since then—tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases and food poisoning to name just a few. Experienced DPHs are embedded in the local councils and work alongside the local NHS, the voluntary sector, care providers and employers. They know their communities. In communities such as mine, they have people who can speak the various different community languages, too. They work within regional and national public health networks.

The Minister said earlier in this debate that Government and local government are better together, but councils’ competence in infection control was actually only fully acknowledged by the Government on Monday in a statement by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. After months of asking, it was July before directors of public health in England were finally sent the contact details of residents known to be infected. Even now, Hounslow’s director of public health says that data sent from the national system is still often inaccurate, meaning that some people are contacted twice, so feel harassed and alienated by the system, and, worse, others are not contacted at all. We know that similar countries, such as Germany and South Korea, can do track and trace effectively. Neighbouring Wales traces 97% of contacts, against England’s 62.4% and declining.

I have long experience of leadership roles in local government. I am not ideologically opposed to procuring from the private sector when it can do something better, but at the core of public sector outsourcing is, or rather should be, proper commissioning—how much, how many, by when and to what standard—and procurement from those with proven competency, through competitive tendering, providing value for money. We cannot have sanctions for non-performance if we do not set standards in the first place. We know from answers to written questions—after my own experience, I have asked about the loss of tests—that the Government do not actually set standards for most of these contracts.

In outsourcing test and trace, the Government have broken every procurement rule that they impose on councils and other parts of the public sector. They should stop shovelling money to their unaccountable and incompetent friends, work with established public health directors and public health systems, and be serious about what works to slow the reproduction rate by up to a quarter.

18:41

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I would like to make three brief points in support of the motion. First, as I mentioned to the Minister, I have direct experience from Reading and Woodley that supports the motion. Residents have recently been sent as far as south Wales—to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), in fact, which is a six-hour round trip from Reading. To make matters worse, we were promised a new testing centre, which has not arrived. This is in a university town, which obviously is particularly at risk. Ministers promised that students would have to travel no further than 1.5 miles for a test.

[Suzanne Webb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Rodda]

I will not, I am afraid, because of the time pressure.

I have reported these matters to the Universities Minister, who is trying to help, but the current system means that she is unable to move quickly.

Secondly, we know that a local approach to contact tracing works. We have heard this afternoon that evidence from around the country, including Wales, and around the world clearly demonstrates that local systems work. Their tracing rates for contacts of those infected are far higher than that of the national outsourced system.

Thirdly and crucially, there is no time to lose. We must take action now if we are to have any chance of stemming the rising tide of infections. Once up and running, a local tracing scheme could play an important part in keeping the virus under control until we have a vaccine and more effective treatments.

18:42

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issue of track and trace. I and other Opposition Members are rightly furious at the amount of money being spent on private companies that could have been invested in our own NHS and in local public authority systems.

This issue is of huge interest to my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. More than 100 people have written to tell me about where it has gone wrong with testing and tracing, and more than 700 people have signed my joint letter with my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), asking for a permanent testing centre in Wandsworth borough. Deloitte has been sent to find one, but it cannot find a place, so we do not have one; we rely on the Army to pop up every now and again. One mother was left in a car park, having to travel to another testing centre. She could not find a QR code on her app. The testing centre was almost empty, but she was not able to go in.

The Minister talked about a spine and ribs, and the whole system working together. We have a spine in this country: it is the NHS. It is a national health system. We should have used that from the start rather than spending £12 billion on systems that have entirely failed us. SAGE has now said that track and trace had a minimal effect on stopping the virus, but it should have been the core of our reaction and our action to stop the virus.

The existing privately outsourced system has failed. We have no permanent testing area in Wandsworth—will the Minister meet me to talk about that? My constituents have told me it is not working; local councils have told the Government that it is not working; and now scientists are telling the Government it is not working. It is time to give Serco a reboot; in fact, it is time to give Serco the boot. I ask the Minister to trust our local authorities and give them the contract for testing and tracing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Chris Stephens, who is to resume his seat at 6.47 pm.

00:01

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. You had signalled to me that you were not going to call me, so I am a bit surprised.

To allow time for the Front-Bench speeches, I will briefly continue the Serco theme. I am concerned to hear that Serco got a contract without any competitive tendering. My real concern is that last year both Serco and the Home Office argued in court—sadly, they were successful—that because Serco was a private contractor delivering a public service, it was exempt from the Human Rights Act. To give Serco a contract like test and tracing, with all that could happen with data, and for it to be exempt from the Human Rights Act, is very dangerous territory for the Government.

It has been said before that Serco has now subcontracted to 29 other companies, including those that have failed on HMRC contracts and in other places. That is of real concern. There is a lack of scrutiny here and I will be supporting the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I apologise to Matt Western and Zarah Sultana for their not being able to get in even though they were present.

18:46

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Our country faces an unprecedented health crisis as we battle covid-19. No Government could be expected to get everything right first time, but a competent Government would learn as they go along, recognise their mistakes and put them right. Tragically for our country, this Government’s incompetence continues to put lives and livelihoods at risk. I am grateful to the Members who have detailed that failure up and down the country—there were too many on the Opposition Benches to name them individually, but was it not notable how few Conservative MPs came to speak in defence of the Government’s record of failure?

A second spike in infections was never inevitable, and nor were the restrictions and lockdowns that are now necessary to consign it. They are the result of this Government’s failure to control the spread of the virus. There are two reasons why the Government keep getting it wrong: the first is their urge to over-centralise control, so that they fail to use the experience and expertise on the frontline; the second is their dogmatic urge to marketise everything, bypassing procurement rules to hand out multibillion-pound contracts to Conservative party cronies who lack the skills to do the job. That is how they got it wrong on PPE distribution, on testing, on shielding and on contact tracing. They keep repeating the same mistakes because they refuse to listen.

I have been listening to council leaders since the start of the pandemic. As far back as April, they told me that the Government were not listening to them about contact tracing, even though local government is where the country’s experts work. Public health directors and their teams have years of experience of mapping how infections spread, contacting those at risk and containing the spread. They know how their local community moves around, they know where the transmission hotspots are and they know how to communicate best with their local communities on how to keep safe. The expertise exists up and down the country, but the Government chose to ignore it.

Instead, the Government wasted months and millions of pounds on the shambolic development of an app on the Isle of Wight that never worked. They spent more than £11 billion on outsourced contracts and an army of management consultants, including Serco, whose contact-tracing system SAGE now tells us needs a major overhaul because of its

“relatively low levels of engagement”

and

“marginal impact”.

They spent £11 billion on that. And as we have heard this evening, some Boston Consulting Group managers are paid the equivalent of annual salaries of £1.5 million for their role in this Government failure. It is a disgrace.

The Government knew that they could not open up society or the economy safely without a functioning track and trace system. Without it, a second spike and a second lockdown became inevitable. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet chased the headlines rather than chasing down the virus, and we have ended up where we are today. The only thing this Government are world beaters in is incompetence. Nineteen of the 20 areas that have been in local lockdowns for more than two months have seen infection rates rise, not fall, because contact tracing is not working. We all have constituents who have tested positive telling us they are contacted only towards the end of their period of self-isolation, when it is too late to stop their contacts spreading the infection. That is why the R is rising.

Without a functioning track and trace system, the Government’s tiered system of restrictions is too weak to stop the virus spreading, but severe enough to cause economic harm. They have managed to find a way to lose on both fronts: damaging the economy, but without fully protecting the public. The answers are there if only the Government would listen. We have already heard how a locally led tracing system contacts over 97% of affected people in Cumbria, while the Government’s failing national system contacts barely two in five people in Slough.

The way to fix track and trace is to put the experts on the frontline in charge of public and private partnerships. We cannot let this Government’s blinkered over-centralising dogma stand in the way of public health. This is a great country and we can revive the economy after the pandemic, but we cannot revive the dead. This Government’s incompetence is lethal. We need them to get a grip, recognise that they have failed, and set free those who are best placed to fix contact tracing and stop the virus spreading in every community up and down the land.

18:51

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government, and I would like to thank all hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their varied and considered contributions this afternoon. NHS Test and Trace is one of the strongest weapons in our armoury in this fight against coronavirus. In the last seven days alone, we have processed more than 1.8 million tests, with 219,000 just yesterday. That helps us to break chains of transmission through testing, contact tracing and outbreak management in an end-to-end service to help to prevent the spread of the virus, protect local communities and save lives and livelihoods. As we have heard today, it is both a national and a local operation, with close working already taking place with local authorities. Like others here, I would like to pay tribute to those local authority leaders and directors of public health who have been in the heart of their communities helping to inform both those important strands.

If I may, I will take a moment to reflect on some advances. We have built the largest diagnostic network in British history. Has it been seamless? No. Are we getting there? Yes, absolutely. It is developing all the time.

[Suzanne Webb]

Will the Minister give way?

[Julia Lopez]

I am afraid that time is short, so I will continue if I may.

The network is developing all the time, and at the moment includes five major Lighthouse laboratories, 96 NHS labs across 29 pathology networks, and over 500 testing sites. This is a tremendous undertaking in such a short period, and in a period of national crisis. We are doing more testing per head than almost any other major nation. Yesterday, capacity sat at more than 344,000, and we are expanding capacity further to meet a target of half a million tests a day by the end of October. This will include our NHS labs going even further to reach 100,000 tests a day. More labs are joining the network, and we are investing in new technology to process results faster. We are also automating parts of the process, installing new machines and hiring more permanent staff.

[Chris Bryant]

May I make a simple suggestion? It would be really helpful to the vast majority of people who are waiting for tests if there was a simple means of them being able to track where their test had got to, just as happens with Amazon and many thousands of other companies in this country. It would also save vast amounts of time for the company.

[Julia Lopez]

I will take that suggestion back. We have listened to a lot of what has been said today, and there has been a lot of constructive feedback. I just want to let the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) know that we are going to be opening a testing site on the campus in Reading next week.

As many have said, the work that we are doing on test and trace is absolutely critical. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is a doctor himself and one of the many Conservative MPs who work in the health service, made a superb contribution using his experience of the system. He rightly pointed out that the vocal comparisons made at the outset of the pandemic with other European nations have suddenly faded away now that the UK is testing more per capita than those same nations. He encouraged us to be realistic about the capacity of the public sector and talked about the challenges of making things happen in practice, rather than simply lecturing from the sidelines about theoretical magic bullets.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said that we must test, test, test, and we are. As I mentioned, we hope to be able to do 500,000 tests a day by the end of this month. On the points that he raised about the Slough testing centre, it is critical to underline that people must make sure they have booked their appointment before they arrive on foot or by car. I understand that that test centre is still accessible by both methods.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) talked about the huge role that his town has played in the national effort, from the initial quarantine of British citizens from Wuhan to the incredible Lighthouse project that is employing robotics to boost our testing capacity. We are grateful for that contribution at this time of crisis. As he said, from vaccines to ventilators, medication to PPE, all have been produced at scale very quickly by the private sector, and British companies have achieved tremendous things.

I welcome those Opposition Members who recognised the challenges that we face as a Government and who made constructive contributions, highlighting genuine concerns from constituents. We are working through some of those concerns. However, I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who pointed out that the era of constructive opposition from Labour Front Benchers appears this week to be over. It is important in this public health crisis that we reflect on criticism and try very hard to improve. However, this afternoon, they have sought to divide local from national, public from private, UK nation from UK nation, and to undermine public confidence in the system for their own political ends. That is a matter of deep regret for us all.

We recognise that contract tracing needs to reach as many people as possible and we are working hard to make sure that that happens, but this is about partnership, with a national framework and local support. Indeed, we are rolling out that strengthened partnership to more local authorities. We also now have the covid-19 app, downloaded over 17 million times in England and Wales, identifying contacts with those who might have tested positive for the virus, including people you might not know. Work is ongoing to make the Scottish app interoperable.

It of course remains critical that everyone does their bit and follows the rules—hands, face and space, and self-isolating where necessary to prevent the spread of the virus. That is why on 28 September, we introduced financial support to help individuals to self-isolate, meaning that those on low incomes who cannot work from home but need to self-isolate do protect themselves and others. They will receive £500. This is an important step forward in helping enable people to take the action that they should to prevent the spread of disease. We have also put in place requirements for businesses not to stop employees self-isolating if they need to. NHS Test and Trace is also making follow-up phone calls to those who are self-isolating to ensure that they are aware of what local support is available to them and signposting them to local services.

Alongside that, we have set out a series of tougher enforcement measures, targeting those who repeatedly flout the rules, including fines of up to £10,000, but testing and tracing is only one of our lines of defence, so I reinforce once again: if you have symptoms, you must self-isolate in line with public guidance and get a test. Even if you are feeling well, wash your hands regularly, wear a face covering in confined spaces and follow the 2 metre rule on social distancing, because it is these little things that can make a big difference.

In conclusion, we are entering a new and crucial phase of our fight against coronavirus, where the number of cases is rising and we can see that once again, the virus is spreading among the elderly and vulnerable. But we are also in a very different position as a nation from where we were when this virus first hit our shores. We have better data, better treatments and the testing and contact tracing that will be instrumental in getting the virus under control. There is a genuine partnership approach—a national framework with tremendous local support—and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

During the Division, Front Benchers must leave via the door in front. Everybody else must leave via the door behind me—socially distanced, please.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

18:59

Division 137

Ayes: 258

---

Labour: 194
Scottish National Party: 47
Liberal Democrat: 10
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 338

---

Conservative: 337
Independent: 1

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

Question agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That this House notes the consistently high performance of local contact tracing systems working in conjunction with NHS Test and Trace; welcomes the huge expansion of testing to a capacity of over 340,000 tests a day; applauds the efforts of all involved in testing and contact tracing both at a national and local level; recognises that 650,000 people have now been asked to isolate thanks to the work of NHS Test and Trace, and supports the Government’s efforts to expand testing and tracing yet further.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 990), dated 14 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Support for the travel industry

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

19:14

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I rise on behalf of my constituents who work in the travel, aviation, aerospace and tourism sectors, and who are rightly worried about their livelihoods and the lack of targeted action to date by the UK Government.

The petition states:

The petition of the residents of the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,

Declares that the economic consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic have had a devastating effect on the travel and tourism sector; notes that, normally, outbound and inbound travel is estimated to generate approximately £65 billion to the UK economy; further notes that an estimated 12,000 jobs are already lost and approximately a further 75,000 jobs could be at risk; further declares that no more operators should be pushed to bankruptcy; and further declares that any work by the Secretary of State for Transport to support the travel industry should be in coordination with the #SaveTravel Campaign organised by Trade Travel Gazette.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately bring forward additional measures to support the travel industry, including the aviation sector, coach companies and travel booking agencies.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002609]

Electricity Generation: Local Suppliers

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Maria Caulfield.)

19:15

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on an issue that I know is of great importance to not only communities in Ceredigion, but, as is evidenced by the attendance of hon. Members in the Chamber this evening, communities across these islands.

We face many pressing challenges as a society: the health and economic consequences of the covid-19 pandemic have been debated today, but just as pressing are the devastating impacts of climate change. If we are to meet these challenges and, ultimately, emerge stronger, more secure and more prosperous, it is vital that we transition rapidly to a society powered by energy generated from renewable sources. The Committee on Climate Change has been clear that the UK is off track to achieve our commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and meet our obligations under the Paris climate agreement. At present, renewable electricity generation accounts for only 11% of all UK energy use, and our transport and heating networks need to be electrified to decarbonise our economy. If we were successful in doing this, new policies and regulations would be needed to ensure that the resulting rise in electricity demand was met by renewable generation.

There is good news: villages, towns and cities across the land possess incredible potential for community renewable energy projects, such as solar arrays in fields, wind turbines, and hydro units in rivers. Such schemes support local skilled jobs and offer local economic opportunities.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that to fully realise our local energy-generating potential we must invest in grid-integrated, locally situated batteries? They will smooth out the problems that hamper the grid supply in so many of our rural communities.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. She anticipates a few of the arguments I wish to make this evening, but she is right to emphasise the role that batteries and improving storage will play in the future. If we are to balance local generation and local demand, being able to store a lot of this renewable energy will be key. These local, community-owned renewable energy projects support local skilled jobs and offer local economic opportunities, which will be very welcome in the face of the covid-19 pandemic’s impact on so many of our communities.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Bath and North East Somerset Council is working closely with Bath and West Community Energy, and such partnerships are incredibly important for getting local buy-in. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to get that local buy-in, this really has to work financially as well for the people?

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She rightly says that this has to be viable for these community schemes and partnerships if they are to fully realise the potential that so many of these schemes possess. I have put on record details of one local energy partnership in Cardigan in my constituency that I know is trying to grapple with some of these challenges.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I agree with his comments about community groups and the opportunity here. Does he agree that the monopolies of service provision by greater companies must be brought to an end, as we see many local people who are attempting to expand business being precluded from doing so by legislation that seems to be put in place only to frustrate, rather than to allow for competitive provision?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the issue and has anticipated the main thrust of my argument. At present, the regulations and the way in which legislation has been structured may be outdated and disadvantage some of the smaller generation schemes. His point will be key if we are truly to capitalise on the potential that the smaller projects possess.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

What are the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on partnering with local authorities, at whatever tier? He mentions community projects at village level, but what about town councils? I am thinking specifically of Newport Pagnell Town Council, which is very keen to get involved in such initiatives.

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. We must not think that community-owned projects are necessarily just at parish council level; towns and municipalities can also play a part. If we make any changes, we will do well to ensure that we better empower such projects, because I believe that they will be key in moving to a decarbonised economy.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt); Warwick District Council is similarly interested. Does the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) agree that we have to ensure that local authorities can develop projects through the planning system, work with grid operators and start generating at scale in the immediate area?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As is often the case, if we are to transition as rapidly as is necessary, we will need to bring together so many aspects of regulation and different Departments.

A lot of the points made by hon. Members touch on the fact that since the 1990s we have seen a transition in how energy and electricity have been generated and transmitted across the country. It will need to change even further, of course; we are moving from an electricity system that consists of a small number of quite large power plants, serving a passive operation, to one with potentially thousands, if not millions, of smaller generators with storage and active demand, complementing huge numbers of large-scale renewables.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Cornwall has a vital role to play in battery storage technology, with our recent discovery of lithium in our Cornish tin mines? We will be able to use that Cornish lithium to build the battery technology that he describes.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful for that point, because one of the heartening news developments of recent weeks has been about the lithium in Cornwall. It is clear that those deposits will be crucial if we are to make this transition.

The question that arises from the shift that I described is whether a system with potentially millions of moving parts could be managed in a centralised way even if we wanted it to be. I believe that local generation to meet local demand offers a possible answer.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is of the utmost importance. Does he agree that fantastic community projects such as Sheffield Renewables should be better supported by the Government to provide local renewable energy, and that that support should be enhanced as we try to tackle the climate emergency?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Lady’s point is an important one: we need to make sure that community schemes are supported. It also anticipates where I want to take my speech next, so I am doubly grateful.

The potential capacity of local community-owned energy is quite astounding. A 2014 UK Government report stated that community energy projects could contribute as much as 3,000 MW of electricity generation capacity by 2020. Unfortunately, we have not quite met that target, but the potential is striking nevertheless.

That potential is frustrated by the antiquated rules that govern our energy markets, which were designed primarily in the 1990s and were suited to a different system of large power stations and a handful of utility companies. Unfortunately, those rules still rule the roost, and they create insurmountable cost barriers to any community energy initiative that wishes to sell the electricity it generates directly to local households and businesses.

A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the technical and operational challenges involved in becoming licensed to supply energy to customers lead to initial costs exceeding £1 million. There have been attempts to address that. A few years ago, Ofgem launched Licence Lite, which was aimed at creating a less onerous set of supply licence conditions for specific types of new, innovative supply business models. Unfortunately, that has proved complex and has not been well used to date. To its credit, Ofgem has also launched an expanded Sandbox service to allow innovative companies to apply for derogations from the traditional licensing regime and stipulations, and it has extended its ability to grant those derogations to certain local generators.

However, the most effective solution would be to introduce greater proportionality to the licensing system, to ensure that the costs and complexities of being a licensed electricity generator are proportionate to the scale of its supply. If the costs are proportionate, it becomes financially viable for smaller-scale renewable generators to supply electricity, and, in turn, new community-owned schemes would become viable.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

The hon. Member may be aware that I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for left-behind neighbourhoods, and there are many opportunities for this in those communities. In my constituency, for example, there is heat from mine workings. Does he agree that these sorts of innovation can come through this channel much better than others?

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention. He makes a key point: the transition to a decarbonised economy also has a lot of benefits in terms of economic development in areas such as his and mine, which have been left behind. This offers so many opportunities, and we would do well to make more of them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. As we hear from the interventions, there are local groups and bodies around the country that are desperate to have these opportunities. Partick Community Council in my constituency, which is a very concentrated urban area, is keen to find out how it can innovate and use the abilities being proposed.

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is right: there is so much potential across these islands. We just need to sort out some of the obstacles that are currently faced.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. He refers to the obstacles. Does he agree that one way to overcome those obstacles is for the ten-minute rule Bill that I presented in the summer, which is due to have its Second Reading on 29 January next year, to be passed into statute, whether through the private Member’s Bill route or the Government adopting it?

[Ben Lake]

I thank the hon. Member, who has done incredible work in bringing forward that ten-minute rule Bill, which has the support of a great number of Members on both sides of the House. I very much want to put my support for that Bill on record, and I hope that if it does not progress as a private Member’s Bill, the Government will look to adopt its provisions.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Members have talked about left-behind communities and the real desire for many communities to get involved. I want to mention those who are left out and how important it is that the community energy sector is inclusive. Right now, 4% of practitioners in the sector are black, Asian and minority ethnic. Will the hon. Member join me in paying tribute to the organisation Power for People, which is working to ensure that it represents those groups that are currently under-represented in the sector?

[Ben Lake]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention, and it gives me the opportunity to place on record my gratitude to Power for People. This debate probably would not be taking place tonight if it was not for the support and leadership that Power for People has shown in recent weeks, so I am pleased to put that gratitude on record.

The ten-minute rule Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) would allow electricity generators to become local electricity suppliers by applying for a new form of supplier licence designated for local supply. In advance of the debate, I have been contacted by Members from all political parties who are supportive of such measures but who unfortunately were not able to attend. They include the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), and the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), to name but a few. There are, as I say, 210 in total.

A right to local supply would help support local energy businesses to create jobs by selling energy to local customers and retain significant additional value.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I do not want to anticipate where the hon. Gentleman is going with this list, but one of the key opportunities that a right to local supply would present to our communities right across these islands is to allow for more entrepreneurial councils to generate electricity locally for communities, as the chief executive of Angus Council has suggested. Does he agree with that ambition?

[Ben Lake]

I do agree. The opportunities are many, and if we were able to address some of the regulatory barriers, it would be a win-win for all involved.

To draw my remarks to a conclusion—Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been very patient, and I am grateful for it—if we were to introduce a right to local supply, it would help local energy businesses and municipalities, as was mentioned, it would retain a significant amount of additional value in local communities and it would inject much-needed resilience.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

On that particular point about additional value to local communities, in my constituency the Corwen hydroelectric project is part of a wider series of community efforts. The benefit of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing is that it would not only help the hydroelectric project, but would incentivise wider activities within the community as well.

[Ben Lake]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, because there would be a range of benefits. We would have greater public support for the transition to sustainable energy forms, we would improve equality, and we would have nature friendly renewable energy generation. Obviously just as important is that we would have a secure energy supply less dependent on imports, let alone a more effective energy system that would perhaps see consumers’ energy bills decrease as well.

I hope the Government consider establishing a right to local supply and specifically the workable mechanism for it laid out in the ten-minute rule Bill of the hon. Member for Waveney, which as I said earlier is supported by more than 200 Members of this House. I am sure that together we can enshrine this right to local supply in law and make the most of the many opportunities that it offers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The number of interventions might be a record. Congratulations. I call the Minister.

19:32

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was going to make very much the same point. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) on securing today’s debate, and I will make the same point: I have never seen an Adjournment debate with so many interventions. They were all extremely gracefully and graciously accommodated in his speech, so many congratulations to him.

The hon. Member has spoken eloquently about the need for local communities to be able to supply electricity, and I think there are strong arguments in its favour. I know that similar views have been expressed to me and the Department by many Members. I am fully aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has also done his bit to try to drive the issue of local supply up the agenda.

I know that the hon. Member for Ceredigion supports a campaign for electricity generators to sell directly to local consumers, for all the benefits he suggested in terms of local employment. I think he or one of the many intervenors used the phrase “local buy-in”, and those arguments are fully appreciated.

In my remarks today, I will address the matter in quite a technical way and give the specific reasons why we as a Government feel that this particular provision is not something that we would adopt, but I suggest to him that local community participation has to be on the agenda. It is certainly something that I as the Energy Minister will be willing to engage with and have a discussion about.

With regard to the licensing—we will talk a little bit about that—changing the licensing framework to suit the business models identified by his campaign appears attractive, but the danger—and we always have to be mindful of dangers in government—is that it would create wider distortions elsewhere in the energy system. I will talk to those directly. Instead of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, I would urge stakeholders and hon. and right hon. Members across the House to engage with the ongoing work that the Government are undertaking with Ofgem to support flexibility and innovation more generally. Then perhaps we can come to a view about how the local element can play its part in the solution.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the Minister not aware that the main problem is the lack of a level playing field? Basically, the smaller providers cannot compete with the bigger providers, and therefore we need this change.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am fully aware of that, and I will come on to it. I have only 10 minutes, so I ask the hon. Lady to bear with me; I will address that point later in my remarks.

Electricity and gas supply licences, as I am sure everybody in the Chamber knows, are usually granted on a Great Britain-wide basis. However, Ofgem has powers to award supply licences for specified areas and specified types of premises, and that can allow licensees, once they have the licence, to specialise and offer more targeted and potentially innovative products and services. The holder of such a licence could supply customers only in the specified geographical area and specified types of premises, with the full terms and conditions of the licence applying otherwise. That means that there is already provision through this licence to have local provision. Electricity suppliers can apply to Ofgem for a derogation from a particular provision of the supply licence, and if it is granted, provisions of the supply licence will not apply to them. There is already some degree of flexibility.

[Olivia Blake]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

No, I am afraid I am very hard pressed for time. I may have time later to take an intervention, but I need to press on with my remarks.

Ofgem, as I have suggested, has been consulting widely on how to use such facilities more effectively to bring innovation to the specified locality, as it were, in this retail market. I understand that the consultation closed on Monday 12 October, and I hope that small-scale generators who wish to supply local communities have responded fully to the consultation.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, very ably and relevantly, the Licence Lite provision, which allows aspiring suppliers or local generators to apply for a supply licence and receive relief from compliance with industry codes. On existing mechanisms, the Electricity Act 1989 already allows the Secretary of State to exempt, by scale, electricity suppliers from having an electricity supply licence if they meet certain conditions. There have been examples, certainly in my tenure as Energy Minister, of people successfully applying for exemptions.

Being an electricity supplier, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, confers the right of the licensee to supply electricity to customers, but it also bestows certain obligations, and that is very important to remember. Those obligations include payment of a proportion of network costs. Clearly, if one is operating in a situation where one is not a licensee, then one can avoid paying the costs on which the whole system depends. That is a critical issue. In some instances, the Licence Lite regime can remove this burden, but clearly we would not want to go down a route where large numbers of suppliers are simply exempting themselves from those obligations.

Network charges, as people will understand, are levied on all users of the network, and they send signals that reflect the costs that users impose on the network. There are a range of signals to encourage generators to locate close to sources of demand, and placing a source of generation close to areas of high demand will mean that the generator gets paid credits for helping to avoid further investment in the high-voltage transmission network. Essentially, that means suppliers are incentivised to be in areas of high demand. There will be a commensurate problem in areas of low demand, because how would they attract the relevant suppliers? Ofgem is working to reform these signals through improvements to network charges, and it is also working to develop local markets for flexibility, which goes to the core of what I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

I do not believe—and I think the Government, thankfully, are of the same opinion—that artificially reducing network costs for local electricity suppliers is going to be highly efficient, because it could distort the market. One is essentially incentivising a behaviour that may not be economical in the first instance, and that would mean higher costs falling on other consumers, which would increase as more local suppliers were subsidised. Creating a special category of local supplier brings its own complexities, and there may well be unintended consequences as a result.

Having said that, I commend the hon. Gentleman for thinking very deeply and creatively about this issue. This is part of an ongoing conversation. He was quite right to say at the beginning of his remarks that a lot of the structures that we have today reflect the conditions and circumstances before we legislated for net zero, and in many cases reflect conditions that operated 30 or 40 years ago. There is an ongoing discussion to be had about how best to adapt our institutions to modern circumstances.

[Peter Aldous]

My right hon. Friend has highlighted some of the challenges that the Government face. As we have heard from Members around the Chamber, we have shown enormous potential for local community energy supply to play a full role in decarbonisation and the covid recovery. Will the Government be setting out in the forthcoming energy White Paper how we fully realise this potential and meet these challenges? When can we expect to see that White Paper?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is straying into ground that is not necessarily covered in this debate. I am very hopeful that the energy White Paper will be published soon. I think the Secretary of State said in front of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that it would be published in the autumn, and we are still in the autumn, so I am hopeful that it will come imminently.

[Ben Lake]

Should legislative changes be required—I think there is support across the House for that, as has been demonstrated this evening—how best can we work with the Minister to carry through any opportunities that are identified as necessary?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Well, a very good start is a debate such as this. It has been a real eye-opener for me. I am delighted to see so much interest. I would suggest that people engage with the Department and engage with me. I am very happy to discuss these issues, which are absolutely fundamental to the energy transition that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As I said, this is part of an ongoing conversation. I am hopeful that the energy White Paper will come hastily enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney.

We have to focus on the flexibility of the whole system in terms of the current regulatory regime. If we get that right, then we can bring the innovation and perhaps some of the centralisation that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. and right hon. Members, want to see. The prospects are considerable. We could see innovation and growth. We could see cost reductions and, most fundamentally, carbon reductions. I think that with a co-operative spirit, we can get very far. The hon. Gentleman’s actual proposal perhaps creates more problems than it solves, but I am very willing to debate and discuss that with him on a subsequent occasion.

I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for raising this issue and thank all Members who participated in this short but interesting debate.

Question put and agreed to.

19:44

House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

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
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
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
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
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
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
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
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
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
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
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
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
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
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
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
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
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (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
Henry Smith (Crawley) (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
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)	Patrick Grady
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)	Dawn Butler
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
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 Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †James Gray

Abrahams, Debbie (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

Ali, Rushanara (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Clarke-Smith, Brendan (Bassetlaw) (Con)

Davies-Jones, Alex (Pontypridd) (Lab)

† Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)

† Everitt, Ben (Milton Keynes North) (Con)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab)

† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)

† Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Mangnall, Anthony (Totnes) (Con)

† Stafford, Alexander (Rother Valley) (Con)

† Stuart, Graham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade)

Thompson, Owen (Midlothian) (SNP)

† Webb, Suzanne (Stourbridge) (Con)

Seb Newman, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 14 October 2020

[James Gray in the Chair]

Draft Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

09:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I thank colleagues for attending. I hope that they will be unanimous in support of the regulations and their objective. The regulations were laid before this House on 21 September, and are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to which I will refer as “the Act”. The Committee will be aware that, given the context, those powers are strictly limited. All that they allow is the correction of technical deficiencies in existing EU law that, by the operation of the Act, are to be retained in United Kingdom domestic law following withdrawal from the European Union.

The regulations correct those deficiencies by, for example, replacing references to the European Union, its institutions and legislation with the appropriate United Kingdom references. The retained EU regulation, as amended by the regulations, lays down the basic principle that exports from Great Britain will not be subject to any quantitative restrictions unless the restrictions are applied in conformity with the retained EU regulation. The new legal regime makes clear what the purpose of any export restriction should be. In general, export restrictions may only be used either where there is a risk of a critical situation arising on account of a shortage of essential products or in order to remedy such a situation or where such a measure is needed to fulfil international undertakings entered into by the United Kingdom.

Throughout the year, we have seen the use of export restrictions on medical goods grow around the world in response to shortages arising during the fight against covid-19. Indeed, the European Commission used the EU regulation in March in response to shortages of personal protective equipment. Under this EU regulation, the United Kingdom was required temporarily to authorise any exports of PPE, following a review of licence applications from exporters. In the vast majority of cases, the United Kingdom authorised those exports.

Although export restrictions can be appropriate in dealing with critical situations in the short term, the restrictions that have built up around the world have disrupted the normal flow of trade and exacerbated the efforts of many countries to combat the global pandemic. The Government have made it clear that countries should limit their use of export restrictions as far as possible. In May, the United Kingdom joined calls for the use of export restrictions to be restricted, and applied only where deemed completely necessary in a targeted, proportionate, transparent and time-limited way. By applying strict conditions to the use of any export restriction, this legal regime sends a clear signal to our trade partners around the world that, despite the pandemic, the United Kingdom remains open for business.

I also want to underline, for the benefit of the Committee, the fact that the Government do not need to implement export restrictions pursuant to the United Kingdom’s international obligations by making regulations under the retained EU regulation as amended by this statutory instrument. Other more specific legislation provides the appropriate powers with which to do that. For example, restrictions that apply to exports of arms are provided for under the well-established statutory regime under the Export Control Act 2002. In addition, article 10 of the retained EU regulation does not preclude the use of export restrictions where that is required for the purposes of public policy.

For the benefit of the Committee, may I point to role that Parliament will play in overseeing any measures that are put into effect under the EU regulation, as amended by the regulations, which is clearly set out in Article 7A? That explains that any such measures must be contained within a statutory instrument and describes the nature of parliamentary involvement where Parliament can annul measures in some circumstances and can vote on the regulations in others.

This statutory instrument is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure because it transfers to the Secretary of State a power to legislate that currently sits with the European Commission, namely the power to put export restrictions into effect in Great Britain in certain circumstances. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I call Bill Esterson.

09:29

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Thank you—are you Sir James?

[The Chair]

Not yet; only a matter of time. In the post.

[Bill Esterson]

Yes, I am sure, especially when you give four and half hour speeches on twinning arrangements with other countries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gray.

I am grateful to the Minister for his concise explanation of the common rules for exports and the implementation of the export control regulations transposed from EU law. The Minister flagged up a number of questions, because the use of export controls is not exercised lightly, has consequences and invites other countries to impose similar controls. We have seen that happen in the time period to which the Minister referred. As the Minister said, we saw shortages around the world in medicines and we all remember the concern about the shortage of paracetamol in this country. The Minister referred to the review of licence applications and the EU’s restrictions on PPE exports, which we also adopted. One of the consequences may well have been our difficulty in acquiring PPE from around the world—the plane loads of inadequate PPE from Turkey and a company registered in Mauritius, and inadequate and unsuitable face masks.

It is clear, therefore, that such controls are not to be exercised lightly and may invite retaliation, if not prompt other countries to take a view of us that is not in our interests. As Alan Winters of the Trade Policy Observatory has said, it is important that we acknowledge the role of reciprocal trade in our own fortunes, and acknowledge how important it is that we have strong bilateral relations, especially with our biggest trading partners – the largest being the EU. As a consequence of some global actions during the coronavirus crisis we have recognised that we need to drop import tariffs on soap and sanitisers—the example that most readily springs to mind. They also reinforce the need for a balance between a reliance on imports and investment in our domestic manufacturing industries. An over-reliance on imports has serious consequences if we are unable to secure essential supplies, and if other countries apply export controls as a result of our actions.

In terms of the application of the regulations by the Secretary of State, I have some questions about the Northern Ireland protocol. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns with the Department for International Trade about the exercise of the regulations. The Department noted that the European Commission will still have the ability to impose export restrictions under the protocol, but that it would only be involved under the aegis of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora – CITES. The Department said that there would be negligible implications for trade as a whole. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is his understanding, and that there is no prospect of any kind of blockade as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the impact of the regulations. That prompts the question about why so much fuss was made about that particular issue in the Internal Market Bill.

That leads on to the Minister’s other point about the role of Parliament and the implementation of the regulations. He said that the regulations would be laid in a statutory instrument, and that Parliament has the right to vote on them and to annul them. Will that always be the case? Will the exercise of the regulations always be subject to consideration by a SI Committee? The Minister said that the supply of PPE involved the review of the licence applications from various exporters. Can he confirm that a similar process will be used by the Secretary of State in future, and if not, what is the alternative? What evidence will be published in advance of a SI calling for parliamentarians to approve the Government’s proposed actions? Labour, including we few on the Opposition Benches today, has expressed significant concern about how legislative scrutiny is being exercised in this Parliament. We voiced that concern when the Trade Bill was under consideration. Given the impact on vital supplies, our exporters and imports, we are anxious that Members of Parliament are able to scrutinise properly regulations such as those before us today. Can the Minister flesh out for us what evidence base will be provided by the Secretary of State, and what will be in the public domain, so that Members can make informed decisions?

The Minister said that the regulations represent a small technical change, and I do not disagree but such changes can have profound implications and consequences on implementation. It is important that we scrutinise the regulations properly. I would be grateful if the Minister offered some assurance about the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol and the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny.

21:37

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his contribution. In so far as that was a shift in Her Majesty’s Opposition in support of unfettered trade, I welcome that change in direction.

[Bill Esterson]

Really? You were going to say that whatever I said, Graham.

[Graham Stuart]

Well, I am welcoming a more moderate direction, and if that stretched all the way to the shadow Secretary of State, that would be good. I am breaking the golden rule of a Minister taking through an SI which is not to unnecessarily and needlessly provoke the Opposition. I am failing on lesson one at the start of my response.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned over-dependence on imports; we believe in diversity of supply rather than that there can be an over-dependence on imports. We believe in free and open trade, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks are not negated by his other comments.

On the negligible impact on trade of goods from Northern Ireland, article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that there can be no fetter on the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, excepting under international obligations. After assiduous research, which is typical of the hon. Gentleman, he has identified the issue of endangered animals, but no such international obligations are currently in place, and if they were, the UK Government would seek to implement them along with the EU. We do not expect any change from the current position.

As to the manner in which changes are to be made, the Secretary of State has the authority to implement article 5 powers, which relate to an urgent situation such as we saw earlier this year. I know that the hon. Gentleman would fully support that. The Secretary of State would exercise those powers on the basis that either House could annul any such measure simply by passing a motion against the use of that power. In any case, those emergency powers would last at most for six weeks. I hope that he accepts that that represents a proportionate and sensible response to an urgent situation.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful for that helpful explanation, but perhaps I can pick up the point about information that would be in the public domain to enable Members of either House to make informed decisions. Hopefully, we would avoid getting to the point where either House might want to annul such a measure.

[Graham Stuart]

Information on the powers and the actions that are taken would be publicly available alongside other information, the precise extent of which I am not currently in a position to share. The measures will be shared with Parliament and it will be possible, as I have said, to annul them if either House is not happy with them. Under powers under article 6, there are no time limits set, unlike the six-week maximum under article 5, but those powers are subject to an affirmative SI. If something is introduced for the longer term, it will have to come before a Committee of the House, such as this one, and be passed that way.

I think I have pretty much covered all the issues raised. I cannot give the specifics as I do not have them, but the information will be provided when the measure comes before the House, which will be able to verify it, look at it and make a decision. I hope that satisfies the hon. Gentleman that it will be an open process. As I have said, the regulations introduce a technical change, merely to bring into UK law that which subsists under European law.

Question put and agreed to.

9.42 am

Committee rose.

Draft Citizens' Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Yvonne Fovargue

† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)

† Cates, Miriam (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

† Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)

† Fell, Simon (Barrow and Furness) (Con)

† Foster, Kevin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)

† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)

† Grady, Patrick (Glasgow North) (SNP)

† Henry, Darren (Broxtowe) (Con)

† Lewer, Andrew (Northampton South) (Con)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)

† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

† Randall, Tom (Gedling) (Con)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Timms, Stephen (East Ham) (Lab)

Trevelyan, Anne-Marie (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)

Dominic Stockbridge, Robi Quigley, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Costa, Alberto (South Leicestershire) (Con)

Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 14 October 2020

[Yvonne Fovargue in the Chair]

Draft Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

14:30

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members about the social distancing regulations. The spaces should be marked. Hansard colleagues would be very grateful if you could send any speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

[Kevin Foster]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue.

Since the referendum in 2016, the Government have prioritised the protection of European Union, other European economic area and Swiss citizens who have made the UK their home. As we have repeatedly said, they are our friends and neighbours; we want them to stay. Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to protect their rights. The Government established the EU settlement scheme to provide a simple means by which they and their family members can obtain the status they deserve and remain living and working in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to say that more than 4 million applications have already been made to the scheme, and almost 3.8 million grants of status have already been made. That is a remarkable achievement. It is the biggest immigration scheme in UK history.

The Government have now brought forward three statutory instruments that further deliver their commitment to protect citizens’ rights. They give effect to the UK’s obligations to EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens—for simplicity, I will simply refer to them all as EEA citizens—under the EU withdrawal agreement, the EEA European Free Trade Association separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The instruments are made under powers in the 2020 Act, and I will briefly explain the purpose of each.

For simplicity, I will refer to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 as the grace period SI. The Government were pleased to share an illustrative text of this statutory instrument with both Houses in early September. Its purpose is twofold. First, it establishes the deadline of 30 June 2021 for applications to the EU settlement scheme by EEA citizens and their family members who are resident in the United Kingdom by 31 December 2020—the end of the transition period.

Secondly, the instrument saves relevant free movement rights for EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but have yet to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme. That is because, at the end of this year, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 will be revoked, subject to Parliament’s agreement to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The grace period refers to the time between the ending of free movement and the deadline for applications to the scheme.

The SI also saves existing relevant rights for those who make the EU settlement scheme application before the end of the grace period until the application is finally determined, if it is still being considered as the grace period ends on 30 June 2021. It makes some modifications to the EEA regulations to reflect the end of free movement, as well as recent case law that remains binding on the UK. It does not alter the current eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme, which is fundamentally based in UK law, as that is a status under UK immigration law. The instrument has the effect of broadly maintaining the status quo during the grace period, with the result that there is no change to the way in which EEA citizens live and work in our United Kingdom.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Minister will know that for more than two years I have been championing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. We now know that more than 5 million innocent people are affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU. We all want to encourage EU nationals to register before the grace period deadline so that their rights are secured. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the Home Office is making plans for those EU nationals with residence rights until the end of the implementation period who, for whatever reasonable reason, will not be able to register by the grace period deadline? Will the Home Office secure their rights?

[Kevin Foster]

The simple answer is yes. As my hon. Friend says, our main focus is on ensuring that people register before the deadline. We recently confirmed grant funding for 72 organisations, which will receive support to assist vulnerable people who need extra help to apply. We will, as I have said before, take a generous approach to what reasonable grounds are, and we will publish illustrative, not exhaustive, guidance. We are keen to take into consideration whether the individual circumstances in which a late application is made are reasonable.

I regularly cite the relevant example of a child in the care of a local authority that has the duty to make the application on their behalf. If the local authority fails to do that, and the person becomes an adult and realises that the application was not made for them, that would be seen as an eminently reasonable ground, because they were entitled to believe that the local authority would have done its duty and made the application on their behalf.

Moreover, there is no set time period for reasonable grounds. For example, in the case of a looked-after child, the Home Office accepts that it could be some time before they run into the problem. For the sake of argument, an eight-year-old child will become an adult in 10 years’ time and might discover when they go for their first job that the local council had not made the application 10 years ago. That would still be seen as a reasonable ground for a late application, because the child would not have known about it.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I commend the campaign by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The Government have provided some £17 million to grant-based organisations to identify those who are more vulnerable and to reach those affected. How many people have been reached so far? And how many others who need this safeguard and protection do the Government think have not been reached?

[Kevin Foster]

It is impossible to give an exact number because we will have free movement until 31 December. People can arrive in the United Kingdom tomorrow and gain free movement rights and eligibility to apply to the European settlement scheme. We have been monitoring performance with the grant-funding organisations. Performance has been strong. I visited one in Southwark recently. I was pleased to see the work it was doing with the Spanish-speaking community in Southwark.

Overall, the scheme has had just over 4 million applications. In the early part of next month we will publish the next set of numbers up to the end of September, which will break it down in more detail. The grant-funding organisations have been doing quality work. We are loth to go purely on numbers because some of them work with people with incredibly chaotic lifestyles. For example, one in Scotland works with the homeless. Doing it purely by numbers would not necessarily reflect the quality of the work they have done in supporting the vulnerable and ensuring that they have an EU settlement scheme application.

As has been touched on, we will have an illustrative list of reasonable grounds as to why an application might be made late. We will judge each individual case. In some cases, there will not be a time limit. We are keen that each circumstance will be looked at to see whether there is a reasonable ground. My example of the child in care will probably be among those cases with the longest periods, because it would be reasonable for them not to have realised that the council had not made the application on their behalf. If they are eight years old today, it could be 10 years before they engage in the issue as an adult and they may need to present certain things under the compliance environment.

Finally, I have sent around a letter—I apologise to Opposition Members for it coming not long before the Committee—following a constructive conversation yesterday with a number of Members of both Houses of Parliament about the impact of some provisions on those who are here but not exercising a free movement right. We have extended to them the ability to apply to the EUSS by making the criteria under our domestic law residence and not exercising a free movement right regulation. We think it is right to be generous because some of these people have been in the UK for many decades, so that is the right thing to do rather than asking people to prove exactly which free movement right they are exercising. We had queries and have issued a letter setting out the Government’s position on the grace period, pending them applying to the European settlement scheme.

I turn to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which protect the rights of EEA citizens who have begun frontier working in the United Kingdom by 31 December 2020 and wish to continue to do so. A frontier worker is a person resident outside the UK who comes to the UK for work. They continue to have the right to come here to work once freedom of movement has ended, for as long as they continue to be a frontier worker.

The regulations establish a frontier worker permit scheme to allow protected frontier workers to apply for a permit confirming their rights. Applications for frontier worker permits will be made online and will be simple, streamlined and, like other routes, free of charge. From 1 July 2021—the end of the grace period—frontier workers will be required to hold a valid frontier worker permit as evidence of their right to enter the UK on that basis.

The regulations set out the circumstances in which a protected frontier worker’s rights can be restricted and a permit can be refused or revoked, in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. They also provide protected frontier workers with statutory rights of appeal against decisions that restrict their rights, as well as a right of administrative review against certain decisions concerning eligibility. For the benefit of those Committee members who are wondering, I can confirm that Irish nationals who are in effect frontier working across the Irish border do not need to go through the process, given the status of Irish nationals under UK immigration law and their ability to live and work in the UK. The vast majority of frontier workers across the border in Ireland are Irish citizens, and that is the status they need to have. They would not be required to apply to that process.

I turn to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The regulations give effect to the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreements that require the UK to consider conduct committed before the end of the transition period in accordance with the current EU thresholds when restricting the rights to enter and reside of a person protected by those agreements. These protections extend to people protected by the UK’s domestic implementation of those agreements.

Now that we have left the EU, it is right and important that parity is created for all foreign nationals in the United Kingdom. Currently, the test for whether a third-country national is liable to deportation is stricter and more specific than that for EEA citizens, which means it is easier to deport third-country nationals who have committed criminal offences. Similar distinctions exist for other types of restriction decisions—for example, a person’s exclusion from the United Kingdom.

We are required by the agreements to apply the EU thresholds of public policy, public security and public health, as set out in the EEA regulations, when assessing conduct committed before the end of the transition period, for the purpose of restricting a person’s right to enter or reside in the UK. The thresholds will apply to those protected by the agreements or the UK’s domestic implementation of those agreements, including those with status under the EU settlement scheme; those with an EU settlement scheme family permit; those who have a right to enter the UK for the purposes of a continuing course of healthcare; those who have entered the UK as a Swiss service provider; and those who are frontier workers. Conduct committed after the end of the transition period will be assessed according to the same criminality thresholds that apply to non-EEA nationals today, consistent with the agreements and creating a fair immigration system for all.

The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill contains provisions to revoke the EEA regulations at the end of the transition period, after which these regulations will come into force. To comply with our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we need to save and modify relevant provisions in the EEA regulations in so far as they apply to deportation decisions. That will allow us to apply the current EU law thresholds to conduct committed before the end of the transition period. The regulations also provide that deportation decisions made in accordance with these protections continue to be appealable in accordance with the UK’s obligations. I can confirm that that will be when the conduct was committed, not when the conviction is received. To clarify, when the matter that is the subject of the conviction occurred will determine whether this applies.

To conclude, these three draft instruments implement the Government’s citizens’ rights commitments under the withdrawal agreement. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:45

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to see you in the Chair for the first time. Each of these statutory instruments is a little legislative beast in itself. I will begin with the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to fulfilling the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, to allow those who are employed or self-employed in the UK but living elsewhere to continue to do so as long as they remain a frontier worker.

Under part 3 of this statutory instrument, this group will be required to obtain a permit to evidence their right to enter the UK after 1 July 2020. I ask the Minister to confirm that it will be a physical document, because regulation 8(5) is somewhat ambiguous, suggesting that the permit

“may be in electronic form”,

but it is not definitive on this point. If so, as the explanatory memorandum suggests, why is there a requirement for this cohort of people to have physical proof, yet the request for physical proof for pre-settled and settled status was rejected? The Minister knows that that issue will return to the Chamber when we debate the Lords’ amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on Monday.

I now turn to the Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Again, we will return in more detail to the issue of immigration detention on Monday, when the Bill returns from the Lords. These changes honour our obligations under article 20 of the withdrawal agreement to consider the conduct of a person committed before the end of the transition period, when relating to deportation decisions, in line with public policy, public security or public health. We welcome the fact that these decisions will continue to be appealable and do not plan to oppose this legislative change.

The more substantial of these three instruments is the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, or, as the Minister termed it, the grace period SI. This SI is slightly complicated. I know it was a source of much discussion in the Lords on Report of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

As the Minister knows, we have been approached by the3million, which represents EU nationals in the UK, and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, both of which have made direct representations on this matter to the Home Office. They are concerned that the way in which this instrument is drafted could technically mean that a large number of people would have a question mark over their rights during the grace period while their application under the settlement scheme was pending.

I know that the Minister has had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and others on this issue, as we have tried to resolve and improve the wording. It is with regret that we have not been able ahead of today’s debates to change the text of this SI to remove any ambiguity about those rights. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has suggested that changing the text from “lawfully resident” to “resident or present” would align much closer to the spirit of the EU settlement scheme and our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

There is, therefore, currently no provision in relation to the resident’s status during the grace period for EEA and Swiss citizens or their family members who are not granted leave under the scheme by the implementation period completion date, which is 11 pm on 31 December 2020, and are not lawfully resident as defined by the SI. Such persons could, therefore, face difficulty in accessing services such as healthcare or employment during the grace period, or during the time that an in-time application is decided or an appeal is pending. Were no further provision made for these people, it would seem to diminish the meaning of the grace period and contradict the mechanisms made in other related regulations, which do provide for protection for persons who are eligible under the EU settlement scheme but not lawfully resident under the EEA regulations.

As we understand it, the protected cohort outlined in section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 should include all those who are eligible for status via the settlement scheme, not just those exercising their rights within the EEA regulations. The ongoing fear of a hostile environment makes nervousness persist when people do not have absolute clarity.

During the passage of the immigration Bill, Labour sought assurances from the Government that they would protect the rights of all people eligible to get status to remain legally in the UK via the settlement scheme during the grace period, and that those who had settlement scheme applications with the Home Office would benefit from the rights under the withdrawal agreement until a decision was made. The Government gave an unequivocal reassurance on this matter in Committee, when the Minister said during the sixth sitting that

“section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act provides powers to make regulations to provide temporary protection for this cohort during the grace period. That means that if someone has not applied under the EU settlement scheme by the end of the transition period, they will be able to continue to work and live their lives in the UK as they do now, provided that they apply by 30 June 2021 and are then granted status.”–– [Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 195.]

We want to believe the Minister when he makes that commitment, but I am afraid that without these small changes to the drafting of this instrument, which would ensure it delivered exactly that, we cannot lend our support to it. I acknowledge the Minister’s letter, which we received just before the Committee began, but unfortunately it does not go far enough. We need that commitment in black and white, because this could be subject to legal challenge.

The implications of the Government’s actions are potentially severe for individuals who do not have a legal basis to live in the UK, but are eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme, and who will be left in a legal limbo entirely of the Government’s own making if this is not resolved. As well as that, anyone who has submitted an application to the EU settlement scheme before the end of the transition period and is pending a decision after the transition period ends will have to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the draft regulations to have the benefit of their protection. Again, in the letter, the Minister says that some of these protections will be subject to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill receiving Royal Assent, but we want that clarity now, because we are making this secondary legislation now.

I need not remind Members that just over a month ago the Public Accounts Committee released a damning report on the operational running of the Home Office, stating that it

“relies upon a disturbingly weak evidence base to assess the impact of its immigration enforcement activity”

and that it

“relies upon the judgements of senior staff rather than direct evidence”.

The Home Office itself has acknowledged how close it came to being declared institutionally racist in the Windrush lessons learned report, yet during a time of immense uncertainty and upheaval, these draft regulations seek to exacerbate the weaknesses of the Home Office and threaten the wellbeing and dignity of EEA and Swiss citizens who have chosen to live and work in the UK.

To reiterate, Labour cannot support this statutory instrument as drafted—the grace period SI, as we have called it—as it undermines and contradicts the promises made by the Government in the immigration Bill, as well as in paragraph 1 (b) and (c) of article 18 of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Accordingly, we intend to divide the Committee on this SI.

14:53

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I remember our days on the Select Committee on Procedure together; look how far we have both come. I think this is the first time I have served on a Committee since the lockdown restrictions and social distancing came in, so I want to pay tribute to the Clerks and everyone else who is responsible for making Committees operate so safely. In other circumstances, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) would be here, but virtual provision is not yet a reality for these Committees, so I am stepping in. Again, thanks to the Clerks for allowing us to shuffle things around.

I will mostly focus on the grace period regulation, as well as the rights of entry that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, the spokesperson for Labour, has mentioned. We also have this issue with physical documentation: I have constituents who get the email saying, “Thank you for applying for your settled status, which you have now achieved. This email is not proof of your settled status.” This is no use. They need to know for certain that they have the right to be here, under the regulations that are put in place.

The question of the grace period in the second SI is particularly important. We have consistently argued against cut-off dates, full stop. The risk throughout all this is that we create a new Windrush generation. The reasonable excuses that the Minister is having to put in are exactly the kind of difficulties that people of the Windrush generation are encountering right now—look at the hassle that that has caused. That could be avoided if the Government were more open and more generous with what they are proposing.

The six months’ grace period is the shortest and tightest allowed by the withdrawal agreement. The Government should be reaching out more. Even the expression a “grace period” is difficult—“Oh yes, thank you. Thank for this grace period.” We are being so gracious! These people are the vital workers who are helping us get through the pandemic. As we all know, if EU citizens were no longer resident in the United Kingdom, the health service would collapse, even without the damage that the pandemic is doing to it. The Government have to do a better job, on top of what the Minister is announcing, on targeting hard-to-reach EEA citizens and giving them as much time as they need to respond and get their paperwork sorted.

The technical points that Labour touched on are quite important. We accept that the Government are in fact allowing the grace period for everyone who is resident in accordance with the free movement regulations —sorry, it is wider than that; it is simply residents, not just those resident in accordance with the free movement regulations. The risk is of people falling through the gaps, because perhaps they do not have the comprehensive sickness insurance and so on. There is no good reason that the Government could not just tweak the scope of the regulations to include everyone within the scope of the settled status scheme. That would cost the Government nothing and it would avoid exactly the kind of unintended consequences that everybody seems to recognise are a possibility as a result of the regulation, not least in accessing different kinds of service and different kinds of housing.

Rather than a list of reasonable excuses, why not just tweak the regulations and make them as wide and encompassing as they can be? That would hopefully avoid exactly the kind of difficulties the Minister is suggesting five, 10 or 15 years down the line, as people unwittingly start to realise the problems that have been caused.

We seek reassurances from the Government, but we also join the official Opposition in opposing that regulation.

14:57

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the two shadow spokespersons for the generally constructive nature of the points and the remarks they made.

I will start with the specific query about frontier workers. The main driver is that people will use an ID chip similar to the one we use for the EUSS system, and will be issued with a digital permit. There are some—for example, those who have used EEA identity cards, which do not have the ability to use the chip—who might be initially issued with a physical permit, if they cannot use the online ID checks. There is a slight difference there. The point we make is that this system is for those who are not resident. They have a particular reason for coming to the UK, and that is as a frontier worker. They can continue to do that for as long as they continue doing that job.

I stress that the vast majority of frontier workers coming to the United Kingdom live in the Republic of Ireland, drive into Northern Ireland and are Irish citizens, for whom this provision is irrelevant. Their rights are long-standing and are also guaranteed by clause 2 of the immigration Bill that is going through Parliament. We aim to remove the slight nuance in there around coming through the common travel area versus coming in from the European Union. We are removing that and making very clear in primary legislation the status of Irish citizens. That is part of the ambiguity. Some would have a physical permit, whereby they could not use the immigration ID checker. That relates to some of the documentation that they may be using lawfully to travel across the border each day.

Coming to some of the wider issues, I would again make the point that EUSS is a status under UK immigration law and it goes wider, as has been touched on, than EEA free movement regulations. Some people are not complying with EEA free movement regulations, although it is fair to say that they would not realise it. Until a year or two ago, probably even members of the Committee—other than, for example, the right hon. Member for East Ham, who is exceptional in his familiarity with the immigration system, going by our regular correspondence —would not instantly have known someone was here and working fully in accordance.

The point about people who are working therefore does not apply. They definitely comply with the EEA free movement regulations, because then there is not the requirement—under the free movement regulations, not the UK law EUSS—to have comprehensive sickness insurance, because our NHS treats people at the point of need and has a different basis from social insurance schemes on the continent, where people living or working there pay into them. This is an anomaly. It is not something that people will be particularly familiar with, so we have rightly adopted a far more generous position on the EUSS for those who are friends and neighbours, many of whom have lived here for some years.

In the grace period, an EEA or EU citizen who, for example, needs to do any of the compliant environment checks, such as on the right to rent a property in England or the right to work, will be able to present their EEA passport or their identity card and will not have to specify whether they have retained free movement rights or EUSS status, or are eligible for and applying for EUSS status. Again, during the grace period, until 30 June next year, people can still use the arrangements as they would today. No one will have lesser rights on 1 January 2021 than they have today, as far as what they can do goes. It is based on whether they effectively comply—but then there is the wider protection of the EUSS.

Of course, if anyone is concerned, I would make the obvious point that they should make an EUSS application immediately and get on with that, but there is no requirement, and there will not be an impact on life, until 1 July next year, when, for example, showing an EEA passport in a right to work check would not be enough. Someone would have to show that they had status either under the future borders and immigration system or under the European settlement scheme. That is when it is necessary to show more than just the documentation that must currently be shown, as an EU citizen. We could get on to some interesting nuances about particular entitlements, but what I have set out are rules that apply today and that do not change on 1 January next year.

That brings us to why the grace period is worded as it is, which is because, effectively, it is about retaining rights. We cannot really retain a right that free movement does not grant. Under UK immigration law—under the EUSS—we can grant something that is more generous or fair, or that gives status. By the way, there is absolutely no penalty and no difference in the type of status that will be granted to someone who falls into the category we are discussing, in relation to whether they applied on 31 December or on 30 January. There will not be a difference, or a period when they were not here, or anything like that, apart from working unlawfully, that we would hold against them. I want to make it clear—we shall respond to the groups as well—that regardless of where someone’s route to EUSS eligibility comes from, there will not be a penalty for not applying to the scheme before 31 December.

An example given to me was that someone who was just resident here on 31 December, and then applied for a job, would not create new free movement rights, because they would be beyond the end of free movement, but what would their employer’s position be? First, the employer would not have employed someone unlawfully. The reasonable grounds would be accepting an EEA passport or an identity card, as can be done today, as evidence of reasonable excuse, for evidence of a working entitlement in the United Kingdom. Then the employee could make an EUSS application by 1 July—and we will not be expecting employers to undertake retrospective checks of employment eligibility. That was one of the issues in the Windrush situation.

Coming on to Windrush, one of the main issues was of course that people were granted status under an Act of Parliament in 1973, but no formal record was taken—no category. To be fair, people were not asked for that; they were not required to do it. However, that meant that, as time passed and people became less familiar with legislation that had been passed, in some cases decades earlier, we ended up in the situation in question.

That is why, with the EU settlement scheme, we have been so keen that the system should be easy to access. People will register, and understand when they will need to have done it by, but there will be protections for those with reasonable grounds not to have applied in time. I think we would all agree about that. Again, we are not setting a particular timeframe in each instance. We will have an illustrative list; we will not have an exhaustive list. We will look to decision makers to consider whether something was reasonable in the circumstances, and of course applicants will have the ability to challenge those decisions as well.

So, although I take on board some of the points made by Opposition Members, I will be clear that people are not going to be left in any form of limbo in January next year. Of course, we encourage everyone to get their application to the EU settlement scheme in today. Nearly 3.8 million of our friends and neighbours already have status under United Kingdom immigration or via the EUSS, which guarantees their position in the United Kingdom beyond 1 July next year.

Many are already using that status. Particularly in recent times, it has been quite convenient to be able to share a digital status with an employer or a bank, because although people are not required to show it until 1 July next year, it can already be used, if, for example, someone needs to evidence entitlements or their identity for some of the checks that people, including British citizens, have to perform when they get a job or rent a flat.

With those comments, I conclude that, although I recognise the points that have been made, this measure represents a retention of rights. No one should feel that their ability to apply to the EUSS or their ability to live their life normally as they do today is affected; no one will have lesser rights in the UK in January than they do today. However, I urge the Committee to agree this measure.

Also, to be clear, the protections outlined in terms of citizens do not depend on the immigration Bill. The impact of that Bill was raised, and where it will impact is in repealing the provisions relating to free movement in UK law. Therefore, free movement does not exist beyond 1 January 2021, because it would be rather odd still to continue free movement in UK law when it was no longer reciprocated and had ended for UK citizens in the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

DRAFT CITIZENS’ RIGHTS (APPLICATION DEADLINE AND TEMPORARY PROTECTION) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Committee has considered the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Kevin Foster.)

Division 1

Ayes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Noes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

DRAFT CITIZENS’ RIGHTS (FRONTIER WORKERS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Kevin Foster.)

15:07

Committee rose.

Petition

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Petitions

Wednesday 14 October 2020

Abolition of the House of Lords

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Petitions

The petition of residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,

Declares that the House of Lords is unrepresentative of and unaccountable to the general UK population, over which it makes decisions and casts votes on important issues; expresses concern at the recent creation of 36 new life peers, increasing the size of the House of Lords to nearly 800 Members, despite the Government’s commitment to reducing the size of the House of Lords; notes that the House of Lords is the largest parliamentary chamber in any democracy; further notes that the House of Lords is one of very few parliamentary bodies in the world with reserved places for members of the clergy; further notes concern over the number of peers that fail to speak in the chamber yet are able to claim expenses, for example in 2016-17 when 115 peers failed to speak even once yet still claimed £1.3 million between them; and further notes concern over the high proportion of members of the House of Lords who were, before their elevation, significant donors to political parties.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to abolish the House of Lords in the interests of democracy, accountability and transparency.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Patricia Gibson, Official Report, 02 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 254 .]

[P002592]

Observations from The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith): The Government have no plans to abolish the House of Lords, which has a key role in scrutinising the Executive and as a revising Chamber; it is important that the way it is constituted reflects that role and the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber. The Conservative 2019 manifesto committed to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration, not to be brought forward piecemeal.

The size of the Lords needs addressing, but given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the Lords fresh. This will ensure the Lords continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation, whilst respecting the primacy of the Commons and the associated conventions between the two Houses.

Members of the House of Lords are appointed from a wide range of backgrounds, and one of the most valued aspects of the House of the Lords is the expertise and experience that Members are able to bring to the work they do. The relationship between the Church and the state in England is an important part of the constitutional framework which has evolved over centuries. Bishops provide an independent voice and spiritual insight into the work of the upper house. It is also the case that the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) vets nominations for all life peers, including those recommended by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety.

Members’ allowances are a matter for the House. Most Members do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties. Peers attend Parliament in a number of ways, including speaking in the Chamber, but also through serving on Committees of the House and voting. The House of Lords Guide to Financial Support for Members lays out a list of activities which constitute “attendance” for which members can claim.

https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-finance-office/members-guide-apr2019.pdf

The Government have an aspiration that all parts of the United Kingdom should feel connected to politics and indeed to politicians. We are considering how to further this objective.

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: †Judith Cummins

† Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con)

Byrne, Ian (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

† Daly, James (Bury North) (Con)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Gullis, Jonathan (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)

† Hopkins, Rachel (Luton South) (Lab)

† Keegan, Gillian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)

† Morris, Grahame (Easington) (Lab)

† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)

† Perkins, Mr Toby (Chesterfield) (Lab)

Richards, Nicola (West Bromwich East) (Con)

† Richardson, Angela (Guildford) (Con)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Trott, Laura (Sevenoaks) (Con)

† Wakeford, Christian (Bury South) (Con)

† Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 14 October 2020

[Judith Cummins in the Chair]

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

Welcome to the Public Bill Committee for the Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill. Before we begin, I have a few announcements. You will all understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing should be done electronically only. The Hansard reporters would be eternally grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to [e-mail]. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. No amendments have been tabled and I intend there to be a single debate on all three clauses.

Clause 1

Welfare of children: 16 to 19 Academies and further education

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I look forward to serving under your chairship, Ms Cummins, and I am very grateful to every Member who has agreed to be part of this Committee. I appreciate people’s willingness to give up their time, especially given the important debates taking place in the Chamber at the minute.

While the Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill might not make the front pages, it is a very important piece of legislation. There is a flaw in the way young people are safeguarded in education: while every child is protected by safeguarding duties, they are not all protected in the same way. That is clearly wrong.

The Committee has the opportunity today to enact the sort of cross-party work that is sometimes needed in Parliament. A clear problem has been identified and a sensible solution provided. Together, we can work to correct a mistake and help to improve the education system by keeping young people safe and giving parents the peace of mind they deserve.

Although technical, the Bill is relatively simple. All providers of post-16 education have safeguarding requirements. Further education colleges, sixth forms and schools have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of every child at that institution. However, while 16-to-19 academies, special post-16 institutions and independent learning providers have safeguarding duties as a condition of funding, young people who attend those institutions are not protected in the same way that they would be at a school or further education college. That was clearly an unintentional oversight and it must therefore be amended.

The Bill has two substantive clauses and it will amend the Education Act 2002 and the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It will impose direct safeguarding duties upon 16-to-19 academies and also place an obligation upon the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that compliance with the safeguarding duties is a condition of funding for special post-16 institutions and independent learning providers.

As all providers have safeguarding responsibilities, there should be no extra cost for providers. Instead, the 100 16-to-19 academies and 1,000 independent providers brought into scope by the Bill will benefit from a simplified safeguarding system with greater alignment of duties. The Bill therefore works for education providers, as well as parents and young people.

I want to stress just how necessary the Bill is. It will only become more important as we see the roll-out of T-levels and continued academisation. No matter what our disagreements on how education should be delivered, we can all agree that every young person should be protected in the same way, no matter which organisation delivers the education. That is why it is so important that this anomaly is corrected. By law, providers have safeguarding responsibilities and the vast majority will follow best practice. I believe we need a guarantee of that in law. I hope the Committee will support me in closing the loophole to ensure that every young person is kept safe in education.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Cummins, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on promoting this private Member’s Bill.

The flaws in the way young people are safeguarded in education and the disparities in the system need to be addressed and corrected. It is right and absolutely necessary that apprenticeships training providers meet the minimum standards that already exist for schools, further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Every child and young person needs to be protected, and the Bill helps to do just that.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for introducing the Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. We all feel strongly about the importance of apprenticeships and skills, and we recognise that 16 to 19-year-olds are at a delicate stage in their lives. Anyone who has been the parent of a child of 16 to 19 knows—most Members here are too young—that it is quite a challenge. [Laughter.] Joking aside, they are at a vulnerable point in their lives, moving between childhood and adulthood. Also, in many areas, they are moving from the school education space to the workspace, and it is important to have clarity on what their rights are in relation to safeguarding.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I want to place on the record my congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Durham on securing this important piece of legislation. Having worked in the sector with secondary school kids and as a head of year in pastoral care, and regularly worrying in some cases about what they were going on to, I want to make sure that Conservative Members add our congratulations to the hon. Lady on this important Bill. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

[Mr Perkins]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to say that. Having read the Hansard record of the first debate, I know how many people spoke in it and that the intentions behind the Bill were widely supported across the House.

When young people are in the space that encompasses both their education and their employment, it is important that there is clarity about what the responsibilities are. In the area of T-levels—an educational environment, but with very much a work focus—it is important that everyone understands and that independent learning providers realise that the expectations of them are exactly the same as they are for further education providers.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I think this is a wonderful Bill. For those of us who have been touched by and blessed with close family members who are on the autistic spectrum, the underlying challenges and social issues that young people face when they go through the school system are still there at 16 to 19. We have to safeguard the interests of children who are special and unique, but who have challenges in their lives. Training has to be adapted, whether with regard to a T-level or a more academic subject. Whatever training is provided, we need to ensure we have a system that safeguards those unique qualities to make sure that everybody can succeed. That is why I think this Bill is so worthwhile, and from the bottom of my heart I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham.

[Mr Perkins]

I could not agree more. It is important that children and young people with autism and the particular vulnerabilities that they face are not left out of our discussions. It is absolutely right that they need to be safeguarded. That is one reason that there is such support for the Bill.

While this is a technical change, it is of real importance, because specifying and putting front and centre that safeguarding duty is absolutely crucial. We all know that ignorance of the law is not a defence in law, but making sure that fewer employers are ignorant is one of our responsibilities in this place. I think this Bill will achieve that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on introducing the Bill and I am glad that there seems to be such widespread support for it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your first chairmanship, Ms Cummins, and I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Durham on introducing the Bill and progressing it to this stage. I am pleased to work with her on this important issue, and in a collaborative, cross-party way, because, as she rightly points out, we are often at our best in this House when doing so. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

It was clear on Second Reading that the Bill had cross-party support, and I am pleased that the same is the case at this stage. I feel confident in recommending the Bill’s passage to its remaining stages and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, for his comments. We take seriously our duty to protect young people at each critical stage of their development.

[Jonathan Gullis]

This is a really good opportunity to use the Bill as a way to look at independent training providers. While there are many fine examples, there are also too many duds out there, to be quite frank. I really hope that we can use this opportunity to review the quality of independent training providers, especially for those children who have special educational needs and disabilities.

[Gillian Keegan]

A lot of work has been done on the quality, which my hon. Friend rightly says varies.

Often when putting things in legislation, it is worthwhile taking a moment to think about the impact it has on people. I was struck by the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North on behalf of those with autism. We know that a lot of children at this age struggle to get into employment, and it is our duty to give all the support that we can at that fragile and vulnerable stage, as he said. Actually understanding the difference we can make in this place in highlighting those issues is also important. I know that all hon. Members agree that the safety and welfare of children are of the utmost importance. The Government take these issues extremely seriously, which is why we are pleased to support the Bill.

The post-16 education sector is rich and diverse. It offers A-levels, T-levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and so much more, but that also means that it is a complex landscape with a range of academic, vocational and technical training providers, which sometimes vary in quality. Providers of post-16 education and training that are funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency already have safeguarding requirements placed on them, but the nature of those requirements varies. Certain providers have statutory safeguarding duties placed on them, and others have safeguarding requirements placed on them as a result of conditions of funding, as the hon. Member for City of Durham laid out. Those are all contractual obligations, and all providers are subject to inspection by Ofsted, which ensures the quality.

The Bill is designed to streamline and simplify the system by making it easier for providers to understand what safeguarding actions they need to take, and it will bring clarity to students, apprentices and their parents on the protections in place to keep children safe at college and at work.

This is a simple Bill. Clause 1 makes the Secretary of State for Education directly accountable for ensuring that the terms of funding provided to post-16 education and training providers include safeguarding duties. It extends safeguarding duties that already apply to schools and colleges to 16-to-19 academies, special post-16 institutions and independent training providers that provide further education. In other words, all providers that are directly funded by the Government for the provision of further education will have a legal duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as a condition of funding.

The clause also means that those providers must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Education, such as “Keeping Children Safe in Education”. That provides information on how to identify abuse and neglect and what to do when there are concerns that a child has been, or is being, harmed. We agree that having one set of guidance covering all providers will simplify safeguarding and make it far clearer and more transparent.

14:15

Clause 2 ensures that the safeguarding duty is extended to providers funded under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to deliver apprenticeships and technical education or training. That change is necessary to ensure that providers funded under the Act have the same safeguarding duties as those providers listed in clause 1.

In practice, the terms of the clauses mean that all Government-funded providers of post-16 education must make arrangements to promote and safeguard the welfare of children, and to have regard to the same information on how to prevent and spot abuse, neglect or harm. That means that providers have policies and processes in place to ensure that harms can be identified and, if they occur, dealt with. In turn, that means that there is a clear and rigorous process established to investigate and address any issues raised by staff, students or parents, and that it is all up to date and can tackle any new or emerging harm.

[James Daly]

If I may come back to the definition of welfare and safeguarding, one thing about the welfare of children in education is how their needs are protected by the education provider. An autistic child may need one-on-one support or a certain environment that enables them to learn and to address their challenges. May I confirm that the welfare of the child in the educational setting and the requirement that that puts on providers to seek the best way to ensure that such children can succeed are encompassed in the spirit, if not the wording, of the Bill?

[Gillian Keegan]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The “Keeping Children Safe in Education” guidance sets out the type of consideration that providers need to show and goes into a great deal of information about special educational needs and disability. The Bill extends safeguarding duties that already apply to schools and colleges, including special schools and colleges of special educational needs, to new settings. The welfare and needs of the child are at the centre of that.

I am sure that all hon. Members wish to join me in thanking the providers of post-16 education up and down the country who work every day to protect our children. It is vital that parents and students have confidence that their education provider is doing all that they can, and should, to provide a safe, supportive learning environment that protects those students from harm. Providers must clearly understand what is expected of them, and having all the information in one place enables providers to get the help that they need quickly. That is why I strongly believe that the Bill will deliver consistency and simplicity to our diverse further education sector.

I thank all Members present today for their openness and constructive comments. I am confident from our discussions that we have the right foundations on which to progress the Bill. I am grateful to all Members present for taking the time to attend and contribute to this important debate. I pass on my gratitude in particular to the hon. Member for City of Durham for bringing this important issue to light and ensuring that the Bill will be enacted. I thank her very much for her support, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank everyone for serving on the Committee, especially given the added challenges of covid. With that in mind, I thank the Clerks, the Chair and every civil servant who has assisted in the preparation of the Bill and the delivery of the Committee stage. The return to physical proceedings has caused incredible damage to the staff who keep this place running, and I am genuinely grateful for everything that they do. I am sure that my colleagues share that sentiment.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

14:20

Committee rose.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: David Mundell, † Graham Stringer

† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Brereton, Jack (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)

† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

† Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

† Eastwood, Mark (Dewsbury) (Con)

† Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

† Mercer, Johnny (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)

Monaghan, Carol (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

† Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab)

† Morrissey, Joy (Beaconsfield) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Steven Mark, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 14 October 2020

(Morning)

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

00:00

[The Chair]

Before we begin consideration, I have to make a few preliminary points. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance, and I shall intervene if necessary to remind everyone. I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Many Members will speak spontaneously in the debate but, if they have speaking notes, it would be helpful to our colleagues in Hansard if those can be sent to [e-mail].

For a number of Members, this is the first time that they have been in a Bill Committee. If any hon. Member is unsure of the procedure or wants advice, the Clerk and I are here to help, and not in any sense to hinder.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, on the desk. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue.

Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.

Clause 1

Prosecutorial decision regarding alleged conduct during overseas operations

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, at end insert—

“(ba) operating weapon-bearing UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems) from the British Islands in support of overseas operations.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

The Bill is important to our service personnel, and it is crucial that we get it right. Last week, one of our witnesses, Mr Sutcliff, said to us:

“please scrutinise the Bill as carefully as you can…and…look after your service and ex-service personnel in the best way you can.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 10, Q9.]

It is important to keep those things in mind as we proceed. I hope that the Government will consider our amendments even-handedly. They have been tabled in good faith, in the hope that we can make the Bill the best it can be for the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces.

Amendment 23 calls for unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aerial systems operated from the British isles in support of overseas operations to be included in the Bill. The Minister has said that he is happy to look again at all aspects of the Bill and that he wants to build a collegiate approach in the House to get the Bill through. I would argue that this clause is a good place to start. The amendment would a simple and effective way to help the Bill to achieve its stated aims. If the Government are serious about making this Bill comprehensive, I see no reason for UAVs not to be included. As drafted, the Bill is not clear enough about its scope or what it includes.

In recent times, we have seen a dramatic rise in the use of UAVs. The failure to include them in the Bill gives me concern that it is not looking enough to the future of warfare. The Government have made their plans clear, saying that they will rely increasingly on unmanned aerial vehicles, meaning that those will account for an important part of the integrated review. Across the world, armed forces have invested millions in the development of UAVs for military operations. The United States has increasingly relied on drones to carry out its military operations overseas, and the rest of the world is quickly following.

In 2016, at the cost of £816 million, the drone acquisition programme was approved by the Ministry of Defence. Earlier this year, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence said that the estimated cost had risen by an additional £325 million. The UK Government are funnelling ever-increasing sums into the funding of UAVs for military purposes. Since 2007, about 3,700 Royal Air Force drone missions have killed 1,000 terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that UAVs are an integral part of the new battlespace and that, while some people argue that they are outside any rules of engagement, they are in fact governed by the same rules as govern conventional weapons and that the people using them are aware of the legal restraints?

[Chris Evans]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. A long-standing member of the Defence Committee, he has developed a reputation as an expert in the field of defence. He is right that the impact of technology will only increase in changing our world beyond all recognition. It is important to realise that, in future, whether drones are operated from the British islands or America, they will be as much a part of warfare as boots on the ground. Unmanned combat is likely to become an increasingly common form of warfare. The Ministry of Defence has said it aims for a third of the Royal Air Force to be remotely piloted by 2030, and funding for unmanned aerial vehicles for military purposes continues to grow. Given their rising use, the exclusion from the Bill of UAVs and remotely piloted aircraft systems is a glaring oversight if the legislation is to serve its purpose in the future.

The Ministry of Defence is also considering the most appropriate systems for air combat, especially when Typhoon leaves service in 2030. Options for air combat forces include unmanned combat aerial vehicles with both offensive and defensive capabilities. That would see a mix of manned and unmanned craft in the air force, working alongside each other. Surely those piloting UAVs from the UK should be given the same consideration under the Bill as those they work alongside.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Friend refers to unmanned aerial vehicles, but is it not the case that in future we will also have unmanned sea vehicles and, increasingly, autonomous tank-type vehicles on the battlespace?

[Chris Evans]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. People will still have to operate those vehicles in future, and they will also be open to the horrors of war and what happens on the battlefield. We should keep that in mind as we develop this argument.

Until recently, the drones used by the UK armed forces were remotely piloted aerial systems. The proposed unmanned combat aerial vehicles differ from the previous drones as they are designed to fight for air supremacy. That widens the scope of drone and other unmanned warfare, as my right hon. Friend just said, increasing the number of service personnel working on an overseas mission but not physically based overseas. General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith recently said that he foresees the Army of the future as an integration of “boots and bots” and that in future combat those on the ground will be supported by “swarms of drones”. We look forward to hearing more about those plans when the integrated review is finally published.

The Ministry of Defence also continues to fund research into the future of drones. The Government are funding jointly with the French a study into the feasibility of an unmanned combat aircraft as a possible replacement for Typhoon from 2030. The Government have said they have no plans to develop fully autonomous weapons; that means that service personnel will continue to operate UAVs for the foreseeable future. What is clear from all that is that drones are here to stay. Therefore, those who operate those missions should be included in the Bill. It is important to note that drone operators face a worryingly high chance of developing post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, in 2015, Reaper squadron boss Wing Commander Damian Killeen told the BBC that staff operating drone aircraft in Iraq and Syria may be at greater risk of mental trauma.

While drone operators may be based in the UK, they are completing overseas missions. There is a popular image that operating a drone is like playing a video game, but those who serve say that that is simply not the case. One US drone operator is quoted as saying:

“You are 18 inches away from 32-inch, high-definition combat, where you are in contact [by headset with] the guys on the ground... You are there. You are there. You fly with them, you support them and a person you are tasked with supporting gets engaged, hurt, possibly killed, it’s a deeply, deeply emotional event. It’s not detached. It’s not a video game. And it’s certainly not 8,000 miles away.”

For some, drone operation can be more traumatising than flying a conventional aircraft. As Commander Killeen says:

“You’ve got that resolution where you know exactly what it is that’s on the other end of your crosshairs.”

Research by the US air force also suggests that those in the kill chain see more graphic violence than their special forces counterpart on the ground. On surveillance missions, they are more likely to see destroyed homes and villages, as well as witnessing dead bodies and human remains. One UAV pilot told the Daily Mirror:

“The days are long and hard and can be mentally exhausting. And although UAV pilots are detached from the real battle, it can still be traumatic, especially if you are conducting after-action surveillance.

When you are piloting a UAV for hours, you feel part of the battle, even though you are thousands of miles away.”

The risk of post-traumatic stress disorder is also increased by the fact that, unlike personnel on the ground, who perhaps do a four-month tour, UAV operators often work year round, meaning less chance for a break and time to recover. Justin Bronk, a research fellow for airpower at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, said that fast jet crews were used to deploy on short tours abroad, but that drone operators switched daily between potentially lethal operations and family life, which could be

“extremely draining and psychologically taxing”.

The psychological stress of drone warfare is visible in difficulties that the UK faces in recruitment and retention of those qualified to fly armed drones. During an appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in January, the Ministry of Defence permanent secretary said that for the Royal Air Force, the training and retraining of drone crews has “historically proven challenging”.

The effect that taking part in such machines has on UAV pilots mentally, despite their being physically further away from the action, merits their inclusion in the Bill. Only last week, in our evidence session, Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said:

“The idea of having one rule for overseas operations and one for domestic operations will be increasingly artificial”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 67, Q135.]

Drone operators may not be physically overseas, but they are very much taking part in overseas operations. With unmanned warfare looking like it will be more common in future conflicts, I would argue that failing to include those operations in the Bill may cause the Ministry of Defence service personnel issues down the line. The Government have said that they want the Bill to protect service personnel from repeated investigations and vexatious claims. Do those service personnel who operate UAVs not also deserve to be protected?

Given the increasing use of UAVs and RPAS, I would be deeply concerned were they not included in the Bill. If the Bill is to do as the Minister purports, surely, if we are to protect our service personnel, we want to include and protect those personnel who operate our drones.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this amendment, which I assume is a probing one in order to have the debate. But, Mr Stringer, it was remiss of me not to say what a pleasure it is serve under your chairmanship, especially now we are both serial rebels on our Benches, after votes that took place this week on covid.

I do not like the word “drone”. It gives the sinister idea that somehow these things are indiscriminate weapons and there is no human in the chain. Unmanned aerial vehicle is a more appropriate term. I accept that, in the future, we may get to a system where unmanned aerial vehicles or subsea systems are completely autonomous, but at the moment, we are talking about the human in the chain.

It is a common myth, mainly argued by those who are against the use of UAVs, that somehow there are no rules that govern how they are used. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I met the individuals who pilot—that is the word we use—these unmanned systems in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are in the same decision-making process and legal framework as if someone was dropping a ordnance from a Typhoon or any type of manned aircraft.

There is a chain of command, including a legal framework around their decisions. Before each individual airstrike takes place, there is a legal justification. That might come as a surprise to some people who want to portray the view that people are sat in Nevada or Waddington or Florida pressing buttons, attacking targets. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a legal framework for each operation and that is supported by the legal service. It surprises some people that each strike has a legal sign-off, with lawyers who agree what can and cannot be done, including, as I know from my time in office, a chain that sometimes includes Ministers who have to agree to those sign-offs. There are many examples where Ministers have had sign-off.

Is what we are talking about pretty? No, it is not—but anyone who knows the battle space or any type of combat knows that it is not a pretty thing. Killing people is not something that anyone wants to do, but unmanned aerial vehicles have given a capability to us and our allies which has been of tremendous help, not only in saving UK and allies’ servicemen and women’s lives, but in saving civilian lives.

The chain of command is a legal framework. Do things go wrong? Yes, clearly they do, and not just in this theatre. Sometimes in a very complex battle scenario, no matter how well you plan for it, you cannot foresee every eventuality. What irritates me is that people sometimes look back at those situations with some sort of crystal ball and say, “Well, if I was there, I would have done X, Y and Z.”

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

On a point of information, and paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in the field, if a Minister signs off an operation and it goes wrong, does that mean that the Minister is legally culpable for the decision, or is it the operator operating the UAV or is it the people on the ground calling in the mission?

[Mr Jones]

I will come to that in a minute; it is an important point on the legal protection that is there for the people involved.

Things do go wrong. It is fine for people to look back and say, “Look, if that happened, I would have done this differently,” but that is just not how warfare takes place. Sometimes, there are critical decisions that have to be taken at short notice to protect civilians or protect our armed forces’ lives. At the end of the day, they are down to individual judgments, not only by the commanders who authorise things, but by the people we are asking to protect us as members of our armed forces.

21:45

On that side, I think we are a world leader in terms of ensuring that our men and women, when they go into battle and have to use force, have clear rules of engagement and a clear legal framework behind that. I know that there are some hon. Members on this Committee who have served, and they will know that it is drummed into them right from basic training, “These are the things you will do,” but if we are looking for perfection in this very complex world, we will not get it. On airstrikes, will we will get perfection? No, we will not. We will get situations where intelligence changes or is wrong, and situations where “collateral damage”—an awful phrase that I never like using—happens, meaning that civilians are maimed or killed because of that airstrike. That does not, though, undermine the reason why we need to use lethal force in certain circumstances.

There is one other thing that I can certainly tell the Committee from my experience: there are numerous missions with UAVs, and the impression has been given that somehow we can just press a button and people an fire at things willy-nilly. That is not true, because we have a situation with a legal framework around it, and I know that from my own experience of airstrikes that were stopped, sometimes at the last minute. The reason for that is because the operator, possibly in connection with people on the ground, sees that there are civilians or that the situation has changed in terms of the target. Those missions are aborted at the last minute, and that goes not only for UAV operations but for conventional airstrikes as well; that is the nature of a fast-moving battlespace.

In all that, we can have all the rules we like, but at the end of the day we have human beings in that process. What this amendment states, and what I believe, is that that individual needs protection, because it is a new type of warfare and it is only going to change further. If we look, for example, not just at UAVs, but at the maritime systems we have now, which will be unmanned, and the land systems we have, which will increasingly be unmanned, I am quite confident from my experience that the use of those systems in this country will be governed by the rules of engagement and chain of command and decision making. We cannot necessarily say that for many of our adversaries, who will not use the type of ethical approach that we do.

However, that does change the nature of warfare, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn is making a point about the human being in this. Is somebody sat in Warrington, operating a drone over Afghanistan, Yemen or anywhere else in the world, on overseas operations? They are not physically out of this country, because they are sat there in a nice part of Lincolnshire, but is that classed as an overseas operation? If we get a situation where, for example, it is argued that the use of force was not justified or that it led to civilian deaths or to something that would not be “legal”, that is where we need some clarity.

This is a probing amendment from my hon. Friend, and I think that is the purpose of this Committee: perhaps not to have votes on things, but to ensure that we have looked at the different areas.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

When the hon. Member for Islwyn was introducing the amendment, he noted that it was not meant to take on board issues in relation to fully autonomous systems. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that fully autonomous systems will be with us sooner rather than later and that, in those systems, there is a human decision-making process that must be safeguarded. Artificial intelligence is artificial, requiring human instigation to create the algorithm to make the decision-making process, and we must keep that in mind as we recognise the need for and validity of securing protections.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. Again, some people writing or talking about this area are saying that somehow the human being has nothing to do with it. The hon. Gentleman is correct in that even if we get to having a futuristic system with fully autonomous vehicles and in-flight combat between various systems, swarms of drones and things like that, a decision will still need to be taken on how that system is used. That is an area where not just in the UK but internationally we will need to look at rules of engagement and the definition of an autonomous vehicle. There is increasingly a move towards autonomous vehicles. Look at the Team Tempest programme from BAE Systems and its partners and how that is going: there can be a pilot, but the design will not need a pilot, and that ain’t that far away—it is coming up fast.

It comes back to the decision-making process. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke mentioned the chain of command issue. That goes to the heart of the Bill because of the importance of having the audit trail for who took which decisions. It is difficult for anyone in the chain of command to take a decision, from the person executing the mission on the ground right up to a Minister signing something off. That is not an easy process. Can things go wrong all the way through? Yes. However, I would argue that as long as a decision is underpinned by our legal processes right the way through to authorisation by a Minister to ensure that it is legally watertight, we should be okay. Mistakes will happen. What a lot of the public find strange is that in cells that deal with targeting, there are MOD or RAF lawyers sat there, saying, “I am sorry, you cannot do that.” It shocks people.

Unmanned aerial vehicles have got to the point where there is a bit of folklore when people make a decision. It is therefore important to ensure there is that legal framework. However, as I said, things will go wrong, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn is trying in the amendment to consider what happens when things do go wrong. Is somebody sat in RAF Waddington classed as being on overseas operations? That is a grey area that perhaps has not appeared yet in all these claims, but I think it will.

The evidence we have taken in the last few weeks has highlighted how, in many ways, this is an easier area to look at in terms of investigations because there is—there should be—that chain of decision making. However, it does get complicated when we are working with allies. I am confident that we have some of the most robust rules in terms of targeting and rules of engagement, but—how can I put this diplomatically?—I do not think it is the same for some of our allies, especially one of our closest allies. Could we argue that some of the examples I have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq were proportionate in the way they were conducted? I do not think they were. That has led to the idea that somehow we are the same.

Let us suppose we get to the situation where we have a legal challenge to somebody who has been sat in Waddington, has legitimately followed the legal advice and something goes wrong. What happens? Are they classed as being on overseas operations? We should give them protection because they are not just following orders, but following the legal guidance that has been supplied to them as to why they are carrying out the mission. That is an area we need to look at.

It links to a broader point about what we deem to be overseas operations. Eminent lawyers will want to argue around the head of a pin about this, if we do not look at it. The other side is other operations. Increasingly we, as a nation, are not going into conflicts on our own, but with other nations. That leads to a situation where, on occasion, UK forces are not under the command of UK personnel, but those of other nations. I do not think people realise that.

Some nations have different interpretations of what is proportionate. How are they included, especially within—that misnomer—peacekeeping? Peacekeeping can be dangerous. I have visited parts of the world where peacekeeping is taking place that were far from peaceful, and were stressful for the individuals involved. Is that classed as an overseas operation?

When I was walking in this morning—I often think when I am walking—I was thinking that this gets to the definition of what an overseas operation is. If somebody were based at NATO headquarters in Brussels, would that be classed as an overseas operation? I am not suggesting they would be involved in a mission such as an airstrike or combat in Brussels, although perhaps they might be on a rowdy Friday or Saturday night in the Grand Place. Is that classed as an overseas operation for that individual? Those individuals are lone officers, but members of our armed forces are serving in ones and twos around the world, mentoring forces, doing a great job in defence diplomacy and ensuring that the high standards we have in this country are passed on to other nations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn talked about the UAV operators themselves. I have read a few studies about their mental health and the jury is out on evidence of increased PTSD and other things. It is a strange environment for individuals, as my hon. Friend said, because they are separated from the battle space, but they see and do some graphic and dangerous things. Having seen some of those videos, what happens is not pretty. The jury is still out on the issue of mental health effects and that is an area where we need more research, not just in this country but internationally. That links to part 2. If those individuals developed mental illness later, given the time limits set out in the Bill, would they be excluded or not? That is another area that we need to look at when we come to part 2.

Can we ever future-proof legislation? No. Politicians all think that we can see into the future as if with hindsight, but unfortunately we all know that most of our legislation is reactive to events. We can try to make it as future-proof as possible, however, and amendment 23, which I presume is a probing amendment, is really a way of asking whether the MOD and the people who have drawn up the Bill have thought about the area. Whether we like it or not, it will increasingly become a challenge not just for how we train people, but for how individuals are legally protected. Even if it cannot be incorporated into the Bill, I would certainly like the Ministry of Defence to look not only at the training, but at what the legal status of those individuals will be. The amendment is welcome in allowing us to explore some of those areas; I hope that it will give MOD policy makers some food for thought on where we take this in the future.

10:01

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

The principle is that part 1 should cover personnel in circumstances in which they may

“come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance”

in the course of an overseas operation, as detailed in clause 1(6). When developing our policy, we considered whether we should extend the coverage of part 1 to include UK-based drone operators when the systems that they are operating are involved in operations outside the British islands. However, we determined that although the UK-based drone pilots would be considered part of an overseas operation, they could not be said to be at risk of personal attack or violence, or face the threat of attack or violence, as would be the case for an individual deployed in the theatre of operations. We therefore determined that as the personal threat circumstances would not arise in a UK-based role, the personnel in those roles would not warrant the additional protection provided by the measures in part 1. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Mr Jones]

I see the logic of how the Bill is structured, and I accept that somebody sitting in Waddington is not going to be attacked by an enemy, but if the purpose of the Bill is to give them legal protection for their actions, they are not immune from being attacked in a legal process for something that they do on overseas operations.

[Johnny Mercer]

Some really important points have been made, particularly about mental health provision and the protection of those who operate these systems, but the Bill is clearly there to provide the additional protections that particularly apply to those who face the threat of violence and attack at the time, so I disagree on this point. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I take on board what the Minister says, but we may disagree on an overall element of the Bill. It is the Overseas Operations Bill, and the persons we are speaking of are involved in an overseas operation. Surely the security given to those in the physicality of the arena of military activity should not be just about geography or about those who are physically participating in the overall operations.

[Johnny Mercer]

The clauses that deal with special consideration for the circumstances of what is going on at the time are there precisely to take account of the unique physical and mental demands of being in close combat; that is what they are designed for. To suggest that drone operators operating from UK shores would face the same pressures is not the same thing. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Chris Evans]

This was a probing amendment. I am happy to withdraw it, but I hope that the Minister will revisit the matter as soon as we know more from research about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on drone operators and—as we move towards the integrated review—technology starts to dominate the battlefield. I hope that he will give a commitment that the MOD will revisit that in the near future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “5” and insert “10”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “5” and insert “10”

Amendment 27, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, leave out “5” and insert “10”

Amendment 28, in clause 5, page 3, line 36, leave out “5” and insert “10”

New clause 8—Limitation of time for minor offences—

“(none) No proceedings shall be brought against any person in relation to a relevant offence, where—

(a) the condition set out in subsection 3 of section 1 is satisfied,

(b) the offence is subject to summary conviction only, or is one in the commission of which no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused, and

(c) a period of six months has passed from the time the offence was committed or discovered.”

This amendment would dispose of minor allegations of misconduct by imposing a time limit similar to that which exists in relation to summary only matters in Magistrates’ Courts.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking you for the way you have skilfully conducted proceedings through this Committee stage so far. Your skill and guidance have allowed the Committee to provide the proper scrutiny that we all agree that all legislation passing through this House is due, and allowed proceedings to be conducted in an orderly and timely manner. I also thank the Clerks and wider support teams for their support in allowing proceedings to run as smoothly as possible. This period presents particular challenges, including allowing witnesses to provide evidence by video link. The entire Committee will join me in thanking them for their important work.

This is the first time I have led a Bill through Committee, and also, as I understand it, the Minister’s. However, this is by no means the first time that you have been Chair of a Bill Committee, Mr Stringer. As I understand it, it was the Digital Economy Bill back in 2016 that was first chaired by your good self in Committee, four years ago, almost to the day. It would be fair to say that a lot has changed in those four years and I am sure that I speak for the entire membership of the Committee when I say that we are in safe hands with your experience and guidance. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his contributions, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn, for South Shields and for Blaydon.

Before we progress, I want to take the opportunity to outline our concerns about the Bill once again. The Government still have an opportunity to fix the Bill and get it right. Unfortunately, the Bill does not focus on the root causes of the terrible stresses experienced by our armed forces personnel and their families. The Government should focus on what can be done to reduce the length and regular occurrence of investigations for vexatious claims faced by our armed forces personnel, not prosecutions. In addition, as we heard from a wide variety of witnesses last week, the Bill does not protect our armed forces personnel; it protects the MOD. As we heard last week, the introduction of a six-year time limit against armed forces personnel making civil claims puts them at a distinct disadvantage to civilians.

Crucially, the Bill also risks breaching the armed forces covenant. I repeat: there is still time for the Government to fix this and get the Bill right. As we have said at every stage, we will work constructively with the Government to improve the Bill. That is why the Opposition have also tabled vital amendments, including the requirement for the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of service personnel access to both legal advice and legal aid in relation to legal, civil and criminal proceedings covered by the Bill’s provisions. I hope the Government will listen to the points raised in Committee and work with us to protect our troops and get the Bill right.

[The Chair]

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to continue, not because he started with those kind words about me, but because it is the start of the Bill and the hon. Gentleman is new to the position. The amendment is tightly drawn around five and 10 years, so I will from now on be quite strict about focusing on what the actual amendment is, and not moving out of scope.

[Stephen Morgan]

Thank you, Mr Stringer, I was about to get to the point around our amendment.

Part 1 sets a five-year limit on the prosecution of current or former armed forces personnel for alleged offences committed in the course of duty while overseas, save for exceptional circumstances. That would mean that the Bill would halve the timeframe initially envisaged for the prosecution of offences.

The Government’s consultation originally proposed a 10-year deadline, which would have meant that operations in Afghanistan, which ended in 2014, fell outside the time limit unless the circumstances for prosecuting any new alleged offences were deemed exceptional. That raises questions about the Government’s reasons, and about the evidence or advice that they received, for changing the deadline to five years. Why not six or seven years? Five years seems to be an arbitrary figure, with no clear evidence for why that timeframe has been selected. Will the Minister provide the evidence behind the selection of that specific timeframe?

According to written evidence shared by the charity Reprieve, even countries such as France and the US, which operate statutes of limitation for criminal offences, have never introduced provisions that give military personnel special status in criminal law. Why are we deviating from the international standards that we share with our security partners, which risks undermining our international reputation? That is not the global Britain that the country was promised by the Government during the last election.

In 2020, the Judge Advocate General for the armed forces—the most senior ranking military judge—said that creating a five-year limit on prosecutions would be a damaging signal for Britain to send to the world, and would be a stain on the country’s reputation if Britain were perceived as reluctant to act in accordance with long-standing international law. What was the Government’s reasoning for ignoring such an important figure who was raising serious concerns about the Bill’s five-year limit on prosecutions?

The Government also seem determined to ignore those very same concerns when they are raised by the Defence Committee. In July 2020, the Chair of that Committee sent a letter to the Secretary of State to reiterate concerns that to protect

“serving personnel and veterans against vexatious claims or unnecessary investigations and prosecutions”,

the Bill

“may not be an effective way of achieving those aims.”

In that letter, the Chair also posed a further set of questions about the decision to reduce to five years the initial prosecution cut-off of 10 years.

The Labour party is determined to stop vexatious claims made against armed forces personnel, which cause them and their families truly heartbreaking stress, but as last week’s evidence sessions made clear, the parts of the Bill that intend to remedy that contain logical flaws. Furthermore, the Minister himself has said that one of the biggest problems was the Ministry’s inability to investigate itself properly, as well as the standard of those investigations. If those investigations were done properly with self-regulation, we would probably not be in Committee today. I ask the Minister: why does the Bill not deal with those investigatory issues that he has identified?

Clive Baldwin, the senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch, has suggested that the Bill would

“greatly increase the risk that British soldiers who commit serious crimes will avoid justice”;

that

“the presumptive time-limit of five years…will encourage a culture of delay and cover-up of criminal investigations”;

and that, in turn, it would increase the risk of the International Criminal Court considering bringing its own prosecutions.

As I have said, there is still time to change the Bill, to focus on the issues that need addressing, and to get it right. That means focusing on legislation that will stop the sad cases that we have heard time and again about our troops undergoing drawn-out investigations, only for the decision to be made against prosecution. That is what needs fixing and it is where the Government’s focus should be.

In last week’s evidence sessions, we repeatedly heard the same concerns from a wide range of witnesses. Hilary Meredith, of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, said that she was against any cut-off. She went on:

“I think the reason why the cases became historic is not the date of the accusation—any of the criminal accusations under human rights law, for example, came within 12 months of the incident taking place. It was the prolonged procedure that was bungled afterwards that made those cases historic. It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on criminal or civil prosecutions.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 06 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]

That lays clear the problem with the Bill. It became increasingly clear from the evidence that not only is the five-year time limit arbitrary, but it does not even fix the issues that the Minister cites to justify the Bill. The investigations are what cause the mental stresses that we know put our troops and their families under incredible pressure. Dr Jonathan Morgan, fellow and reader in law at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, also said in evidence last week:



“Ten years was originally proposed; that has been reduced to five. There seems to be no logical answer, certainly, as to that particular time period”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 34.]

To add to that, the former Attorney General of Northern Ireland from 2010 to 2020, John Larkin QC, went on to say:

“There is no magic in the number five; that is a matter of policy choice”.—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Military Personnel and Veterans) Bill, 6 October 2020; c. 31, Q60.]

Yet again, we hear that there is seemingly no logic in the choice of five years as the limit for prosecutions. However, that also suggests something new: that the decision to select five years as the limit was a political choice, not one borne out of consultation or analysis.

10:15

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I note that every example the hon. Gentleman uses is a legal representative or firm, or legal mind. We heard some great evidence last week from the soldiers. As you said, this is a point of policy. We wanted to make sure we represent our armed forces and make them the best in the world to serve in, and five years was well received among the junior ranks we spoke to the armed forces. You say that Labour is the party to support the armed forces, but arguing for 10 years shows that is not the case.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that if they use “you”, they are referring to me, not the Front-Bench spokesperson. I also remind members of the Committee that interventions should be short and to the point. If hon. Members try to catch my eye, there will be time to make speeches on each amendment, if they wish to.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that remark. We also learned last week from the witnesses that, while veterans may welcome the intent of the Government to take forward action, when they looked at the detail of the Bill, they were not so satisfied with its contents.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised the issue of evidence, but the most moving statement last week was from Major Bob Campbell, who went through hell for 17 years. Even he admitted the problem in his case was the reinvestigation investigation.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that remark. It is very clear that the Bill in its current form will not help that case if that is repeated ever again.

The Government have let us down on the Bill. It is becoming ever clearer in Committee not only that it fails to fix the problems that it intends to fix, but that the Government have failed in the due diligence for our armed forces personnel and their families that they deserve. The Government should be developing legislation by properly conducting consultation, analysis and identifying the best way to deal with the issues at hand.

Sadly, it seems that the Government are inclined to make policy on the hoof. It is exactly this failure to identify the root causes of the issues that our armed forces personnel face that has been continually highlighted in Committee. As Professor Richard Ekins, head of the judicial power project at the Policy Exchange, highlighted in evidence last week:

“It certainly does not stop investigations. In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations, which might be thought to be one of the main mischiefs motivating of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Military Personnel and Veterans) Bill, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q60.]

We also heard from Major Bob Campbell about the unimaginable stresses he faced in a 17-year investigation that eventually did not lead to prosecution. I know the entire Committee will join me in thanking him for his service and offering our condolences for the terrible process he has been put through. Once again, we heard that the Bill does not deal with the key problem of addressing investigations. The specific case of Major Bob Campbell would not be covered by the Bill.

Last week, Dr Jonathan Morgan also stated that Major Bob Campbell’s case would not have been addressed by these proposals. He was prosecuted in 2006 in connection with an alleged offence in 2003, which would have been within the five-year period for bringing a prosecution. It is only in 2020, after 17 years, that he has finally been cleared. Several hon. Members made the point on Second Reading that perhaps the real vice is not so much late prosecutions but the continued investigations by the Ministry of Defence, without necessarily leading to a criminal prosecution at all.

If I have understood the facts of Major Campbell’s case, it rather shows that a five-year soft cut-off for prosecutions will not solve that kind of problem at all. Are the Government really prepared to abandon decorated armed services personnel like Major Bob Campbell? Is that really what the Government have set out to achieve?

In summary, I hope that the Government will listen to the points raised here—including the extensive evidence that we have heard that the five-year limit is at best arbitrary—refocus the Bill on dealing with investigations, not just prosecutions, and work with us to protect our troops and get this Bill right.

I ask the Minister, what evidence or advice have the Government received to change the deadline to five years? Why not six or seven? I ask the Minister to provide evidence on why that specific timeframe was selected. Are the Government really prepared to abandon decorated armed services personnel like Major Bob Campbell? Is that really what the Government have set out to achieve? Why does the Bill not deal with the issues in investigations that the Minister has identified? What is the Government’s reasoning for ignoring the Judge Advocate General in this Bill, raising serious concerns about the problems he raised about the five-year limit on prosecutions?

[Mr Jones]

Are we dealing with the group together, including my new clause 8?

[The Chair]

We are dealing with new clause 8 and amendments 26, 27 and 28.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Stringer.

With new clauses 8, 6 and 7 we come to the issue of investigation. We will discuss new clauses 6 and 7 later. The new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South get to the heart of the issue, which has come out in the evidence we have taken over the past few weeks. This Bill puts the cart before the horse. It deals with prosecutions rather than the real issue, which is investigations.

I find that odd. Who was consulted on drafting this Bill? We heard evidence last week that Judge Blackett was not consulted on this Bill, so who drafted it? Anyone looking at the Iraq Historic Allegations Team or the testimony given last week by Major Bob Campbell can see that the issue is investigation. It would interesting to hear the reasons why the limit has gone from 10 years, as recommended in the consultation, down to five.

Personally, I do not agree with the time limit, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has just outlined. It will give no protection to those veterans of the most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, whom this Bill seems to be focused on, nor will it give protection to veterans in the future, because investigation will still take place from that five-year period. Are they traumatic? I think they must be.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay huge tribute to Major Bob Campbell for his evidence last week, because it must have been very difficult for him. Consider the idea that any of us would have something hanging over us for 17 years. If it was a minor offence, it would be bad enough, but he was accused of horrendous crimes for 17 years, and investigated time and again for the same thing. I cannot imagine how that felt for him as an individual.

What is proposed will not stop investigations. It is clear to me that if we have limitations as outlined in the Bill, we will get cases that go to the International Criminal Court. Its investigations will take into account the lack of action, because there is a five-year limit. We will come later to the presumption of prosecution, which is another huge problem. Do I actually want our servicemen and women to end up in the International Criminal Court? No, I do not. I think it is proud testimony not only to the professionals in our armed forces, but to our legal system and what we have had so far, that we have avoided that because of our robust legal system and the oversight of our military justice system.

The problem with the Bill—the Minister gave this away in his ill-advised winding up on Second Reading—is that it implies that people are either in favour of our brave armed forces or in favour of ambulance-chasing lawyers. As I said on Second Reading, my record of supporting defence and the armed forces speaks for itself. My attacks on ambulance-chasing solicitors, through my work on the miners’ compensation scheme and the formation of the sister regulation body—taking it away from the law side—also speak for themselves. What we need over the Bill is a legal framework that is there not just because it is nice to have, but because society needs a framework that protects individuals—not just individual civilians, but members of our armed forces. As one witness said last week about the unique situation for members of the armed forces, they have few enough rights, and recourse to the law is important. In terms of our standing in the world, we are rightly proud that we have been a beacon of being able to portray good practice both in law and in other areas.

New clause 8 is about how we try to stop the cycle of investigation. As I say, I am just surprised that when the Bill was being drafted, no one thought, “Let’s look at what the problem is.” It is around investigation and the time it takes. Various arguments have been about why investigations have taken so long. Is it a lack of resources? It possibly is in some cases. Has it been the issue around Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we now in a different political climate? Yes, we are. When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, when we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, the will to ensure that accusations were investigated came from all sides. It was not just from the liberal wing of Liberty and others; it was from Conservative Members as well. Mistakes were made.

Not having the issue of investigation in the Bill—

[The Chair]

Order. I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member. The amendments are very tightly drawn. New clause 8 is about the limitation on time for minor offences. I do not want to restrict the debate, but I do want to focus on what the amendments are, rather than wandering all the way through the Bill. If the right hon. Member focused on the new clause and the three amendments that were are debating, that would be helpful.

[Mr Jones]

I accept your ruling, Mr Stringer. New clause 8 is around investigation.

[The Chair]

For minor offences.

[Mr Jones]

Yes. I will come back to the new clauses later.

Some serious accusations were made in the IHAT and Northmoor investigations. They took so long because some were very complicated, but some were very minor. The more we can speed up the system for the accused and the quicker it is dealt with, the better. It will be better for armed service personnel, and better for confidence in our system. New clause 8 tries to get a system that deals with minor cases and does not lead to endless investigations into things that really should be dealt with in the first instance.

New clause 8 argues that minor offences should be dealt with through a summary process, which Judge Blackett referred to last week and through which the magistrates court system already deals with cases. One thing that is missing in the entire Bill, which would give us confidence in it, is judicial oversight of the reasons why things are done. That is important. New clause 8 would empower prosecutors to place a six-month time limit on summary matters.

10:30

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

In reality, the right hon. Gentleman wants to remove bureaucracy because justice delayed is justice denied, whether someone is the accuser or the accused. His new clause seeks clarity for minor offences.

[Mr Jones]

It is clarity for the individuals, so that they can be dealt with swiftly. If Judge Blackett had been consulted on this Bill, that might have been included.

I will not try your patience, Mr Stringer, because I might need it when I come to new clauses 6 and 7 on the broader issues around investigation, which I notice the MOD is now moving on and possibly recognising that it has missed a trick in the Bill. The new clause would give the court powers. We are not talking about serious offences or common assault. We did a similar thing in the Armed Forces Act 2006. We gave commanding officers the powers to deal with minor offences, because the old system was taking an inordinate amount of time to deal with them. We are basically setting up a de minimis case. As the hon. Gentleman just said, it would deal with the bureaucracy and make sure that we concentrate on the most serious offences.

People might say, “How does this get into ambulance-chasing solicitors?” With IHAT and Northmoor, some of the cases put forward were to do with such things as slaps and assaults, which would actually meet this criteria. Why did it take years to investigate whether somebody was slapped if it was on a Saturday night in a pub and classed as a common assault? Why did it take years to investigate or in some cases re-investigate? We could argue that it happened in Iraq or Afghanistan or somewhere else and it might be more difficult to gather evidence and witnesses, but it should not be beyond the wit of the legal system to look at the evidence initially and say, “To be honest, the threshold for this would not be very high.” Why were they brought? We know: in some cases, clearly, Phil Shiner was trying to get some compensation out of an alleged fault, but the pressure was put on those individuals who were accused of things that were minor and would have been dealt with normally. The new clause frees up the criminal justice system and the investigators to concentrate on the things that we want to concentrate on, which are the more serious cases.

Would that protect our armed forces? Yes, I think it would, because we would have a sense of fairness for them—they would be getting speedy justice, they would not go through reinvestigation and they would not have to wait an inordinate length of time for things dealt with as a matter of course in a magistrates court. It is a way to give protection to servicemen and women, while also—as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said—making the system more effective.

The important thing, however, is the judicial oversight—this is not just deciding to stop prosecution; the evidence is looked at, the de minimis test is applied and only then would that be ended. That would be a huge improvement. The Minister said he was looking for improvement of the Bill and, to me, this is an obvious way to do it.

[Johnny Mercer]

Amendments 25 to 28 seek to change the time at which the presumption comes into effect from five to 10 years. The proposal in the public consultation that we ran last year was for a 10-year timeframe for the statutory presumption. It was not fixed policy, because we were seeking the public’s views.

In the consultation, we asked the following questions: whether 10 years was appropriate as a qualifying time, and whether the measure should apply regardless of how long ago the relevant events occurred. As we set out in our published response to the consultation, there was support for a 10-year timeframe, but equally there was support for presumption to apply without a timeframe at all. We also considered the written responses, which clearly indicated the concerns that a 10-year timeframe was too long—memories can fade, evidence tends to deteriorate and the context of events changes. There were also concerns that 10 years was too long to have the threat of prosecution hanging over a serviceperson’s head.

Respondents suggested time periods of less than 10 years, with the most popular timeframe being five years. As the issue that we seek to address relates to historical alleged offences, we did not feel able to apply the presumption without a timeframe. However, given the strength of the views expressed, we felt that a timeframe of less than 10 years would be more appropriate, and five years was the most popular alternative.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister say what the numbers were for the responses to the consultation? What was the basic divide between those who wanted 10 years and those who wanted none or five years?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am more than happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the exact responses. They are in the House of Commons Library, in the impact assessment. The numbers were clear, and I have just outlined the general findings—[Interruption.] I will not give way again. Some people want 10 years and some five years—

[Mr Jones]

It is not in your notes.

[The Chair]

Order. Continue, Minister.

[Johnny Mercer]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

New clause 8 seeks to limit to six months the period between an offence being committed or discovered and any proceedings being brought, where a number of conditions can be satisfied. First, the offence must be a relevant offence, committed on overseas operations by a serviceperson. Importantly, the bar to proceedings only applies if the offence being prosecuted is subject to summary conviction only, or is one where no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused.

During an investigation, it is not always clear what the charge will be, but this is made harder for investigations on overseas operations where the injured person is a local national. It will not always be possible to get information regarding the incident, or on the permanence or lasting nature of an injury, in the timeframe demanded by the amendment.

Investigations on overseas operations inevitably rely to some degree on actions by others in theatre. Delays in such investigations are a fact of the operational environment and placing a time limit on investigations runs the risk that others may be able to affect the outcome of a service police investigation. The service police cannot have any barriers placed in the way that fetter their investigative decision making. A time limit in these circumstances would do just that.

Even the most minor offences take on a greater significance in an operational environment. A minor offence is not necessarily a simple matter that could be dealt with quickly by a commanding officer. Placing a barrier in the way of investigations for minor offences does not take account of the disproportionate effect of poor discipline directed towards local nationals in an operational setting.

The amendment is modelled on the provisions that exist in relation to summary-only matters in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. That is where the problem lies. That Act codifies the procedures applicable in the magistrates courts of England and Wales. It is not legislation written to accommodate the extraordinary demands made of a system operating in an operational context.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not give way.

Delays are inevitable and applying civilian standards to an operational context is inappropriate. If this is something that might be considered for the service justice system, it would seem more appropriate for an armed forces Bill, but with an exemption to account—

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. This is a very strange Committee. Basically, the Minister is reading his civil service brief into the record, rather than actually answering the points. It is going to be very difficult to scrutinise the Bill properly if he will not take interventions, even though I accept he might be at a disadvantage if it is not in his briefing notes.

[The Chair]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that is not a point of order. The Minister is entitled to give way as he chooses.

[Johnny Mercer]

If this measure is something that might be considered for the service justice system, it would be more appropriate for an armed forces Bill, but with an exemption to account for the complexity of overseas operations. This Bill is not the correct legislative vehicle for the measure. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Mr Jones]

I just find this remarkable, Mr Stringer. We have a Minister who has come in here to read his civil service brief into the record. He is not taking account of anything that is being said, by myself or by other hon. Members. When he wants to be questioned on it, he will not take interventions. It is a strange way of doing this. He possibly thinks that doing a Committee is just about reading the civil service brief the night before and then reading it into the record. I am sorry, but that is not how we do scrutiny in this House.

With regard to the Minister’s comment that this measure would be more appropriate in an armed forces Bill, that may well be the case, but he has an opportunity to put it in here. He can sit there and smile but, frankly, he is doing himself no favours. He has said that he wants co-operation on the Bill, but he is doing nothing. He is going to try to plough through with what he has got, irrespective of whether it damages our armed forces personnel. That makes me very angry.

The Minister said that the Magistrates’ Court Act provisions would not cross over to this Bill. We could draw up a protocol around that, which would fit in the Bill. If the Bill is supposed to be the all-singing, all-dancing, huge protection that we are going to give to our servicemen and servicewomen, then that should have been in the Bill.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the ranks, as opposed to the chain of command, would be best served by an acceptance of the new clause, because it gives clarity and allows them to move forward on those cases, within the elements that he has discussed?

11:16

[Mr Jones]

It does. There is an argument, which some members of the Committee are trying to make, that it is the ranks versus the seniors, but this is designed to protect the ranks.

The Minister says that it would be more appropriate to have this in an armed forces Bill. If that is the case, why was this Bill not held over until next year, when we could incorporate all of this into an armed forces Bill? Having sat on nearly every single armed forces Bill over the past 20 years, I know that there are things in this Bill that would be able to fit into an armed forces Bill. We know that the reason it is in this Bill is because it was a political stunt—it is more about politics than about what it is supposed to do.

New clause 8 should be incorporated in this Bill, because it would get to the root cause, which we discussed last week and which people have continually commented on: namely, that the Bill does not look at investigations. If the Minister got off his phone and listened, he might be able to get to a situation where, after reflecting on this, the Government may well look at how they can codify this and put it into the Bill, because it would then be stronger. As has been said, we want to protect, and that is what we are supposed to be doing with the Bill.

[The Chair]

Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to press the amendment to a vote?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “the day on which the alleged conduct took place” and insert “the day on which the first investigation relevant to the alleged conduct concluded”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) the thoroughness, promptness and efficacy of any ongoing investigation into the alleged conduct or any relevant previous investigation, and the reasons for any delays in such investigations;”

This amendment would ensure that the adequacy of any investigative process to date is given particular weight by a relevant prosecutor.

Amendment 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(ba) the quality and duration of relevant investigations.”

This amendment would require prosecutors to give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations when deciding whether to bring or continue proceedings against a person relating to alleged conduct during overseas operations.

New clause 6—Judicial oversight of investigations—

“(1) This section applies to any investigation by a police force into alleged conduct as described in subsection 3 of section 1.

(2) The police force investigating the conduct must place their preliminary findings before an allocated judge advocate as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months after the alleged offence was brought to their attention.

(3) The judge advocate shall have the power to determine—

(a) that no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused; and order that the investigation should cease;

(b) that the evidence is of a tenuous character because of weakness or vagueness or because of inconsistencies with other evidence, and that it is not in the interests of justice to continue an investigation; and order that the investigation should cease; or

(c) that there is merit in the complaint; and make directions as to the timetable and extent of further investigation.”

This amendment would set a timetable for police investigations into alleged conduct during overseas operations, to ensure they are as short as possible and provide an opportunity for a judge to stop an unmeritorious or vexatious investigation early.

New clause 7—Limitation on reinvestigation—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations, or

(b) a determination has been made that an investigation into an offence relating to such conduct should cease under section (Judicial oversight of investigations).

(2) No further investigation into the alleged conduct shall be commenced unless—

(a) compelling new evidence has become available, and

(b) an allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against the accused is sufficiently strong that there is a real possibility that it would support a conviction.”

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I rise to speak to the amendment for a very specific reason. It concerns the word “alleged” in the Bill. The Government, in bringing forward the Bill, have sought to provide clarity to members of the armed forces and veterans against some elements of the legal profession, which is the constant narrative during our debates—although, I have to say that there are many members of the legal profession who are not only members of the armed forces, but veterans too. We need to be very much aware of the rule of law.

The clarity that I and my party require, which is why we have tabled this amendment, is to remove that word “alleged”, because it causes ambiguity, whereas I think the Government’s intention in introducing the Bill is to give clarity. Whether or not I disagree with various parts of it, if not the vast majority, we are seeking to work here in a coherent and collegiate fashion, because I think that, not only for the accused but for the accuser, we need to be clear about the point at which we start, which is the day on which the first investigation takes place. 

The word “alleged” creates ambiguity in the law and ambiguity for members of the armed forces and veterans, which is why we have brought forward this specific amendment.

[Johnny Mercer]

Mr Stringer, do you want me to speak only to amendment 14?

[The Chair]

I want to give you the opportunity to comment on amendment 14 and the associated amendments and new clauses.

[Johnny Mercer]

The other associated amendments as well?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Johnny Mercer]

I thought so.

[Mr Jones]

Mr Stringer, are you going to move the other clauses? Are you taking them as a group?

[The Chair]

What is being debated is amendment 14 to clause 1. We are also debating amendments 2 and 56, and new clauses 6 and 7. If hon. Members wish to vote at the end, we will vote on amendment 14. However, it is in order to discuss the other amendments and new clauses.

[Johnny Mercer]

One of the main purposes of introducing the presumption against prosecution is to provide greater certainty for veterans in relation to the threat of repeat investigations and the possible prosecution for events that happened many years ago. Amendment 14 would undermine that objective by extending the starting point for the presumption and, in some cases, creating even more uncertainty. However, I want to reassure Members that the presumption measure is not an attempt to cover up past events as it does not prevent an investigation to credible allegations of wrongdoing in the past, and neither does it prevent the independent prosecutor from determining that a case should go forward to prosecution.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does the Minister not accept that the very word “alleged” creates ambiguity within the law and, if anything, creates a barrier? Our amendment would give the clarity that he and his Government are seeking.

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not accept that. The wording about the “alleged conduct” is clear. We have dealt with a number of allegations: 3,500 from the Iraq Historical Allegations Team alone, and another 1,000 from Afghanistan. They are alleged offences and it is right to leave those in there. I request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will not be withdrawing the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 2

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I would be grateful for your clarification on the next steps. I understood that that was taken as a group, but will we be moving now to the other amendments in the group and asking for them to be moved?

[The Chair]

The opportunity to debate the other amendments in this group has gone; that went when that debate finished. We can now, if hon. Members wish, vote on amendment 26, and then we will come to clause stand part. If I can help the hon. Lady, if I think—as I almost certainly will think—that the debate on clause 1 has not been exhausted, we can have a general debate on clause 1. However, the opportunity to debate amendment 26 went when we moved to the vote on the previous amendment. I will now ask whether you want to vote on amendment 26.

[Mr Jones]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I did ask whether you were taking these as a group and when I could move my amendment.

[The Chair]

I read out at the beginning that they were being debated together. I made that clear.

[Mr Jones]

May I ask for clarification on new clauses 6 and 7? In terms of the general debate on clause 1, reference could obviously be made to them in that.

[The Chair]

I will think about that while we are debating. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not new to the House, but many members of this Committee are. If they listened carefully, I did read through all the areas we were debating at the start of this. I read out the amendments we were debating and what was before the Committee.

[Mr Jones]

To be fair, Mr Stringer, I also asked to move those new clauses. I am sorry, with respect, Chair, but you did not clarify that.

[The Chair]

It was clarified at the beginning. I cannot go back to that. That has been debated, although Members did not speak to it. If hon. Members wish to have a clause stand part debate, we can have that. You are absolutely right that we will vote later on new clauses, but the opportunity to debate them was then, when I read out the list.

[Liz Twist]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I do not wish to be difficult in any way, and of course I respect your ruling, but I think there was some misunderstanding at the start about exactly what we were doing. You certainly did say that we were taking these amendments, but I think we were expecting the sequence of people to be able to move them. I wonder whether there is any way that we can resolve that issue so that these amendments can be moved.

[The Chair]

I accept that there is a misunderstanding, but the statements were read out clearly from the Chair about what we were debating at the start. The opportunity to debate them was not taken. I cannot think of any way to debate them now. However, I will take the Clerk’s advice later and see whether there is a way.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[The Chair]

I will take no further points of order on the matter at this time. Clearly, people have not taken the opportunity to debate the matter. That is unfortunate. I will take the Clerk’s advice to see whether there is any way of doing that, but I cannot think of any way at the present time, because we have passed it. We have now moved on to amendment 26. Does Stephen Morgan wish to move amendment 26 formally?

[Stephen Morgan]

I do wish to move it.

[The Chair]

I am asking whether the hon. Gentleman wants to vote on the amendment.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I was under the impression that we voted on amendment 26 as part of the first grouping.

[The Chair]

We did not. We debated it. There is a difference between debates on amendments grouped together because they are related and the order in which decisions are taken.

10:45

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I ask a question, Mr Stringer? Is it therefore the case that we move now to clause 2?

[The Chair]

No. We have to get through the amendments, and then there will be a clause stand part debate on clause 1. We have to agree to clause 1, as amended or not, before moving on to the amendments to clause 2. By the start of this afternoon’s session, which I will chair, I will have clarified with the Clerk whether it is possible to come back to this, because the hon. Member for Blaydon says that there has been a genuine misunderstanding.

If hon. Members will take their place, the Clerk tells me that the issues raised in the amendments and the new clause can be raised in the clause stand part debate on clause 1. If that is not clear to hon. Members, now is the time to ask a question.

[Mr Jones]

It is clear, but I asked the Chair, when he was taking that group of amendments, whether I could move my new clause. I will not go over that. It was strange to me, because I have been here long enough to know that when amendments and new clauses are grouped, they can actually be moved. I did ask the Chair, but I was not allowed to do that.

[The Chair]

If the right hon. Member will take his seat, I had already told the Committee what was being debated. There was clearly a misunderstanding. We are going to resolve that issue, and then we can have the clause stand part debate. For clarity, amendment 26 has been moved formally. Does the Front-Bench spokesperson wish to put it to a vote.

[Stephen Morgan]

Yes, I wish to put that to a vote.

Amendment proposed: 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “5” and insert “10”.—(Stephen Morgan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 3

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to say something generally about clause 1? If not, I will open it up to the floor so that the amendments in the previous group, or any other issue relating to the clause, can be debated.

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this stage, Mr Stringer.

[Mr Jones]

I say again what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

On clause 1, we heard last week that one problem the Bill does not address relates to investigations. If that had been included, the Bill would be more effective in stopping the unfair distress of individuals. We heard from Major Campbell, who was quite graphic about his 17 years of investigations. The clause is clear about trying to clear up the system and we have heard about the system being made more efficient, which would not only ensure that armed forces personnel get a fair hearing but speed up the processes where they face distress.

It is not surprising that investigations are not being considered. Let us look at General Nick Parker’s evidence last week. I know him well—he has had a distinguished career—and I certainly know his son, who was injured in Afghanistan. Those of us on the Opposition Benches might say, “It’s yet another general rather than a squaddie,” but I have a huge amount of respect for him. He not only has the Army running through his veins but stands up for the armed forces and the men and women who served under him, having their best interests at heart. He would be supportive of any legislation or anything done to try to improve their lot. Having had a few heated arguments with him over the years—he is no shrinking violet—I know that if he thought the Bill was perfect or would improve things, he would say that. What he says about investigations is therefore important. He said:

“On the effectiveness side, it appears as if part 1 of the Bill focuses entirely on the process of prosecution, whereas for me the big issue here is the process of investigation and, critically in that process, ensuring that the chain of command is deeply connected with what goes on from the very outset. I do not think there is any serviceman or woman who would not accept that bad behaviour on the frontline must be treated quickly and efficiently. Nobody would want anything in the process that somehow allows people who have behaved badly on the frontline to get away with it. But all of us would believe that the process has to be quick, efficient and effective to remove the suspicion of a malicious allegation as quickly as possible. I cannot see how this Bill does that.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 94, Q188.]

The Minister referred to next year’s armed forces Bill as being appropriate for that, but I am aghast. If this Bill is supposed to be the Rolls-Royce legislation to protect our servicemen and women, why on earth does it not include investigation?

I note that, ironically, since we took evidence, a written ministerial statement was made yesterday in which the Defence Secretary announced that investigations will be looked at. He said:

“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…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.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 9WS.]

Even the Defence Secretary recognises that one of the issues is the length of investigations. Could I disagree with any of what he said? No. As I said in speaking to new clause 8, the issue is effectiveness in making sure not only that the service is protected from malicious allegations, but that individuals are. We must always think about that, because at the end of the day the individual is important.

The Defence Secretary’s statement goes on to say:

“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.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 9WS.]

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Is my right hon. Friend a little concerned about the Secretary of State’s comments, as I am? If indeed those comments are true and that is the intention, why has the Minister not tabled amendments today to address that issue?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We were told, although I do not believe it, that the Government wanted to improve the Bill and would consider amendments. I accept that Opposition amendments are not always properly drafted to fit into a Bill, but it is quite common for the Government to say that they will look at an amendment and change it, but put the spirit of it into a Bill. There is an opportunity to do that now, but unfortunately we have a Minister who clearly just wants to say, “No, we will get the Bill through as drafted, and that’s it,” which is contrary to his statements about trying to work together with people. There is an opportunity to do that now and I do not understand why we cannot do it, as my hon. Friend says.

The Defence Secretary’s statement goes on to say:

“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”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 9WS.]

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On the justice system review and its relationship to the Bill, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West last week about Major Campbell’s 17 years of dreadful investigation, General Sir Nick Parker said:

“That will not happen if you have a credible system that investigates and you address some of the cultural issues in the chain of command by making it genuinely accountable for what is happening.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 98, Q201.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill does absolutely none of that?

[Mr Jones]

It does not. If somebody like Nick Parker is saying that, we need to take it seriously. As for how the Bill has been born, I would love to know who is claiming paternity for it, because a lot of people seem to have been excluded—certainly the Judge Advocate General has. I would have thought he was the obvious person, as a senior military person in the justice system, to be brought in at an early stage to look at some of the things we shall talk about later—not only the issues of international law, but how the system could be improved.

11:15

The Defence Secretary’s written statement states:

“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”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 9WS.]

We heard last week from Judge Blackett about the service justice system review, and it would be interesting to know how those recommendations, which are about improving the system, have been fed into the Bill. If there are obvious things in the review, they should have been included in the Bill. It is strange to me when I consider who has written the Bill—whether it has been done for political reasons, rather than by people who understand the military and the service justice system and who look at the issues that face servicemen and women. I am amazed at the exclusion of people such as Judge Blackett.

Then, literally as the Bill is beginning its passage through the House, the Defence Secretary commissions yet another review of the exact subject that came up in the evidence sittings, about investigations. I find it remarkable. We do not need another review. We just need to implement some simple things, some of which Judge Blackett came forward with last week, and some of which will have come out of the service justice review.

I am sure that there will be an argument in the Ministry of Defence, knowing the civil servants as I do, that everything should be pushed off into the Crown review and the armed forces Bill, which I understand is coming up next year. To be honest, I have a lot of sympathy with that, because that is where the provisions we are considering should be—not in a separate Bill. Things have been done in this way for political reasons, because the Conservative party stood for election saying that it would implement legislation.

If we were to deal with the matter next year as part of the armed forces Bill we would look at the situation in the round, in terms of not just prosecution but investigations. There may be a view that it is possible to do things in isolation in this regard, but it is not. We have already seen the implications that changing one thing will have elsewhere. Ideally it would be best to act next year.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The scope of the Bill clearly does not encompass a wide-scale investigation of the present investigation process. Will the right hon. Gentleman explore a little more and explain what he did in his tenure as a Defence Minister to look into the matter?

[Mr Jones]

I will say this to the hon. Lady: if she wants a long rundown of the positive things that the Labour Government did for the armed forces I can start with the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.

[Miss Dines]

But on investigations?

[Mr Jones]

It is related, because it is related to people who were serving on operations. For the first time ever it brought forward a modern system of lump sum payments, which were never there before, for Falkland veterans or anything else. I actually extended that in 2007 to cover issues to do with mental health provision. Our record was that each year but one of that Labour Government we accepted the finding of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, as opposed to the Conservative Government’s cutting pay. We maintained our armed forces spending at a level above inflation. The 2010 Conservative Government cut the defence budget by 16%.

We also had the armed forces welfare pathway, which I started in—

[The Chair]

Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is moving way outside the scope of clause 1 and the amendments and new clauses. I ask him to come back to the clause stand part debate.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, Mr Stringer. I was going down memory lane to happier times. Just to finish that point, the welfare pathway, which the Government who came to power in 2010 rightly changed and renamed the covenant, was something that I introduced in 2010.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales raised the issue of investigations and what we did. She is the new Member for that beautiful part of the world, and I have huge respect for her predecessor. I spent many a time at Kinder Scout and Hope as a boy walking round that area, so I know her area very well. But I think that she has to recognise the issue in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, huge and terrible accusations were made about what was going on. There was pressure not only from what could be called the outriders on the left but from her own party to the effect that some of these accusations should have been investigated. If there was a failure, it was around investigation.

I do not want to try your patience, Mr Stringer, but we also did the Armed Forces Act 2006, which meshed the three service disciplinary systems into one. That was a huge issue, but it actually improved service discipline and investigations. This is an opportunity to get this Bill right. Let me say to the hon. Lady that I just want to get the Bill right. I think that if we had an approach from the Minister whereby he would take on board some of this, we could do these things, both here and in the other place, but there is a tendency, which I do not like, to think that somehow we in this place scrutinise legislation, and the Government know that they are going to change things but they change things in the House of Lords, giving the public the impression that somehow the House of Lords is this all-singing, all-seeing, body when actually those things should be done here. I am already talking, as I am sure others are, to Members of the House of Lords, including, I have to say to the Minister, some of his noble Friends who I think also have concerns about the Bill.

There is an opportunity here to do that with investigations. The issue with the amendments that we were talking about is really this. We had the debate about investigation of de minimis things, but what I think everyone wants is that investigations can be done quickly—not be done quickly and dismissed, because we have to get the balance right in terms of people making serious allegations that are investigated properly. Let us remember that we are talking here about allegations from civilians against members of the armed forces, but remember also that there are often cases between servicemen and women, who are making accusations against themselves—against individuals. There has to be a sense of fairness, and it cannot be right that it goes on for a very long time, so it does need judicial oversight. If someone is accused of something, that should be investigated properly and quickly, but that should also be done in a legal process that cannot be challenged—well, I am sure that everything can be challenged if someone pays a lawyer enough, but we must ensure that we have a situation whereby it is as judicially robust as possible.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

In response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Blaydon last week, General Sir Nick Parker stated:

“Nobody would want anything in the process that somehow allows people who have behaved badly on the frontline to get away with it. But all of us would believe that the process has to be quick, efficient and effective to remove the suspicion of a malicious allegation as quickly as possible. I cannot see how this Bill does that.”–[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 94, Q188.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that legitimacy and effectiveness are not an element of this Bill and that we need to see structural change before we can go forward?

[Mr Jones]

I agree. The impression that I think some people try to give of the armed forces is that the armed forces, which have a job to go and do, want to be above the law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: David Mundell, † Graham Stringer

† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Brereton, Jack (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)

† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

† Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

† Eastwood, Mark (Dewsbury) (Con)

† Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

† Mercer, Johnny (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)

Monaghan, Carol (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

† Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab)

† Morrissey, Joy (Beaconsfield) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Steven Mark, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 14 October 2020

(Afternoon)

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Clause 1

Prosecutorial decision regarding alleged conduct during overseas operations

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

14:00

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I hope everyone had an enjoyable lunch. When we left off, I was still talking about investigations and what came through in the evidence we took. Mr Stringer, you and I are old enough to remember when Public Bill Committees did not hold evidence sessions. The process is far better now, because it informs the debate and our progress. Certainly, our witnesses gave valuable evidence, and from a variety of different positions. The one thing that did come through, however, was the lack of any reference in the Bill to investigation.

This morning I referred to Nick Parker’s comment that

“part 1 of the Bill focuses entirely on the process of prosecution, whereas for me the big issue here is the process of investigation”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 94, Q188.]—

and of reinvestigation. Major Campbell gave some very good evidence—I think everyone had sympathy—about how he had spent 17 years under investigation and reinvestigation.

Last Thursday we had the Judge Advocate General before us. I was amazed that he had not even been consulted on the Bill before it was introduced. I would have thought that he, as the leading judge in the service justice system, would be a good starting point to run things by. He said in evidence:

“My concern relates to investigations, not prosecutions; but there are a number of issues”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 115, Q231.]—

that need addressing. He also accused the Government of

“looking at the wrong end of the telescope”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 116, Q246.],

which is a good analogy for how they have approached the subject. We have been blindsided by the disgraceful case of Phil Shiner, which concentrated on the number of vexatious claims. I will put on the record again that I thoroughly condemn that individual, but I think that the process that we had did deal with him, in terms of regulation.

I will now turn to the two amendments that stand in my name, amendment 2 and new clause 6. We did not get a chance to talk about amendment 2, which is also about investigations. It seeks to insert into clause 3:

“the thoroughness, promptness and efficacy of any ongoing investigation into the alleged conduct or any relevant previous investigation, and the reasons for any delays in such investigations”.

The purpose of that is to ensure that we get timely investigation. I will move on shortly to new clause 6, which talks about judicial oversight, because that is important, but we do not want to get into a situation in which the service military police or other people simply say, “Well, we’re not going to investigate because it’s too difficult.” We need oversight, but amendment 2 puts the focus on looking at the investigation, not only to ensure an adequate investigational process, but to give particular weight to the prosecution. In considering a case, therefore, a prosecutor should be able to consider the efficiency of the process and previous investigations that have taken place.

As a statement of principle, I would like the Bill to consider more effectively the way in which the investigation function in the military justice system can be amended. I am sorry that the Government do not seem to accept that that should be part of the Bill. I think I referred to it this morning. At least I know why the civil servants are not accepting that. The obvious thing to have done with the Bill would have been to have put it with the armed forces Bill that will be coming through next year. If there is one thing that I know from my experience of civil servants, it is that they like tidiness, and this process is not tidy. That would have been a better way of doing it.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that witness after witness in the evidence sessions pointed to the centrality of good-quality investigation in removing the problem of vexatious and pluralistic claims?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, and in a moment or two I will cover the important point that my hon. Friend raises. It is about efficiency in dealing with claims through an early process, so that when the evidence is not going to go anywhere, a claim can be dropped. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said this morning, that is good for the efficiency of the system as well as for the individual. As Lieutenant Colonel Parker said, it is not just the prosecution case, but the mental torture that people go through when waiting for that. It would help servicemen and women going through that process to have an early resolution.

We did not get to discuss new clauses 6 and 7, so I will speak to them now. I understand, Mr Stringer, that they will be voted on at the end of this process. Is that correct?

[The Chair]

We are debating clause 1 stand part and we will vote on clause 1 stand part at the end of the debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

One of the important things about the process is that we have judicial oversight of whatever happens. That is important for making the system robust and fair, both for those complaining and for those accused, as well as in relation to our international obligations. We have been a beacon of light in ensuring that we have an independent judiciary in this country, and it is important that we have oversight of that. Judge Blackett suggested things that could do that, and that could also make the system more efficient.

New clause 6 proposes to bring in judicial oversight of investigations. It would allow the judge advocate, once an investigation has come to its preliminary conclusions, to look at the evidence in the allegation as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months, and the judge, not the Ministry of Defence or the chain of command, would then make an assessment. It is important that the assessment is made by the judge advocate, who is part of the judiciary. The judge advocate would have

“the power to determine—

(a) that no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused; and order that the investigation should cease”.

If, at that stage, an indication was taken that the case was going nowhere, that would knock out all the vexatious cases, which is what we are trying to get at here. It would allow the individual who has been accused to move on. It would have the strength of having a judge make that decision. The clause moved this morning takes away more minor offences, allowing us to get down to the serious cases that need to be investigated and prosecuted.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is rightly seen as an expert on defence matters, having been in this House for a number of years. I wonder whether we could have the benefit of his experience. In his experience, both as a Minister and as a member of the Bill Committee, is he open to the suggestion that a number of these investigations are taking so long because of failures within the Ministry of Defence, and that that is why we have arrived where we are?

[Mr Jones]

Yes. That is the problem. How do we get at it? Is it about a lack of resource? I think it is. Going back to Iraq and Afghanistan, as I said this morning, there was huge pressure from all sides, including the Conservative Opposition at the time, that these things had to be seen to be investigated to the nth degree. There was a culture, which led to a resistance to say in some cases, “There is no evidence to stand those.” If that was done politically, I understand why people have issues with that.

However, if there were a judicial process, which new clause 6 provides for, overseen by a judge, that would give confidence to the public and the international community, in relation to our obligations, that this was being done not for political reasons but because a judge had determined independently what the facts are. It would certainly help.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

In response to a question the right hon. Gentleman raised last week, Judge Blackett said, in relation to the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, that

“a great raft of those allegations in IHAT and Northmoor would have gone with that.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 122, Q254.]

Is that not the right hon. Gentleman’s point? Much of what the Bill seeks to do could easily have been dealt with through existing legislation.

[Mr Jones]

Well it could, but I am a defender of the service justice system, because I think it is unique. There are those who want to abolish the service justice system, who ask, “Why aren’t these tried in the civil courts?” I am against that, and I always have been, because of the unique nature of the circumstances and the way the system works. It is an independent judiciary, not part of the MOD, so it has respect. Courts martial understand not only the special nature of service, but the circumstances that people are in.

My fear is that this Bill will strengthen those who want to sweep away what they see as giving special privilege to the armed forces. I do not see it that way at all. It gives those men and women who go before it the chance to be judged by an informed judiciary, which deals with certain cases. That is the important point. Again, it comes back to judicial oversight.

New clause 6 states, in subsection (3)(b), that a judge can determine

“that the evidence is of a tenuous character because of weakness or vagueness or because of inconsistencies with other evidence, and that it is not in the interests of justice to continue an investigation”.

The judge would look at the evidence and make a judgment about the validity of the original claim, as well as what the investigation has thrown up. If the judge were subsequently to decide that the case should go no further, that is defendable, because it would be the judge’s decision.

Subsection (3)(c) presents the other side, where the judge may decide

“that there is merit in the complaint; and make directions as to the timetable and extent of further investigation.”

Clearly, if the judge looks at the evidence after six months and says, “Actually, there is a case here, and further leads from the investigation need to be taken forward,” it is important that that is allowed to happen. That is not stopping prosecutions or interfering in any way with the investigative process; it is reviewing the evidence and whether it will go forward. It would also give directions to set a timescale for that investigation to be completed.

10:29

In the Colonel Campbell case, he was investigated not only once, but a few times, for the same thing. Had this system been before a judge earlier, it would have stopped that type of reinvestigation of the same offence. It would also have given a judgment early, regardless of whether the original complaint was warranted. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said this morning, that is about making the system more efficient in the way it works, but it is also about being fair to the individual.

Let us take the example of an individual who has been accused of some type of crime, an allegation having been made. If that is reviewed by a judge after six months and the individual then knows either that it will be kicked out and go no further—that is the end of it—or that further investigation is deemed necessary, there is also a time limit or some indication of time. There would have to be a re-examination, so we might want to have a time limit whereby a judge says, “Right, come back within the next six months to complete the thing.” We all know the nature of investigations—they might take longer than that, but at least we would have regular judicial oversight of the system, which we do not have today. That would be important.

I do not want to criticise the service police, because in some cases they have a hugely difficult job to do. It is not like going and investigating a house burglary in west London; it is often going on overseas operations to very difficult terrain. In some cases it is dangerous to gather evidence. In many cases we are dealing with different cultures and people for whom English is not their first language, so I am not criticising the service police. However, it would give them some rigour to know that, by a certain date, they at least have to come back before a judge to say what they have done in a certain case. In the cases that we have seen, a lot would have been fished out of this pool way before they got to the prosecution stage.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Again, the hon. Member asked Judge Blackett question last week in relation to Marine A. Judge Blackett responded that

“a number of the issues here were raised by Marine A subsequently through the Criminal Cases Review Commission and back to the Court of Appeal, and they were never raised at first instance. Had he”—

Marine A—

“raised them at first instance—had all the psychiatric evidence that came out eventually appeared at the start—he probably would have been charged with manslaughter rather than murder”, ––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 124, Q262.]

which is what he was charged with. It was actually on the second appeal that it was overturned and the prosecution was for manslaughter. Does the right hon. Member agree that the process is at fault and that, to improve that, the Government need to make substantial changes and investments in the process, rather than with the Bill?

[Mr Jones]

It is the process. I am glad that the hon. Member has mentioned the case of Marine A, because the way it was dealt with worries me. People might not be familiar with it. It was an individual who was on operations in Afghanistan and shot, on camera, a wounded Taliban fighter. That case did not come about through an ambulance-chasing lawyer; it came about because somebody filmed the shooting and was so horrified by it that they handed in the video. That was not an ambulance-chasing lawyer saying, “This man’s killed somebody in cold blood.” That case is important.

The process being adopted concerns me for two reasons. My first concern, on the point we raised last week, is about the support that servicemen and women are getting while they are going through the process. Clearly, in that case, the individual did something that goes against everything that members of the armed forces are trained to do. But when we look at the overall envelope of what he had been up to—the psychological trauma and the other things he had been through—we could explain it not as murder, but as manslaughter. Again, if that case had gone through this type of system, it would have led to those issues around the individual’s mental health, which do not excuse his actions but obviously had an impact on what happened, and to the first issue being seen as manslaughter, which would have been a fairer way of dealing with it.

My second concern about the Bill is that if that happened more than five years after that case, the presumption would have been not to prosecute. There would then have been a political decision, because the Attorney General would be deciding on prosecution. That individual could then end up before the International Criminal Court, because we would deem that we had not prosecuted.

There was a media maelstrom around the case. As with many such cases that we have all dealt with, it got a nice headline in the Daily Mail or The Sun, but there were obviously more details to it. If we have a similar case in future on which there is to be a political decision, it will be a strong politician or Attorney General who will turn around and say, “Yes, I want to prosecute this person.” There would then be the danger of the International Criminal Court picking up the case. Whereas in the process that I am proposing in new clause 6, the judge would review all the evidence, including, in that case, whether he should have been charged with murder in the first place when it went to court or to appeal—and no, he should not have been.

As many Committee members have said, and certainly, having spoken to members of the armed forces and veterans, they do not want to be above the law; they want to be treated fairly. That is what we are here to ensure. I have spoken to the individuals involved in the Marine A case, who explained the reasons why it happened, which I understand. It did not fulfil the high standards that are expected of the armed forces. In that case, it is about being fair to members of our armed forces, and ensuring that we are doing the right thing. Again, the combination of new clause 8, which we debated this morning, and new clause 6 would start to reduce that pile of potential litigants, even if they came from vexatious lawyers or elsewhere.

The other issue, which I can never get my head around, is the idea that the same case can be reinvestigated, as in the Campbell case. That is just ridiculous. There must come a time when we have to say, “Well, it has been looked at in detail. There has been evidence.” There might be a delay to trawl for witnesses and other evidence, but in effect what that says is, “Basically, we will do a fishing exercise until we get the answers that we want.” That cannot be right.

My new clause 7 addresses some of the limitations around investigations. I think we on this Committee all want thorough investigations, and so do members of the armed forces; what they do not want is endless reinvestigations that go on for, in the Campbell case, 17 years. New clause 7 would put limitations on reinvestigation. The section applies where

“(a) a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations,”

so it would apply to those individuals.

I know this is not within the scope of this Bill, and I am sure you would pull me up, Mr Stringer, if I mentioned other areas, but that is the problem with the title of the Bill: some of the things in here should apply to members of the armed forces if the offence was committed on the UK mainland, but they do not. That is why I come back to the point that it would be better to do these things in the Armed Forces Bill next year and to take a holistic approach. Obviously, there are political reasons why this Bill is being rushed forward, to meet a manifesto 100-day commitment. However, I think some of these things should apply in the UK, but they will not with this Bill, and no doubt they will have to be picked up in the Armed Forces Bill.

The section also applies where

“(b) a determination has been made that an investigation into an offence relating to such conduct should cease under section (Judicial oversight of investigations).

(2) No further investigation into the alleged conduct shall be commenced unless—

(a) compelling new evidence has become available”.

Again, this is about trying to stop that reinvestigation, but having judicial oversight. The judge advocate determines

“the totality of the evidence against the accused”,

and sees whether it is strong enough such that

“there is a real possibility that it would support a conviction.”

Let us go to the Campbell case: if that case came forward again, the judge would have to look at the evidence and see whether the material circumstances had changed since the last time the offence was looked at. The strength of doing it this way, rather than as proposed in this Bill, is that it is not about limitations of time and the presumption against prosecution; a judge will look at the evidence and there will be a process. That would avoid the reinvestigation of such complaints.

If there is compelling new evidence, I think we would all agree—not just in the military justice system, but in a civil case—that we would want it to be looked at again. That links to the time limits on investigations, which for the individual concerned would not then stretch out for an indeterminate length of time.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Regarding proposed new subsection (a) on new evidence, in evidence to the Committee last Thursday, in response to the hon. Member for Wrexham, the judge advocate gave as an example the six Royal Military Police who were sadly killed at Majar al-Kabir in 2003. Would this not allow us parity of esteem in the international judicial system? If new evidence came out in Iraq, we would demand that the Iraqi Government prosecute the individuals responsible for the murder of those six Royal Military Police.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I remember that case—it was awful, if you read the background to it. The Bill is basically saying, “We are going to do something different from what we expect of other people.” I am sorry, but that is just not acceptable. We have a high standard in this country of judicial law and the rule of law and, as I said earlier, we should be a beacon. We should say, “This is something we are proud of.” Anything that changes that would be detrimental, and not only to the armed forces, for the reasons that have been raised. It is just logic that, if new evidence comes forward in a case, it must be looked at; just to say that the reason it cannot be looked at is that it has gone past a certain time period is wrong. If we dismiss new evidence without looking at it and having any judicial oversight of it, that would be a mistake.

14:30

In terms of whether this is something novel and new, it is not, because we already have it in the UK. The Criminal Cases Review Commission can review prosecutions, look at the evidence and, if it finds a flaw, refer them to the Court of Appeal. I wondered whether we could have something similar in this area, but that would be cumbersome. What we need is to put cases before a judge, as at the Court of Appeal. I have had quite a lot to do with the Criminal Cases Review Commission—obviously not personally—regarding the Horizon scandal at the Post Office. Thankfully, last week it was announced that 44 convictions will be overturned. That is judicial oversight, and that is what is lacking in the Bill.

I do not doubt the Bill’s good intentions, but there are problems with how it has been done. Under new clause 7, new evidence would have to be compelling. It would not be a question of, “Can we have another trial of this case? or, as with the Shiner cases, where one case has been dismissed and a related one comes in, that previous case has to be reinvestigated all over again. The important point—I cannot reiterate this strongly enough—is that that limitation would be defensible in any international system because the scrutiny of the three stages mentioned in new clause 6, and as Judge Blackett said last week, would be done by judges and not, as the Bill proposes, by an Attorney General, who is a political appointment, with a presumption against prosecution.

As I look at the Bill, I think those things could be done now. The new clauses would certainly improve the Bill and get to the root of stopping vexatious prosecutions and investigations more effectively. I think there is a misunderstanding—I include the Minister in this—that the Bill will stop investigations within those five-year periods.

It is also important that we do not do anything to damage our international reputation. I looked at a tweet the Minister put out earlier this week. The linked article said:

“War crimes under international law in the Nuremberg sense, together with sex offences, are excluded from”

the effects of the Bill. The Minister’s tweet said:

“Perhaps worth reading this before going off on one about the Overseas Bill…Committee stage continues tomorrow, and I actually get a chance to counter some of the ridiculous narrative around it.”

We have not heard much from the Minister apart from his civil service brief.

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

Let’s not be personal, Kevan.

[Mr Jones]

I am not being personal, but a Minister usually does more than read what is in front of him; he takes notes and engages. My proposals should be looked at seriously, because they would improve the Bill. The Minister says he wants to work with everybody, but he seems to have deaf ears when people make suggestions that would not harm but improve the Bill. It is not just me saying that, as someone who is passionate about protecting the armed forces; that is the evidence we have taken through this process. As I said earlier, that is the good thing about the process.

What would be the argument against accepting the new clauses? The only one I can see is that the Government want to deal with this next year in the Armed Forces Bill. Fair enough, but put them in now. They can be done now. We will not end up with any additional costs of process—in fact, that will save money. I know we do not have a money resolution with this Bill, so we cannot propose things that cost money, but I doubt whether those proposals will. As the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said this morning, it is about making things efficient, and there are two wins here: one win with the process being slicker and quicker; and another win with the accused individual being dealt with fairly and robustly.

Turning to other parts of the clause, this morning we asked why five years, rather than 10, 15, 20 or whatever. I asked the Minister to justify that and I also asked about the numbers for who said what. He said they were in the impact assessment, but I could not find them when I looked at it at lunchtime in the Library, or where they are referred to. I would like the Minister to do what I thought he would do when he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, which is to say, “Well, five years has been put forward for X reasons and 10 years was seen as too long”—or something like that—“and these were the people who argued for each.”

On balance, I agree, that some such things are at the end of the day political decisions, but we did not get that sort of response. I would still like an explanation for the decision of five years. I do not think that is in the impact assessment, on which, likewise—I have raised this with the Minister on the Floor of the House—there is confusion on the number of claims and the potential of those claims. The figures vary from 900 to 1,000, but there is no breakdown at all of whether those claims are from civilians or from members of the armed forces making claims against the MOD.

The other thing that concerns me is the presumption not to prosecute. I know of no other system where the presumption is written into a Bill to state, before anything is done, that someone will not be prosecuted. Again, my fear about that is that it will be seen as interfering with process. I am sure some people in Committee are old enough to remember the time before the Crown Prosecution Service, many years ago—this is the reason why we had that in this country—when police investigated and did the prosecution as well. Anyone who wants to know the reasons why that system failed—for example, in the Horizon case to which I referred earlier—should read last week’s excellent report of the Justice Committee, which criticised the arrangement whereby someone was both investigator and prosecutor.

The presumption in this Bill is worse than that, because we are saying, “We will presume that we are not going to prosecute.” I know that Ministers have said, “This does not mean that cases will not be prosecuted”, and I accept that, but the decision on whether a case should be prosecuted should be down to an independent judicial process; it should not be in the hands of the Attorney General, a Minister or anyone else to decide whether a case goes forward.

[Chris Evans]

My right hon. Friend has touched on this before. The issue is not prosecutions but the actual investigations. The question to ask is, how do we square proper and prompt investigations, where there is justice at the end, with this limitation on prosecution? Do the Government have this the wrong way around?

[Mr Jones]

I agree with Judge Blackett and General Nick Parker. What the Government have done is looked at the prosecution end of it, rather than at the investigation end of it. As I have said, Blackett referred to it as looking through the wrong end of a telescope. We all know what happened when we were kids—we looked through telescopes, which were quite good for seeing things that were far away. It is as though somehow we would not pick up on the detail of what can be seen. With the Bill, however, we can see the detail.

As I have just outlined, what is needed is proper investigation. No one is suggesting shortcuts in investigations. We need a proper system that has judicial oversight, which will ensure that it is fair on all sides, and that it is efficient. The next bit of it is prosecution, which has to be independent of Government. I have never seen it written into a Bill that, before there is an investigation, there is a presumption in law that there will be no prosecution. How would we do that? What is the purpose of investigating a case and going through details if, from the outset, there is a presumption that it will not be prosecuted? That is very difficult. It would be like you, Mr Stringer, burgling somebody’s house—I am not suggesting for one minute that you would do that. The authorities would then say, “We are going to investigate you, but the presumption”—not the decision, because I accept that you could still get prosecuted—“is that you are innocent and that you haven’t done it.” That is just nonsense and will not stand up. It will end up with judicial reviews, so we will not be free from the ambulance-chasing lawyers or the legal aid system, because if they can see that there is a buck to be made in that way, they will do it.

Likewise, on international comparisons, it comes down to the point that the Judge Advocate General made in his excellent letter to the Defence Secretary, to which I referred last week in evidence: he was not consulted on the Bill. When these cases go to the International Criminal Court for investigation, it will say, “Wait a minute. At the outset you had a presumption that you were not going to prosecute in these cases.” If we had a situation in which a case went forward, there would be a presumption against prosecution and there would be an investigation. If the Attorney General were to decide that the case did not go to prosecution, the International Criminal Court would have a field day. It would say, “Well, wait a minute. You’ve had a presumption against prosecution. You’ve had political interference, with the Attorney General making the final decision about whether a prosecution should take place.” I do not think that is compatible with our treaty obligations to the ICC.

I know that reference is often made to the Human Rights Act 1998 and that there is a tendency—not with you, Mr Stringer, because I know you are an expert on European matters—to think that somehow it is something to do with the European Union. It has nothing at all to do with the EU. It has a proud history, and we should be proud to have helped develop the idea of human rights after the second world war in order to ensure that we have the highest standards. My fear is that we will end up with servicemen and women before the International Criminal Court. I am sorry, but I do not want to see that. What I want to see is their being dealt with in our judicial legal system, which will end up with their getting better justice. It will be very difficult to explain to the public why servicemen and women end up in the International Criminal Court. If that happens, the next step is that we withdraw from the International Criminal Court and everything else. If we do that, it will affect our reputation in the world as a country that wants to uphold the rule of law and to tell China and other nations, “Look, these are the basic standards that you should adhere to.” It will be a godsend to them.

There are serious issues to do with clause 1, which I do not think the Minister has addressed. If we end up with fairness and justice for our servicemen and women but we do not have an efficient system, that needs to be changed. I repeat to the Minister that the Bill can be changed on Report in this place, and I am happy to work on the investigation issues with him. If new clauses to that effect were not perfectly written according to the Ministry of Defence, I would be quite happy to work on getting a form of words that we could all accept. I am a mild-mannered individual, as many people know, and I would quite happily let the Government table them and claim the credit. I am not looking for plaudits. What I want above everything is a good Bill, and the Bill as it stands is not a good one.

14:45

[Chris Evans]

I thank my right hon. Friend for a rather long, in-depth speech. I am sure that I will repeat some of the points that he raised, but I want to focus particularly on the measures that apply to events that occurred more than five years ago. The starting point for covering that time period is the date that the alleged conduct occurred. When an alleged offence continued over more than one day, the starting point for the five-year time period would be the last day on which the alleged conduct occurred. I believe that that needs a bit more probing and explanation.

As we know, the Defence Committee report “Protecting veterans by a Statute of Limitations” was supported on the presumption against prosecution for allegations that were more than 10 years old. I was extremely concerned that the proposals would not cover soldiers who had served in Northern Ireland through the troubles. It is said that the Ministry of Defence should ensure that sufficient resources are made available for educating the armed forces more regularly about their legal obligations.

Far be it from me to be personal, but when the Minister replies, I would like him to give further explanation of why he moved from the 10-year period agreed by the Defence Committee to the five-year period. The real issue here, as my hon. Friend said—sorry, my right hon. Friend; he is a member of the Privy Council and I should acknowledge that—is not so much the prosecution but the investigation. All soldiers who make the great commitment to serve our country in the armed forces need a prompt, fair, efficient and effective investigation before we reach prosecution.

I would like to cite the example of how alleged crimes in Iraq were investigated and how we have arrived at the current position. As many of us know, UK military operations in Iraq lasted from the start of the invasion on 20 March 2003 to the withdrawal of the last remaining British forces on 22 May 2011—an eight-year period. Alleged crimes by UK forces in Iraq have formed the subject of two public inquiries initiated by the Ministry of Defence between 2008 and 2009 to examine the death in custody of an Iraqi civilian, Baha Mousa, in September 2003, and allegations of unlawful killings in a street arising from the so-called battle of Danny Boy in May 2004.

In March 2010, the MOD established the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, to ensure that credible claims were properly investigated. The IHAT received a total of around 3,400 allegations of unlawful killings and ill treatment between 2010 and 2017—a period of seven years. However, in February 2017, the Defence Committee published its IHAT inquiry report, which notably criticised the team for alleged inefficiency and lack of professionalism. It called on the MOD to close it down and to provide financial and other support to UK servicemen under investigation. On the same day as the release of the inquiry’s report, the Defence Secretary announced the closure of the IHAT, ahead of the original schedule, citing IHAT’s own forecasts that the team’s caseload was expected to reduce to about 20 investigations by the summer of 2017. The IHAT was permanently shut down on 30 June.

The MOD said that military operations in Iraq have resulted in nearly 1,000 compensation claims for unlawful detention, personal injury and death, and about 1,400 judicial review claims, seeking investigations and compensation for alleged human rights violations. An investigation by the BBC “Panorama” programme and The Sunday Times found that the UK Government and the armed forces might have covered up the killing of civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The MOD has strongly rejected the allegations of cover-ups. I bring that up because it was a MOD investigation into a conflict that lasted eight years, and then seven years into that investigation it was shut down because of what it was doing.

The real problem we have is that the Bill does not stop the cycle of investigations. Restrictions apply solely to prosecutions. If we were to ask most people who have been investigated time and again, they would say it is the investigation that has caused the problems. Unless we resolve that, the Bill does not ensure that allegations are properly investigated and resolved—this is the point, Mr Stringer—within a reasonable period. As I have said, service personnel would benefit from a focus on prompt and thorough investigations, rather than simply a limitation on prosecutions. That is why the amendments are so important. The investigations have to be judge led.

I agree that we have to resolve concerns about uncertainty and the delay for soldiers and litigants. On the other side, there are the victims. Some claims may have to go over five years for sound reasons. Injury may become problematic only after five years of post-traumatic stress disorder. Luckily, we live in a world where we have a better understanding of mental health and we are far more sympathetic to problems. In another life—14 years ago—I worked for Lord Touhig, who was involved when he was a Defence Minister with the shot-at-dawns. I am very proud that the last Labour Government granted them a pardon. I hope we never see a return to the bad old days when people were shot for alleged cowardice, when really they were suffering from terrible mental health problems.

That is what we have to guide ourselves with in this Bill. We face a mental health crisis. I was encouraged earlier when I moved the motion about UAVs, as the Minister accepted there was an issue of post-traumatic stress disorder and the need for more research. I know he has worked very hard in that area and I look forward to some of the outcomes of the work he is doing. I pay tribute to him for his work on that.

We have to accept that many of these claims will take longer. In some of these cases, it may take a long time for evidence to be gathered and to come to light, especially when we are dealing with complicated areas of law or complicated parts of operations in theatre. The Minister should look again at the five-year rule and make it 10 years, but it is more important that, alongside that, we look at how the investigations are conducted.

We should consider any time limit on prosecutions to be an intolerable barrier to justice. It is notable that the proposed five-year period halves the time period for prosecutions from the proposal of 10 years consulted on by the Ministry of Defence last year. A five-year limit makes it likely that the relevant overseas operation will still be in progress—I used the example of Iraq and Afghanistan at the beginning of my speech. That means investigations may have to be limited to while we are active in hostilities. That, again, is a barrier to justice.

The Judge Advocate General of the armed forces, Jeff Blackett, warned the Defence Secretary that this provision

“would encourage an accused person to frustrate the progress of investigation past the five-year point to engage a high bar for prosecution”.

When the Minister responds, I hope that he can lay out some guidelines on how we can stop anybody frustrating justice in that way.

[Mr Jones]

Is not an obvious way of doing that to adopt the new clause I spoke to, which would give judicial oversight?

[Chris Evans]

I alluded earlier to our good friend Lord Touhig, who advised me to always be careful of taking interventions, because they can ruin the end of your speech. I feel that that has happened here.

It is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions in recent years have, as my right hon. Friend said, been the direct result of failures by the MOD itself. It is an issue within the MOD that needs to be resolved—whether it is a cultural issue or a rules-based issue, it needs to be resolved. I agree with what the Minister is trying to do because there are too many veterans, ex-servicemen and women, who are living in fear of repeat investigations. If they are living in fear of that, we must ask why these investigations are repeated over and over again, causing not only stress to their mental health but putting intolerable strain on their families.

Rather than measures that tackle the real reason behind the investigations that delay prosecutions, the Bill proposes unprecedented legal protections that will create a legal regime that mandates impunity for serious offences and, above all, inequality in law for the victims of abuse in our forces. Severely restricting the application of criminal law for certain categories of people accused of having committed offences including international crimes would violate the principle of equal application of the law, which is what our legal system is based on.

A multitude of sources suggest that crimes were committed on a large scale in Afghanistan and Iraq. That happened at least partly due to systemic issues—for instance, in 2013, in R. v. the Secretary of State for Defence, the UK High Court held that

“there might have been systemic abuses and that such abuses may have been attributable to a lack of appropriate training.”

If the problem is appropriate training, it is not a legislative solution that we need but a systemic solution from within the Ministry of Defence. In its 2018 report, the Ministry of Defence working group on systemic issues said that it considered:

“there was sufficient evidence to conclude that assaults in detention had occurred, and may have been systemic.”

International law imposes certain obligations on the UK, including the obligation not to put in place a legal framework that severely restricts or makes impossible the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes under international law committed in armed conflict, irrespective of where those crimes were committed. The proposed legislation severely limits the possibility of opening a full investigation in respect of Iraq or Afghanistan. Any measure that significantly limits the possibility of prosecuting international crimes, whether referred to as a statute of limitations or a statute of presumption against prosecution, risks undermining the UK’s hard-won role as a champion of the international rule of law and hence its ability to advance its agenda.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made the point, in respect of the lack of training, that the real pressure is not on the chain of command but on the men and women in the frontline. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, it is they who find themselves in these cases rather than those higher up in the chain of command who have equal responsibility for some of the actions?

[Chris Evans]

I agree; it is often ordinary squaddies or ratings who find themselves in these circumstances simply because they were following orders. If we are talking about training, we do live in a different world, a modern world. I have already spoken about our shot-at-dawn campaign, which my right hon. Friend is involved in. We have to realise that our modern armed forces are constantly evolving in a changing world, and our training should reflect that, whether it is for an ordinary rating or top brass in the armed forces. It is important that we focus on training. The Government have the numbers and they will pass the Bill, but the way to change the culture of ongoing prosecutions is to start with the training of our troops, whether in command or on the front line.

To return to the point I was making, the code for Crown prosecutors already has ample criteria to provide guidance on whether prosecution should take place. This includes an evidential stage, followed by a public interest stage. The evidential stage concerns an independent prosecutor’s assessment of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The public interest stage guidance involves considerations such as the seriousness of the alleged offence, the level of capability of the offender, the circumstances of and the harm caused to the victim, the suspect’s age and maturity at the time of the offence, the impact of the offending on the community, whether prosecution is a proportionate response and whether sources of information require protecting.

15:00

The Ministry of Defence and the Government more broadly should ensure that adequate legal safeguards are in place for service personnel and veterans, including access to legal counsel, and other internationally recognised due process and fair trial standards. The legal protection of current and former service personnel is best served by a framework that facilitates prompt—this is the third time I have said this—and adequate investigation, which would clear anyone wrongly suspected of having committed the crime without risk of undue reinvestigation and at the same time ensure accountability for those guilty of crimes.

No one is above the law. If crimes are committed, they should be prosecuted and the full weight of the law should come down on those responsible. Many investigations—this is the key point about the clause—have been so weak and ineffective that they resulted in judicial findings which led to the need for them to be reopened or restarted, or for more robust procedures to be put in place. It is not appropriate to impose a limit for bringing claims in relation to personal injury or death where people are seeking damages in respect of sorrowful events that took place outside the UK; to do so breaches the rights of the victims.

The Government have sought to claim that these reforms are needed to stop legal cases relating to UK actions where that is not appropriate, but the Bill’s definition of overseas operations, to which these provisions apply, is too broad, as it covers

“peacekeeping operations and operations dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, during the course of which members of Her Majesty’s forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.”

The Minister referred to my amendment dealing with that point. It is striking that the Bill’s presumption against prosecutions would appear to apply to any and all operations that deal in terrorism. The provision would cover a wide range of covert activates that are subject to little or no public or parliamentary scrutiny, and of which MPs may have no knowledge at all. This could include so-called training SIS operations carried out with a range of foreign security forces, or indeed operations of the kind that UK became involved in during the war on terror, when Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found the UK maintained a corporate policy of facilitating rendition of detainees and was involved in hundreds of cases of torture and mistreatment.

In our evidence session, Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said that

“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country—you mentioned drones, but there are other decisions made within a country, and cyber-warfare is coming. The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down. The distinction of when an armed conflict begins and ends is becoming murkier in many ways, especially non-international armed conflict. The idea of having one rule for overseas operations and one for domestic operations will be increasingly artificial, and that lack of clarity about the real application of such situations and such laws will be another danger of this Bill.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 67, Q135.]

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in his amendments and I hope that the Minister will think on what has been said this afternoon, and answer some of the questions that we have put to him.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am delighted to answer some of the questions that have been laid out. I have spoken at length about the “five to 10 years” issue in dealing with previous amendments, but I will look to answer some of the questions raised and then speak to clause 1 in general.

We ask a huge amount of our service police. Investigations on overseas operations are inherently dangerous, and the risk of gathering evidence on operations must always be balanced with the risk to the lives of our investigators. To suggest that the service police pursue unmeritorious or vexatious investigations in those circumstances is to do a huge injustice to those brave men and women who do this dangerous work, and we do not.

To understand new clause 6, it is necessary to go through it line by line. Proposed new subsection (1) seeks to apply the clause to,

“any investigation by a police force into alleged conduct as described in subsection 3 of section 1.”

Clause 1(3) applies—

[The Chair]

Order. I asked hon. Members at the beginning of the meeting to respect social distancing. I am sorry, Minister; please continue.

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 1(3) applies where,

“the alleged conduct took place (outside the British Islands)”,

at a time when the person was “subject to service law” under the Armed Forces Act 2006, and “deployed on overseas operations.” There is no further limit on the remaining provisions of the proposed new clause, which means they must therefore apply to all investigations on overseas operations committed by service personnel. For context, there were in the region of 3,000 service police investigations in Iraq and 1,000 in Afghanistan. The majority of those will have been committed by persons subject to service law. It is not considered feasible for such numbers of investigations to be brought in front of a judge, and to do so would undoubtedly add further delays to the process.

Proposed new subsection (2) states:

“The police force investigating the conduct must place their preliminary findings before an allocated judge advocate as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months after the alleged offence was brought to their attention.”

The service police are independent. That independence is enshrined in law in section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It is common practice for them to consult prosecutors in the course of an investigation and for that discourse to shape an investigation, but this is discourse, not direction. Any obligation on the service police to police their investigation before a person who has control over the final determination of that matter seriously compromises the independence and is therefore contrary to section 115A.

New clause 6 states that the allocated judge advocate may order an investigation to cease should it be determined,

“that no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused”—

presumably by the alleged conduct. Again, it would be hard to determine whether that was the case without investigation, a matter complicated by being on overseas operations. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) gives the judge advocate the power to order that an investigation should cease if it is determined,

“that the evidence is of a tenuous character because of weakness or vagueness or because of inconsistencies with other evidence, and that it is not in the interests of justice to continue an investigation”.

That proposed new paragraph is equally problematic; only in the most clear-cut cases can the police produce evidence entirely without some area of weakness or vagueness. Difficult operational investigations are particularly prone to those problems, but the relationship with the prosecutor will allow them to be explored and the progression of the investigation adapted accordingly. Furthermore, inconsistency with other evidence is a factor in all investigations and is what the trial process is created to explore. For a judge advocate to be placed into such a process, rather than relying on the relationship between police and prosecutor, risks adding delay to the investigation, and for a judge to order the cessation of an investigation risks cutting it short where evidence has not yet been gathered due to the complex nature of operational inquiries.

Finally, proposed new subsection (3)(c) seeks to give the judge advocate the power to direct the timetable and extent of further investigation if it is determined that there is merit in the complaint. However, the clause does not specify whether the judge advocate would have continued oversight, or some ability to enforce the timetable and direction. Again, that would place an additional burden on police who, in an operational theatre, responding to operational events, would now have an added layer of bureaucracy placed on them by someone who is not deployed and cannot possibly understand the unique pressures experienced by the deployed police officer. That would remove the discretion that all police officers must have to carry out prompt, independent and effective investigations, and hamper their decision making. That is not the same as the police relationship with the prosecutor, and here I return to my point about discourse versus direction. Discourse allows the police to retain the discretion so vital to acting in response to events; direction fetters their decision making.

The proposed clause is based on the false premise that police carry out unmeritorious or vexatious investigations. It would undermine the relationship between the police and prosecutors and fetter the police in the conduct of investigations in difficult circumstances. It would place an additional and unnecessary cog in a system that does not need it.

New clause 7 fails to take account of the processes involved in investigations. It fails to make clear the difference between an investigation and a reinvestigation and it fails to understand the processes involved in gathering evidence. The proposed clause applies where a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations. It is assumed that this envisages a situation in which a person is acquitted at court martial, but it should be noted that it could also apply to a matter that is heard at a summary hearing in front of a commanding officer, following on from an investigation that did not involve the police. It also applies where a determination has been made by a judge advocate that an investigation into an offence should cease, which, as I have already stated, risks prematurely cutting short an investigation whose progress is impacted by its being an operational investigation.

The new clause proposes that there be no further investigation into the alleged conduct unless compelling new evidence becomes available and an allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against the accused is sufficiently strong that there is a real possibility that it would support a conviction. I will take this step by step.

An investigation is a hard thing to define in law. It starts when inquiries begin, and its purpose is to determine whether what little information there is to start with is credible, and to gather more evidence in support of that. The process of finding out whether evidence is compelling is called an “investigation”. It is hard to see how, people having been told to cease an investigation, no further investigation—whether new or a continuation of the earlier investigation—can be commenced unless some form of compelling new evidence becomes available. The only way the police can determine whether the new evidence is compelling is by carrying out the investigation that they are not allowed to carry out. This becomes a circular issue.

Additionally, no further investigation into the alleged conduct may be carried out unless the allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against an accused, which presumably has had to come from some sort of investigation that the police are not allowed to conduct, is sufficiently strong that there is a real possibility that it would support a conviction.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this stage.

Where a person has been acquitted and new evidence comes to light, it would be necessary for there to be a further investigation before a prosecutor could determine whether a new prosecution could and should be brought. That is not a decision for the police; it is a decision for the prosecutor. To prevent the investigation would prevent a prosecutor from having the information that they need to make that determination.

Unfortunately, new clause 7 is not clear enough to allow a real debate on what it is seeking to achieve. The only way the police can determine whether new information is “compelling” or “sufficiently strong” to “support a conviction” is to carry out an investigation. A thorough investigation is important. As I said earlier, it can serve to exculpate, which is a good thing for the reputation of our armed forces, as well as to incriminate. The Bill should not, and does not, seek to fetter the police from carrying out investigations. It seeks to ensure that prosecutors are in a position to make prosecutorial decisions based on information that can be gleaned only through thorough investigations.

With the discourse between prosecutor and investigator, a balance must be struck between further investigation and the realistic prospect of conviction, and this includes the measures in the Bill that the prosecutor must take account of.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this stage.

However, this does not need further clauses that seek to fetter that discourse. It needs the lightest touch, which is achieved through the balanced and established relationship between police and prosecutor.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Obviously, the Minister is probably more familiar with the Bill than I am. I just getting a little bit lost on his comments here. Is he saying that the only time that new evidence comes to light is through an investigation? That is just not the case. Sometimes evidence appears when there is not an ongoing investigation. Also, is he saying that, in that case, when new evidence comes to light, an investigation should not happen? For my benefit and perhaps that of other members of the Committee who are not as familiar with the Bill as he is, could he please explain where in the Bill there is a limit on reinvestigation at this moment?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to address the point about reinvestigation, because there are no circumstances in which anybody could arrive at the Ministry of Defence with an allegation of criminality or whatever it might be and we could not investigate it. There is a difference between investigations and where those investigations start impacting the lives of veterans, which is what the Bill seeks to deal with and which is why we have drawn the line where we have. We are not saying that new evidence comes only from investigation, but, as I have outlined, new clause 7 introduces an element of oversight that is simply not practicable to what we are trying to do. I have outlined that the 3,500 cases in Iraq and 1,000 in Afghanistan, and it is not practicable to do that and to ensure there is a speedy resolution, that evidence is preserved, that if people have done wrong we can prosecute them in a timely manner and so on. I am happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Lady about that later.

14:00

In summing up the clause stand part debate, the Government do not consider the armed forces to be above the law. Whenever they embark on operations overseas, our armed forces must abide by the criminal law of England and Wales, as well as international humanitarian law, including as set out in the Geneva convention. Our personnel serve with great dignity, courage and commitment. The vast majority undertake the difficult and often dangerous tasks we ask of them in accordance with domestic and international law. However, in the circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required and expected of them, it is vital they are held to account. That is one of the reasons we are not proposing an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans as part of the measures. Of course, alleged misconduct by service personnel is dealt with most effectively if individuals are investigated and, where appropriate, subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings at the time of the conduct. However, that is not always possible in the circumstances of overseas operations.

[Chris Evans]

I fully appreciate what the Minister says about being bound by criminal law in England and Wales. However, having gone through the process himself, is he confident that when someone is recruited into the armed forces, they are fully aware of their legal obligations and that the training meets those needs?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pertinent question. Extensive efforts have gone down over the years to make sure our people understand the rules within which they should operate. There clearly have been challenges in some of the training regarding detentions and so on, as has been found out through various court cases. I have always talked, on Second Reading and even before the legislation came to the House, about how the it is one of a series of measures. One such measure is about investigatory standards, another is about education and how individuals’ lives are affected, because it is not in anybody’s interests for us to do the legislation and for people not to understand. I am more than happy to share with the hon. Gentleman how much work we have done in that space.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Go on, give way.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not. Repeat investigations of alleged historical offences or the emergence of new allegations of criminal offences relating to operations many years ago can make the delivery of timely justice extremely difficult. It can also leave our service personnel with the stress and mental strain of the threat of potential prosecution hanging over them for far too long. The measures in part 1 of the Bill are key to providing reassurance to our service personnel and veterans about the threat of repeated criminal investigations and potential prosecution for alleged offences occurring many years ago on overseas operations. The purpose and effect of clause 1 is to set the conditions for when the measures in clause 2 and 3 must be applied by a prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case or to continue with the proceedings in a case. It should be noted with reference to clause 1(2) that the measures do not affect the prosecutor’s decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to justify prosecution. The first stage of the prosecutorial test will therefore remain unchanged. Clause 1 therefore details to whom and in what circumstances the measures will apply.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. When we consider his summing up, critically with reference to new clause 7(2)(a), does he not recognise that some of the evidence given by Judge Becket in response to his hon Friend the Member for Wrexham creates an ambiguity in terms of our partners in military activity? For example, Judge Becket referred to the murder of six Royal Military Police in Iraq and noted that if new evidence was brought forward, and the Government of Iraq had the same legislation, there is every possibility that the people responsible would not be prosecuted.

[Johnny Mercer]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about Judge Blackett, who is the Judge Advocate General. He made some keen points. I have met Judge Blackett and we have tried to incorporate his work in the Bill, where appropriate. The idea that new evidence is presented and we do not prosecute is simply not the case. With reference to the six individuals killed at Majar al-Kabir in 2003, if new evidence is presented in that case, we would expect the Iraqis to prosecute. If new evidence emerges in cases against servicemen and women, they can still be prosecuted beyond these timelines. The legislation is simply bringing integrity and rigour to the process.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, I am going to make some progress.

Under the Bill, the first condition establishes that the measures will only apply to members of the armed forces, both regulars and reserves, and to members of British overseas territory forces operating as part of UK forces when deployed on operations outside the British Islands, as defined in clause 7. Although we do deploy other Crown servants and contractors on overseas operations, those individuals are not deployed on front-line military operations and are not ordinarily exposed to the same risks and dangers as service personnel. It is not therefore appropriate to extend the protection provided by the measures in part 1 for our service personnel and veterans to other Crown servants or contractors.

The first condition in the legislation also requires that the alleged conduct occurred while the person was deployed on an overseas operation during which personnel came under attack or faced the threat of attack or violent resistance. Operations conducted outside the UK are vastly different from those conducted inside the UK. Within the UK, the military only ever operate in support of the civil authorities. With the exception of Operation Banner, which was an absolutely unique circumstance, UK operations rarely, if ever, require our personnel to operate in the same sort of hostile, high-threat environments they face on overseas operations. Excluding Northern Ireland, there are no outstanding historical allegations relating to operations in the UK.

Be assured that we have not forgotten our Northern Ireland veterans. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be bringing forward separate legislation to address the legacy of the past in a manner that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of re-investigations into the troubles in Northern Ireland, which has failed victims and veterans alike. That will deliver on our commitment to Northern Ireland veterans.

The second condition for the measures to apply is that the alleged offence must have occurred over five years ago, with the start date being the date of the offence. Where an alleged offence occurred over a period of days, the start date will be the last day of that period. It is vital that investigations into historical allegations are brought to resolution without undue delay. To provide greater assurance to our brave servicemen and women, we consider five years to be the most appropriate start point for the presumption.

[The Chair]

Just before I collect the voices of Members as they vote, if the clause is voted for, it means that the first clause is agreed to and then becomes part of the Bill to report to the House. The other new clauses and amendments that were grouped with it will be voted on when they are reached. I hope that is clear.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Division 4

Ayes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

Noes: 2

---

Scottish National Party: 1
Labour: 1

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

It is not an important point—it is a difference without real meaning—but the normal procedure is not to abstain but to have no vote.

Clause 2

Presumption against prosecution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Ability to conduct a fair trial—

“The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence, or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”

This new clause replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor deciding whether to bring or continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.

Both clause 2 and new clause 1 can be debated. We will not vote on new clause 1 until the end of the Bill when the new clauses are considered. At the end of this debate, I will collect voices for a vote on clause 2. The Minister has moved clause 2 formally. If there is any debate, he can respond. The new clauses will be moved formally when we get to them, but they can be debated now.

[Mr Jones]

Clause 2 is quite an important part of the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister did not allow me to ask him about his investigation point, because it has an impact on this clause. He said that there is no similar system of judicial oversight for investigations, but I have to say that there is. For example, the police will often refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service prior to the conclusion of an investigation for advice on whether more information is needed to meet the threshold for a prosecution. That is one of the points that I was going to make if he had allowed me to intervene. Whatever his civil servants have written to him, I suggest that they look at that comparison and what that would have done.

It is interesting that the Minister said that he met the Judge Advocate General and tried to incorporate things. I would like to know what in the Bill was changed after his meeting with Judge Blackett. I cannot see anything, but if the Minister wants to give us that, either now or later, that would be fine.

The presumption in clause 2 is for it to be exceptional for a prosecutor to determine that proceedings should be brought in relation to an offence committed by members of the armed forces when deployed on operations abroad. On that presumption against prosecution, I think we will have real problems, as we have referred to already, with regard to our international standing. I ask for your guidance, Mr Stringer: am I allowed to speak to new clause 1, even though it is not being moved?

15:30

[The Chair]

New clause 1 is before us for debate. The Shadow Minister may or may not wish to press it when we get to the new clauses, but it is before us for debate now.

[Mr Jones]

New clause 1 states:

“The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor makes a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”

We have already discussed this, but if a material time difference were to prevent someone from getting a fair trial, I do not think that anyone would deem it fair to prosecute them for a crime. That has been an issue in civil law. For instance, certain historical sexual abuse cases have been very difficult to determine. There is a balance between the case for the prosecution to, quite rightly, get justice for the victim, and for the accused to receive a fair trial given the lapse in time. The new clause makes a fair suggestion.

In the case of Major Campbell, the circumstances were very difficult. The differences between service justice and civilian life include the unique circumstances in which individuals operate and, as I have said, the fact that they serve overseas, where evidence and witnesses must be gathered. We must ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. I want this Bill to make the process fairer and more just for accused individuals in those unique circumstances. I keep coming back to that point: the circumstances are unique and very different.

I support new clause 1. I accept that it might not be expertly drafted, but if the Minister is sympathetic towards it, I urge him to at least ask a civil servant to redraft it so that it can be brought back as a Government amendment, or to suggest another way in which the proposal can be brought into effect. Judging by his attitude, I doubt he will do that for any of the proposed amendments.

[Johnny Mercer]

He’s a fan, isn’t he?

[Mr Jones]

I am not bad, actually. I am just trying to be helpful and to improve the Bill, but the Minister seems determined to push it through unamended. He might not like it, but this is the purpose of Parliament: it is about scrutinising legislation. I have tabled amendments that I do not necessarily agree with, but I have done so because we need to demonstrate to the public that all opinions have been aired in Committee. That is an important part of our democracy. Even with a Government majority of 80, a Minister cannot simply determine that their proposals go through on the nod. Likewise, just because something comes out of his lips, that does not necessarily make it right. Perhaps I can give the Minister some advice: he might be in a stronger position if he was prepared to stand up and argue, in a friendly way, some of the points made in the Bill. All he seems to be doing, however, is reading out a pre-prepared civil service brief. This is the first time I have seen that done in a Bill Committee.

On the presumption against prosecution, we have got things the wrong way around. As Judge Blackett said, by looking at prosecutions we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I think there are ways in which we can ensure that people do not have to face lengthy reinvestigations or an inordinately long wait before being taken trial, and, if they meet the threshold for prosecution, that they are not disadvantaged by the passage of time. It is worth exploring those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South asks, through the new clause, a reasonable question about time limits. If this is not the way to do it, what is?

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 1. I have said many times throughout this process that the Opposition will work constructively with the Government to get the Bill right, to protect armed forces personnel and their families. We believe that the intent of the Bill is well placed, but it has been poorly executed to achieve what Members on both sides of the House want—an end to vexatious claims that are misplaced, that are drawn out for years longer than they should be, and that place our troops and their families under incredible amounts of stress and pressure that they simply should not have to expect.

Our world-class personnel and their families deserve so much better. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill right. However, the presumption against prosecution does not resolve the issue that we all recognise. It does not afford our armed forces personnel the protection that they deserve. That is why, where the Opposition see an opportunity to improve the Bill, we will seek to highlight it. It is why we have tabled new clause 1, which we believe is fair. Crucially, it tackles the key issues of bringing to an end many of the vexatious claims against our armed services personnel—we want to make that commonplace—and of ensuring that decisions to prosecute are brought to a swifter conclusion. For that to happen, clause 2 in part 1 of the Bill must be removed and replaced by a new clause that replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement for a prosecutor who is deciding whether to bring or to continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.

The principle of a fair trial and consideration of the length of time that has passed during an investigation of our armed forces personnel is important for two reasons. First, it focuses on fairness. It ensures that our world-renowned legal system’s reputation remains intact. It does not undermine our international reputation and avoids the potential repercussions of our armed forces personnel being dragged to The Hague for violating international law. Secondly, it tackles the issue of lengthy investigations, which, sadly, some of our armed forces personnel have experienced and still are experiencing. More specifically, it requires the prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time in such investigations has materially prejudiced the chance of a fair trial for our armed forces service personnel and veterans.

It is not just the Opposition who have identified the flaws in clause 2 and where it could be improved. The International Committee of the Red Cross has raised these concerns, submitting them in written evidence. For context, and for those who are not aware, the ICRC is an impartial, neutral and independent organisation whose mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and others in situations of violence and to provide them with assistance. The ICRC is also the origin of the Geneva conventions, an international agreement of which our country is a proud original signatory.

In its evidence, the ICRC acknowledges that there are occasions on which discretion has developed to address cases in which prosecutions are not taken forward. At international level, article 53 of the International Criminal Court statute sets out a procedure to follow if,

“upon investigation, the Prosecutor concludes that there is not a sufficient basis for a prosecution because…A prosecution is not in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age or infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, and his or her role in the alleged crime”.

The written evidence goes on to say, however, that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor said that

“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice”.

Finally, under the heading, “The presumption in favour of investigation or prosecution”, the OTP notes:

“Many developments in the last ten or fifteen years point to a consistent trend imposing a duty on States to prosecute crimes of international concern committed within their jurisdiction”.

The written evidence gives rise to a number of considerations. Clause 2 states that there should be exceptional circumstances for a prosecutor to determine whether proceedings should be taken against armed forces personnel. However, as outlined in the ICRC submission, does the prosecution in the interests of justice, including the gravity of the crime, the interests of victims and the age and infirmity of the alleged perpetrator, sound like an exception to the rule of when proceedings should be brought forward? Indeed, it seems more likely to be exceptional for such a case to not be progressed and brought forward. The OTP compounds that point by stating that

“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice.”

Under the Bill as drafted, it will not be exceptional to not prosecute such cases. Indeed, it risks undermining our international reputation and legal obligations, and, as a consequence, risks our armed forces personnel being tried at the International Criminal Court instead of in British courts. That gives rise to the question: why are the Government so intent on taking this risk, undermining our reputation and legal obligations, and leaving our armed forces personnel exposed? Why have the Government included a clause that risks undermining a historic, momentous international convention in which our country played a key role and of which it is an original signatory? That is something that our country and armed forces are proud of, and it is a reason for the high regard in which we are held across the world. Why risk breaching it, particularly when this clause could put our armed forces personnel at greater risk of vexatious claims? The Bill would not protect them, as it intends to do.

Furthermore, according to the evidence submitted by ICRC, the OTP also notes that many developments

“in the last ten or fifteen years point to a consistent trend imposing a duty on States to prosecute crimes of international concern committed within their jurisdiction”.

Why would we wish to deviate from our colleagues and international security partners on such an important issue? What is the Government’s reasoning for this?

That is not the only evidence received by the Committee that underlines the issue of clause 2. During last week’s evidence sessions, we heard from Judge Blackett, the former Judge Advocate General, the most senior military judge in the country, who said:

“I have three concerns about the Bill. One is the presumption against prosecution”.—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 116-17, Q234.]

He went on to say:

“I do not think that there should be a presumption against prosecution”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 121, Q248.]

Quite simply, if the most senior military judge in the country has clearly outlined that there should not be a presumption against prosecution in the Bill, what more do the Government need to understand that clause 2 should be removed? What advice and evidence have the Government taken to support their approach? Was the Judge Advocate General consulted? If not, why not? In summary, I hope the Government will listen to the points raised, remove clause 2, uphold our international reputation and obligations, and work with us to protect our troops and get this Bill right.

Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify what advice and evidence have the Government taken to support clause 2? Why do the Government wish to deviate from our colleagues and international security partners on such an important issue? What is the Government’s reasoning for this? Why have they included a clause that risks undermining a historic and momentous international convention in which our country played a key role and of which it is a key signatory? Why are the Government so intent on risking undermining our reputation and legal obligations and leaving our armed forces personnel exposed? I hope the Committee will get some answers from the Minister.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 1. As a new Member, I find the quality of the new clause disappointing. It does a disservice to the intentions of those who tabled it, so I invite them to withdraw it. The wording is far too vague and subjective. It is without guidelines and substance. Its incredible vagueness would make for a very unworkable piece of legislation. I believe in proper scrutiny in Committee, and the quality of the new clause is not good. It is a lawyer’s gift and would be subject to countless legal challenges and much litigation, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to stop.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Dines]

I am just finishing. I respectfully ask for the new clause to be withdrawn.

15:45

[Johnny Mercer]

I will answer the point about the Judge Advocate General first. He is able to comment on all areas of policy that have a direct impact on his role within the service justice system and the management of the military court system, but the measures in part 1 of the Bill impact on the prosecutorial process. As such, we felt it was more important to focus on engagement with the independent prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Service Prosecuting Authority, which were all engaged in the process.

As I have said already, I have met the JAG and have looked at his recommendations, and we continue to look at how we can take forward his suggestions in order to improve the process of service justice. More will come on that in due course.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I would absolutely love to.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister has referred to who he consulted when drawing the Bill. Can he expand on their comments, and is it possible to produce them as evidence for the Committee?

[Johnny Mercer]

We have already published a response to our consultation, which was widely available for everybody to see. We have also published a response that contains a lot of the conversations around this. As I have indicated, we have engaged with a number of different parties and have arrived at the decision that this was a fair and proportionate line to tread in order to achieve the effects that we are trying to achieve.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am going to speak to new clause 1, and then I will happily give way.

Our intention with the measures that we have introduced in part 1 of the Bill was to ensure that we could provide the utmost reassurance to our service personnel and veterans in relation to the threat of repeated scrutiny and potential prosecution for alleged offences occurring many years ago on overseas operations. This has meant seeking to have a balance in introducing protective measures that would set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted, as well as ensuring that the adverse impact of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service person or veteran, but which would not act as an amnesty or statute of limitations, would not fetter the prosecutor’s discretion in making a decision to prosecute, and would be compliant with international law. We have achieved that balance in the combination of clauses 2 and 3. We are providing the additional protection that our service personnel and veterans so greatly deserve, while ensuring that, in exceptional circumstances, individuals can still be prosecuted for alleged offences.

New clause 1 would effectively replace the presumption against prosecution with a requirement in clause 1 that the prosecutor should consider only whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial when coming to a decision on whether to prosecute. This not only removes the high threshold of the presumption, but seeks to replace it with a consideration—whether the passage of time would prejudice the chance of a fair trial—which is likely to already be considered by the prosecutor when applying the existing public interest test. We have never suggested that service personnel or veterans have been subject to unfair trials. We have sought instead to highlight not only the difficulties, but the adverse impacts on our personnel, of pursuing allegations of historical criminal offences. Justice delayed is often justice denied, for defendants and for victims. I believe that clauses 2 and 3 provide the appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice, and the requirement to provide a fair and deserved level of protection for our service personnel and veterans. Removing the presumption in the way the new clause proposes would simply remove that balance.

[Liz Twist]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but clearly, ensuring that justice and fairness are done is crucial. We heard a number of comments from Judge Blackett on the process. I know the Minister has met Judge Blackett, but was that before or after the legislation was prepared?

[Johnny Mercer]

I did not meet Judge Blackett before the legislation was prepared, for the reasons I have outlined. We thought it far more important to focus on engagement with the independent prosecutors, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service. Like I said, I have met him and heard what he has to say, and we heard his evidence last week.

[Liz Twist]

Having subsequently met Judge Blackett and heard his evidence, did the Minister make any changes to the legislation as drafted, or does he propose to make any such changes?

[Johnny Mercer]

No, because that would be to pre-empt the judge-led review of how we protect the Department, configure ourselves and develop the capability to deal with lawfare. Judge Blackett gave his view, but in our judgment it was better to engage the independent prosecutors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Service Prosecuting Authority. That is what we have done—we engaged in a wide public consultation—and I believe that where we have arrived is fair and proportionate.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

If the Bill were not legislation relating to the armed forces, it would have been given prior oversight by either the Attorney General for England and Wales, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or, for Scotland, the Lord Advocate or the Advocate General. Will the Minister tell the Committee why the Judge Advocate General was excluded from that process for this legislation?

[Johnny Mercer]

The Secretary of State wrote to the Judge Advocate General on 14 May 2020 acknowledging that, because of the 100-day election commitment to introduce the Bill, it was not possible for the legal protections team to complete the usual level of stakeholder engagement that we would usually seek to undertake post-public consultation.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, we welcomed the Judge Advocate General’s interest in the Bill: an offer was made for the project team to engage with him at a convenient time, and I subsequently met him. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views on who would be consulted if the Bill were drafted in a civilian context, but I am entirely comfortable that the Department spoke to the right people to gauge their views on how we should deal with the current system, which is difficult and ultimately unfair to veterans.

I respect all the views that we heard last week—of course I do—but I am allowed to disagree with them. Having worked on this for seven years, it is possible to hear other people’s views on the matter and disagree with them. The Department has taken a balanced and proportionate view, and indeed, it has incorporated a lot of views from other stakeholders throughout the process.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not give way at the moment, because I have addressed that point a number of times.

Clause 2, which the new clause would replace, sets out the principle of the presumption against prosecution, but it is to be exceptional for a prosecutor to determine that proceedings should be brought for an alleged offence that occurred in operations more than five years ago, as set out in clause 1. We have not sought to define “exceptional”, as we do not think it necessary or possible to provide an exhaustive definition. We intend, however, that the effect of clause 2 will be that when a prosecutor considers whether criminal proceedings should be brought or continued in relevant cases, there will be a presumption against prosecution, and that the threshold for rebutting that presumption will be high.

We also expect that the concept of “exceptional” will develop over time as cases are considered by prosecutors. I reinforce the point in clause 1(2): the presumption against prosecution does not impact on the prosecutor’s assessment as to whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. It focuses instead on setting a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that it is in the public interest to bring or to continue criminal proceedings in respect of offences committed by service personnel on operations more than five years ago.

Although the presumption will not directly impact on investigations, allegations of wrongdoing must, and will, continue to be investigated. We accept that, over time, this is likely to have an indirect impact. As prosecutors become familiar with the presumption, they should be able to advise investigators earlier in the process on whether the higher threshold of the new statutory requirement would be met in a particular case.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at the moment. Although that should therefore help to reduce the likelihood of investigations being reopened without new and compelling evidence, it does not create an absolute bar to investigations or prosecutions, as a statute of limitations or an amnesty would. Rather, the presumption is rebuttal, with the prosecutor retaining the discretion to prosecute where they determine that it would be appropriate to do so. That may include cases in which there is evidence that a serious offence has been committed.

In contrast, an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel would be a breach of our international legal obligations and would pose significant challenges and risks. That includes the risk that, in the absence of a domestic system for the prosecution of international criminal offences, the International Criminal Court would assert its jurisdiction and bring prosecutions against members of the UK armed forces. The presumption against prosecution, however, is consistent with our international legal obligations, as it would not affect the UK’s willingness or ability to investigate or prosecute alleged offences committed by our service personnel.

Finally, the statutory presumption and the measures in clauses 3 and 5 will apply only to proceedings that start after the Bill has become law. Although alleged criminal offences relating to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan occurred more than five years ago, meaning that the presumption could be applied in any relevant prosecutorial decisions, it is likely that any remaining investigations of those allegations will be complete before the Bill becomes law. If any new credible allegations relating to Iraq and Afghanistan should arise, however, they will obviously be subject to investigation and, where appropriate, consideration by a prosecutor. Any decision to prosecute such a case after the Bill has become law must, in accordance with the presumption, be exceptional.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for giving way—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. The Committee is suspended for 15 minutes.

15:57

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:57

On resuming—

[The Chair]

Mrs Lewell-Buck was intervening on the Minister.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It was remiss of me not to mention what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It has been a pleasure all day, and hopefully all week.

Has clause 2 been given approval by the CPS? The Minister mentioned that it does not breach international humanitarian law. Can he explain which organisations and professionals have said that? I give him some gentle advice, which I hope he will take in the way that it is intended: legislation made purely on one’s own views, against the advice of experts and others who know exactly what they are talking about, is not the right way to go. It is playing fast and loose with our armed forces and is going to have serious, unintended consequences.

[Johnny Mercer]

On the idea that the Department does anything other than seek the views of experts to bring through this difficult legislation, in evidence the hon. Lady has seen a set of views given by campaign groups, but those are not the only views available. This is difficult legislation that, of course, will be contested, but the idea that we have just come up with some idea after a public consultation lasting many months—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Matters to be given particular weight

[Mr Jones]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out

“(so far as they tend to reduce the person’s culpability or otherwise tend against prosecution)”.

This amendment would ensure that, in giving particular weight to the matters in subsection (2), a prosecutor may consider whether any matter tends to reduce or increase culpability, tending against or in favour of prosecution respectively.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bb) the public interest in maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces;”

This amendment would ensure that a relevant prosecutor gives particular weight to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bc) the nature of the alleged conduct, in particular whether it engaged the obligations of the United Kingdom under Articles 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”

This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a prosecutor where the alleged conduct engages the UK’s obligations under Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) or Article 5 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) ECHR.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(bd) whether the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct, and to what extent;”

This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a relevant prosecutor where the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct.

Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(3A) A service offence is not a ‘relevant offence’ if it is an offence whose prosecution is required under the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations.”

This amendment would exclude the prosecution of serious international crimes (such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes) from the limitations otherwise imposed by the Bill.

Amendment 58, in schedule 1, page 12, line 6, at end insert—

“13A An offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions).

13B An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).”

This amendment adds to Schedule 1 specific reference to existing domestic offences in relation to torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, in a similar way to the treatment of sexual offences.

Amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 12, line 38, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—

“17 An offence under Part 5 (Offences under domestic law) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 as it relates to the law of England and Wales.”

This amendment would mean that all offences listed in Part 1 of the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 as they related to the law of England and Wales would be excluded offences, without restriction.

Amendment 59, in schedule 1, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

“(za) an act of genocide under article 6, or”

This amendment would ensure that acts of genocide are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 12, line 40, leave out

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(g)”

and insert

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(a)-(k)”.

This amendment would ensure that crimes against humanity are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 61, in schedule 1, page 12, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 13 and insert—

“(b) a war crime within article 8.2(a) (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions).”

This amendment would ensure that grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 13, line 12, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—

“20 An offence under Part 5 (Offences under domestic law) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 as it relates to the law of Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would mean that all offences listed in Part 1 of the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 as they related to the law of Northern Ireland would be excluded offences, without restriction.

Amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 13, line 13, at end insert—

“(za) an act of genocide under article 6, or”

This amendment would ensure that acts of genocide are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 63, in schedule 1, page 13, line 14, leave out

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(g)”

and insert

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(a)-(k)”.

This amendment would ensure that crimes against humanity are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 64, in schedule 1, page 13, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—

“(b) a war crime within article 8.2(a) (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions).”

This amendment would ensure that grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph 23.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 6 and 7.

Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 14, line 5, leave out paragraphs 27 to 30 and insert—

“27 An offence under Part 1 (Offences) of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.”

This amendment would mean that all offences listed in Part 1 of the International Criminal Courts Act (Scotland) 2001 would be excluded offences, without restriction.

Amendment 65, in schedule 1, page 14, line 7, at end insert—

“(za) an act of genocide under article 6, or”

This amendment would ensure that acts of genocide are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 66, in schedule 1, page 14, line 8, leave out

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(g)”

and insert

“a crime against humanity within article 7.1(a)-(k)”.

This amendment would ensure that crimes against humanity are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 67, in schedule 1, page 14, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—

“(b) a war crime within article 8.2(a) (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions).”

This amendment would ensure that grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are also excluded from the Bill, alongside sexual offences.

Amendment 12, in schedule 1, clause 15, page 9, line 21, at end insert

“subject to subsection (2A).

(2A) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor must lay before Parliament the report of an independent review confirming that the Act is in full compliance with the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations with respect to the prosecution of war crimes and other crimes committed during overseas operations.

(2B) This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is brought into force, unless the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor has, not fewer than four years after this Act has come into force, laid before Parliament the report of a further independent review confirming that the Act remains in full compliance with the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations with respect to the prosecution of war crimes and other crimes committed during overseas operations.”

16:15

[Mr Jones]

The amendments we are debating relate to clause 3. I will first refer to amendment 3, which stands in my name. At the outset, I make clear that these are probing amendments; I am not going to push them to a vote, but they mean that the issues are at least going to get some scrutiny by the Committee, although based on the answers we have had so far, I am not sure we are going to get much response.

Particularly during the last bit on prosecutions, it would have been interesting to know whether, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service had agreed to clause 2 and what its thoughts on it were, because even though the Minister said it was consulted, I very much doubt it would agree with clause 2.

There is a difference between being consulted and agreeing with what comes out of the sausage machine at the end of the consultation. We want the public to have confidence not only in the Bill, but in the process. The Minister is right: the Government can consult who they like, but at the end of the day, they have to make decisions. What if those decisions fly in the face of what the Minister referred to as “campaign groups”? I do not consider the International Criminal Court and others “campaign groups”. These are obligations under international treaty, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, I am concerned about our international reputation.

Amendment 3, which would amend page 2, line 33 of the Bill, relates to the public interest test in maintaining trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the armed forces. I have no problem with the accountability of the armed forces, because as I say, I am a supporter of the service justice system. I have no problem with the oversight we have in Parliament and the way that system operates. However, there was a time when many families had direct connections to the armed forces: going back to the second world war or national service, people knew people in the armed forces, so they understood the culture. That is becoming increasingly distant. We no longer have national service, so we do not have a culture where most citizens go through that system. It is therefore important that we work extra hard to maintain public confidence in the principle of accountability of the armed forces.

Again, I am a supporter of our armed forces, and have been for the 19 years I have been in this House. I am not uncritical if they get things wrong, and I am pleased that I played my part, for example, in the activities of the Select Committee on Defence back in 2005, which led to the creation of the office of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces, now the Service Complaints Ombudsman. We are asking people to do unique things, and we do need to protect them, but this probing amendment is to see whether we can get the weight of public trust when it comes to prosecutions—in other words, if we are going to take forward a prosecution, that is taken into account.

I know for certain that our service prosecution system is fair, and it is one that I support. It is also one that includes the test of whether a prosecution is in the public interest, which is in civil law as well. That is controversial in civil law because there are cases in which you and I, Mr Stringer, and the average person on the famous Clapham omnibus, might think someone should be prosecuted. There is the evidential test and then there is the question of whether prosecution would be in the public interest, and sometimes it is difficult to explain that to the public.

I see no purpose whatsoever in prosecuting an 80-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland. I accept that the legislation does not cover Northern Ireland, but the Government have made huge promises about what they are going to do to replicate the Bill to cover Northern Ireland—having dealt with Northern Ireland as a Minister, I would say, “Best of luck with that, mate.” There are ways of translating the Bill to do that, but this goes to the heart of it, because the issue in Northern Ireland is public trust on both sides of the community divide.

This probing amendment is trying to see whether the prosecution can take some account of the perception of our armed forces in the public eye. As I said earlier, many people do not understand the service justice system. Indeed, some people campaign against it, saying that members of the armed forces should not have a separate judicial system. I am sorry, but I disagree, because we ask unique things of them. I think that what we have at the moment strikes the right balance, having judicial oversight while also ensuring that the unique circumstances in which they serve are considered.

The public interest test—whether it is in the public interest to sue somebody—is already there. The question is whether we can have a system in which some weight is given to how it will look and how the armed forces would be perceived. I am not quite sure how that would be done in practice. The prosecutors and members of the armed forces who I have met have this in their DNA, because they are all conscious of the importance of maintaining public trust. We are a democracy and it is important that public trust is maintained in all aspects of Government and the armed forces. I think that the current Government are trying the public’s patience in relation to that trust element, but I will not go down that route now.

Am I proud of our armed forces? Yes, I am. It is important to say that. My constituency is a recruiting ground for many young servicemen and women, and the armed forces give them opportunities that they would never get in civilian life. We often concentrate on the negative aspects of service life, but I have always advocated that service life is not only positive for those young people but good for the nation, because those life experiences and skills are transferable once those individuals return to civilian life. We should be proud of that and celebrate it more than we do.

I am not sure how amendment 3 would reflect that, but it is worth putting it to the Committee, so that Members understand that public trust in our armed forces is going to be important. My fear is that the Bill will do a lot to undermine that trust. As I told the Committee last week, I am also concerned that the Bill will give weight to those people who want to do away with the service justice system, which I certainly do not want to see.

Amendment 4, which stands in my name, is about the alleged conduct, with particular reference to our obligations under articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the European convention on human rights. I know that, for some Conservative Members, any mention of Europe has a Pavlov’s dog effect—it sets them off. However, it is important to remember that the European convention on human rights is nothing to do with the EU or those nasty foreigners who, in the eyes of certain people, have been persecuting us from Brussels. It was set up after the second world war so that there would be a basic, decent standard.

I am proud that this country was part of that convention. I am also proud that we have been seen as a force for good around the world, because we have argued for basic human rights—rights that we take for granted in this country, but that many people do not. We have seen recently in Ukraine and Belarus what happens when those rights are not maintained. Under amendment 4, the prosecution would give weight to whether the alleged conduct would engage the UK’s obligations under article 2, on the right to life, or under the articles prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, slavery and forced labour, and arbitrary detention.

There is something that I find strange about the Bill. The Government specified certain categories of crimes that will not be covered by it—murder and sexual offences—and I totally agree about that. What I have difficulty with, however, despite the assertion of compliance with the Human Rights Act, is the issue of torture. I do not think that anyone in the Committee Room would condone torture. It was a given after the second world war that torture was something that we would not engage in, that was not acceptable, and that would lead to the condemnation of any nation that participated in it. Credit is due to the Foreign Office, under all Governments, including the present one, because it does a lot to raise the issue when torture is instigated against countries’ citizens, and to push back and argue against it. I do not know why the issue is not specified in the Bill. It might help to reassure people who do not understand the justice system. People ask why it is needed, so I shall explain.

I did not think that we would get to a point where nations from which we would expect better would engage in torture. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I saw a lot of intelligence during the investigation of rendition. It is a fact that the United States, under the Bush Administration, engaged in state torture, which is not acceptable. Did that put members of our security services and some of our armed forces personnel in a difficult position? Yes, I think it did.

As to being open to prosecution, although I have seen no evidence that members of the British armed forces or security services took part in any type of torture, there is credible evidence to show that they were present when it was taking place. That is not acceptable, either. It would be helpful if the Bill took into account and gave the weight in prosecutions to the European convention on human rights, and explicitly included reference to torture and inhumane treatment, to ensure that people can take comfort in the Bill. Let me dispel the myth that members of our armed forces or our Government would want to be involved in torture—they would not. To ensure we can have that protection, it should be in the Bill.

16:30

The other factor is the right to life, which I know is controversial in armed conflict. There has been a concern raised in the excellent report of the Defence Committee, which looked at the creeping nature of the European Commission into the battle space. I do not see that there is a problem. As I see it, the convention does not cover the idea that the right to life will be one’s enemy in any conflict, because otherwise it would make it impossible for any state to use lethal force when necessary. We all know that there are examples where lethal force must be used by our armed forces.

It is important that during prosecution those factors are in the back of the mind. We must accept that, in terms of the prosecution process, conduct should be covered by that. If sexual offences and murder are in the Bill, we should be able to put other things in, too.

Amendment 5 is about

“whether the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct, and to what extent”.

This relates to the question, raised previously by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-west, about people’s responsibilities in relation to the orders they have been given. That is no excuse for their actions, but weight should be given to whether one is a senior officer. Again, this is a probing amendment. It is difficult to disaggregate, because all members of the armed forces are covered by the same basic rules. In terms of relevance to the prosecutor, it is a matter of the position that person was in to have changed their actions. That is different for a senior officer and a private, for example.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The right hon. Gentleman gets to a point that many of us find disconcerting, especially when reflecting on the second part of the Bill. The chain of command needs to take responsibility for its decision making. I know this is only a probing amendment, but the Government need to consider the fact that the chain of command has responsibility within the decision-making process.

[Mr Jones]

That is important. It is about taking responsibility of the chain of command. I remember when we first introduced the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces, there was a huge fear, as there was when we introduced the armed forces ombudsman, that they would interfere with the chain of command. I do not want for one minute to do that, and neither should a prosecutor, but the actions and freedoms that someone has is a relevant factor that needs to be taken into consideration. As we discussed this morning, these people are in very difficult situations—I am sure that neither you, Mr Stringer, nor I could imagine what it would be like, although I am sure that the Minister can—and that needs to be taken into account.

Having made those comments, I shall leave it there.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I want to speak to amendment 3, the probing amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham, and to reflect on several issues that he has raised about trust and accountability. That is because there is a sense, at least among Scottish National party Members, that if this type of amendment were to be considered at a future time by the Government, it would allow the criminal justice system, and specifically the military judicial system, to retain some element of trust within civilian oversight.

I recognise that the Minister and the Government have a passion for this issue, and that there is a commitment to do this within 100 days. I hear that, but I have some concerns that need to be answered. First, to enable accountability and trust, can the Minister tell us whether the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales gave a positive response to the Bill? Secondly, in relation to the 100 days, there is also a commitment to have a similar Bill for Northern Ireland, so would he consider it appropriate for the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland to be engaged in any future Bill-building on that Bill, given the fact that he excluded from this process the Judge Advocate General, who is a coherent part of the military judicial system, and engagement with whom enables trust to be built across the House?

I wonder whether the Minister can answer those questions: did the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales say that the Bill was a good piece of legislation; and will he instigate discussions with the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland if he is going to introduce another piece of legislation for Northern Ireland, and again exclude the Judge Advocate General?

[Stephen Morgan]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments to clause 3. When I became a Member of Parliament, in the nation regarded as the birthplace of modern parliamentary democracy, I never once thought that I would have to argue the case for retaining Great Britain’s commitments against war crimes. This country was built upon principles of fairness, equality and justice. We have stood against torture and other war crimes, with a proud tradition of taking direct action when we see violations against human rights being committed. From world war two and the Nuremberg trials to Bosnia and The Hague, this country has a reputation for standing against torture and crimes against humanity. It is part of our identity and is part of what makes us British, which is why it is so concerning that this Bill in its current form, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said earlier, puts all of that at risk.

Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out what constitutes excluded offences for the purposes of presumption against prosecution. Torture is not included and neither are other war crimes listed in article 7 of the Rome statute, apart from sexual crimes. That is morally wrong. It breaks our commitments to international law, it risks dragging our troops in front of the International Criminal Court, and it is entirely avoidable with some common-sense amendments to the Bill.

Let us consider that first point. I know that everyone in this room would agree that it is morally wrong in any situation to commit an act of torture—it is the most serious of crimes and has no moral justification in any circumstances. When we look at schedule 1, we see that the offences excluded from legal protection are sexual offences. Labour agrees that these offences should be utterly condemned and are inexcusable, and that they should be excluded from any presumption against prosecution. However, schedule 1 fails to exclude terrible crimes such as torture and genocide. The Government have provided no good explanation or justification whatever for excluding only sexual offences from the scope of protection under the Bill, particularly as no service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan have been accused of genocide, yet it is not excluded as an offence in the Bill. As a former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, put it:

“This could create the bizarre outcome that an allegation of torture or murder would not be prosecuted when a sexual offence arising out of the same incident could be.”

As the Minister wrote the Bill, can he take us through sub-paragraphs (a) to (k) of article 7(1) of the Rome statute and explain why each provision is legally needed? What is the legal necessity of including each of those provisions?

That brings me to Labour’s second ground for objection to the Bill’s exclusion of torture and other war crimes. Britain has always had an unwavering commitment to the law of armed conflict. The Geneva conventions are known in most households in Britain, and the Bill tramples on our commitments to them. We have heard from judges and generals, witnesses who have trained our armed forces and provided them with independent legal advice, and ex-service personnel. We have received written evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross. All those individuals and organisations have said two things in common. First, they are clear in their duty to uphold the law of armed conflict and instruct others to do so. Secondly, they are clear that the Bill risks eroding our commitment to those laws and have expressed grave warnings on the consequences. First, it would irreparably damage the moral credibility and authority of the UK to call out human rights abuses worldwide. Secondly, it would undermine the hard-won reputation of UK forces as responsible and reliable actors. Thirdly, it risks reprisals against British troops, particularly service personnel who may be captured and detained on operations.

I am reminded of the evidence last week of the Judge Advocate General, who said:

“You will remember that six Royal Military Police were killed…in 2003. If those responsible were identified today, would we accept that there would be a presumption against their prosecution? Would we expect the factors in clause 3(2)(a) to be taken into account? Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if that occurred. In all areas of law, you have to be even-handed.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 128, Q278.]

It is hard to disagree with those words. To demand justice from others when our men and women on the frontline need it, Britain must be at the forefront of defending that system, underpinned by international laws and the principle of equality under the law.

Labour is deeply concerned that the Bill sets the UK on a collision course with the International Criminal Court and that the Bill risks our troops being dragged to The Hague. Last week, we heard from a witness who represents and is the voice for thousands of veterans, who said that

“there is without a doubt greater fear of a non-British legal action coming against people than of anything British.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 110, Q219.]

Going back on our commitments to the Geneva conventions risks our forces personnel being dragged in front of the International Criminal Court, only confirming the worst fears among veterans discussed by Lieutenant Colonel Parker. Why would the Minister not prefer to have trials for British troops in British courts rather than The Hague?

The Bill as it stands is flawed. It is fundamentally at odds with British values by failing to offer an absolute rejection of torture. It tramples on our commitments to international doctrines that we helped to write, and it fails our troops by risking action by the international courts.

There is a way out. Protecting troops from vexatious claims does not need to be at odds with our commitments to international humanitarian law. There does not need to be a trade-off between safeguarding our armed forces and standing against torture. That is why we have tabled these amendments, which will address those imbalances.

First, the amendments would ensure that, under schedule 1, the forms of crime listed in the Rome statute, such as torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, were—alongside sexual offences—excluded from the presumption against prosecution. Further amendments would ensure that any breach of the Geneva conventions and other international laws also fell outside the scope of that. Labour’s amendments, by bringing the Bill in line with international law and doubling down on our commitments against torture, would protect our troops from international courts and protect our nation’s reputation.

The Minister said at the witness stage, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

[Mr Jones]

What my hon. Friend proposes in no way changes the Bill in effect; it strengthens the Bill. Does he agree that it is a simple thing which might assuage a lot of the critics of the Bill?

16:45

[Stephen Morgan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister has heard our commitment to get the Bill right. It can be better for our armed forces, if he is willing to engage in the arguments being made.

I put it to the Minister, do not let party politics get in the way of making this Bill worthy of the troops it is set to serve. There is still time for him to work with the Opposition to get this right. He has made half of the argument for me. By already excluding sexual crimes, he recognises that some crimes are so serious they should be excluded from the Bill. He should now go the full way and exclude war crimes.

Labour stand four-square behind our troops, and we want to work with the Government to build the broadest consensus possible on the Bill, tailored to supporting our forces and safeguarding human rights. I urge the Minister to work with us and vote in favour of amendments that would strengthen the Bill for our troops and for our commitments to human rights.

Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify, on the case of those responsible for the six Royal Military Police who were killed in 2003—raised by the former Judge Advocate General last week—would he accept presumption against prosecution? Would we expect the factors in clause 3(2)(a) to be taken into account? Would we be content for a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent to be needed to prosecute, and would he accept a decision not to prosecute? Why would the Minister not prefer to have trials for British troops in British courts, rather than in The Hague? Finally, will he take us through paragraph 1(a) to (k) of article 7 the Rome statute and explain the legal need of those sub-paragraphs within the Bill? What is the legal necessity of including each of those sub-paragraphs?

[Liz Twist]

I want to speak briefly on torture, which is one of the issues that my constituents have brought to me. That is relevant, because it is about public perception of the legislation proposed.

Britain has a fine history with our armed forces of acting legally, morally and in the best interests and traditions of the armed forces. I believe that the Minister should consider the amendment that ensures that torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity are excluded from the Bill. Last Thursday, a number of witnesses said to us that they could see no reason why torture and war crimes should not be excluded too, as sexual offences rightly are. I urge the Government to consider the good name of our country and put those elements outside the scope of the Bill.

[Johnny Mercer]

We ask a huge amount of our service personnel. We send them to undertake high-threat and high-risk operations in defence of our country and its people. They do their duty in the clear knowledge that they may be injured, maimed or even killed.

This Government believe, therefore, that it is absolutely right and reasonable to require that in return we ensure that, in addition to the existing public interest test, a prosecutor has to give particular weight to the unique circumstances of overseas operations and the adverse impacts that those may have on a serviceperson’s capacity to make sound judgments and on their mental health at the time of an alleged offence when coming to a decision on whether to prosecute. That is not intended to excuse bad behaviour by service personnel, but to ensure that prosecutors give full recognition to the significant difference in the circumstances surrounding an alleged offence committed on operations overseas as compared, for example, to situations where the alleged criminal conduct occurs in a domestic civilian setting.

The prosecutor must consider the presumption against prosecution under clause 2 to determine whether a case meets the exceptional threshold. The prosecutor, as required by clause 3, must also give particular weight to matters that may, in effect, tip the balance in favour of not prosecuting. Clause 3 is therefore integral to supporting the high threshold set in clause 2 for a prosecutor to make a decision to prosecute.

There was a lot of discussion last week about the concerns over the impact on our personnel of repeated scrutiny and the mental burden placed on them by the threat of criminal prosecution occurring long after the events in question, particularly where there is no compelling new evidence to be considered. Clause 3 requires that prosecutors must also consider where there has been a previous investigation in relation to the alleged criminal conduct and no compelling new evidence has arisen. The public interest is in cases coming to a timely and final resolution.

In the responses to our public consultation, many service personnel expressed a lack of trust in prosecutors and others in the justice system. They were particularly concerned about whether prosecutors are able to understand the operational context in which the offence occurred and to adequately reflect this in determining the public interest. We fully accept that prosecutors may already take such matters into account. However, making that a statutory requirement provides greater certainty for service personnel that the unique context of overseas operations will be given particular and appropriate weight in the prosecutor’s deliberation.

By seeking to remove the benefit of the matters in clause 3 that tend towards reducing the culpability of a serviceperson and tend against prosecution, the amendments are designed to ensure that the prosecutor can also consider whether such matters increase the culpability of an individual and support a prosecution. The amendments undermine our reassurance to our service personnel that the operational context of an alleged offence will be taken into account, and in their favour, by the prosecutor. It would be a slap in the face for our armed forces personnel to suggest that the context of an overseas operation will be considered as a factor in support of their prosecution.

[Mr Jones]

At present, the service justice system understands the context and the public interest test is already there—whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. The service justice system is designed to take into account special circumstances, so what is the need for clause 3?

[Johnny Mercer]

The need is very clear. The fact is that the service justice system as it stands has facilitated an industrial level of claims against our people that has absolutely destroyed their lives.

[Mr Jones]

No, it has not.

[Johnny Mercer]

The right hon. Gentleman can sit there and say no, this did not happen and that did not happen. The rest of us live in the factual world, where these things actually did happen. They destroyed some of our finest people, which is why we are introducing this legislation. I have heard a lot from the right hon. Gentleman, and the vast majority is not correct. I respect him immensely, but it is not correct. I will therefore push on at this stage.

Amendments 3 to 5 seek to add additional factors to clause 3. In the light of amendment 1, I can assume only that the intention is somehow to bring in factors that would be seen by the prosecutor to increase a serviceperson’s culpability and make a prosecution more likely. I have already set out my arguments as to why amendment 1 should be withdrawn. Furthermore, I do not believe that amendments 3 to 5 are appropriate or needed.

Amendment 3 is designed to

“ensure that a relevant prosecutor gives particular weight to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces.”

The independent prosecutor’s responsibility is to follow the principle set out in the code for crown prosecutors. That includes the principle that they will work

“to maintain public trust and to provide an efficient criminal justice system.”

The Bill does not place service personnel above the law or make them somehow less accountable. Allegations of offences must and will continue to be investigated. Where appropriate, a prosecutor can still make a decision to prosecute. On that basis, I do not believe that amendment 3 is warranted.

Amendment 4 is designed to

“ensure that particular weight is given by a prosecutor where the alleged conduct engages the UK’s obligations”

under articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the European convention on human rights. The prosecutor already has to apply the principles of the ECHR, in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, at each stage of the case, so amendment 4’s additional requirement would be totally unnecessary.

Amendment 5 is designed to

“ensure that particular weight is given by a relevant prosecutor where the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct.”

I can assume only that the amendment is meant to address the concerns raised last week about the chain of command being held accountable as well as individuals, but it misses the point. A decision taken by a serviceperson to use force during an overseas operation is an individual decision for which they, and not their commanding officer, may then be held personally accountable if their decision is deemed to have been in breach of criminal law. The circumstances of an incident would determine whether the involvement of a commander in the activities of their subordinates also merited a criminal prosecution. Separately, it should be noted that under the Armed Forces Act 2006, commanding officers may be investigated and prosecuted, including at court martial, for non-criminal conduct offences in relation to serious allegations of wrongdoing by personnel under their command. Non-criminal conduct offences are not covered by the Overseas Operations Bill.

On the proposed amendments to schedule 1, the Government are committed to providing reassurance to service personnel and veterans in relation to the threat of prosecution for alleged offences on overseas operations more than five years ago. The measures in part 1 of the Bill are key to delivering that reassurance. The fact that we have only excluded sexual offences in schedule 1 does not mean that we will not continue to take other offences, such as war crimes and torture, extremely seriously.

The presumption against prosecution will allow the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute these offences, and the severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed will always be factors in their considerations. On a case-by-case basis, a prosecutor can determine that a case against an individual in relation to war crimes, torture or genocide is “exceptional”, and that a prosecution is therefore appropriate, subject to the approval of the Attorney General or the Advocate General in Northern Ireland. The decision to exclude only sexual offences reflects the Government’s strong stated belief that the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during overseas operations is never acceptable in any circumstances.

We have not excluded other offences, including torture, because in the course of their duties on overseas operations, we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture war crimes. By contrast, although allegations of sexual offences can still arise, the activities that we expect our service personnel to undertake on operations cannot possibly include those of a sexual nature.

We do not therefore believe it is appropriate to afford personnel the additional protection of the presumption in relation to allegations of sexual offences after five years. I am aware that many people have misinterpreted this decision, and have suggested that it somehow undermines the UK’s continuing commitment to upholding international humanitarian and human rights law, including the UN convention against torture. That is completely untrue. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

[Liz Twist]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not, as I do not have time.

These amendments seek to ensure that all offences contained within the International Criminal Court Act 2001, as it applies in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, should be excluded offences in schedule 1. Amendment 8 is consequential on amendments 6 and 7. These amendments would amount to such a comprehensive list of offences that they would considerably undermine the effectiveness and value of the measures in part 1 of the Bill. In doing so, they would prevent the Government from delivering on their commitment to provide reassurance to our service personnel and veterans in relation to the threat of prosecution for alleged historical offences, something that they so greatly deserve.

[Liz Twist]

Will the Minister give way on the issue of torture?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not. Amendment 12 seeks to introduce a sunset clause where the Act will cease to have effect after five years unless the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor lays before Parliament a report of an independent review confirming that the Act complies with the UK’s international obligations. I can assure the Committee that such a review is not required, as the measures in this Bill are consistent with our international legal obligations and do not undermine international humanitarian law as set out in the Geneva conventions.

[Liz Twist]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I will not give way.

I therefore ask that these amendments be withdrawn.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

16:59

Adjourned till Tuesday 20 October at Twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

OOB05 Reverend Nicholas Mercer, Rector of Bolton Abbey, The Priory Church of St Mary and St Cuthbert, Bolton Abbey, and former Military Lawyer and the Command Legal Adviser for the Iraq War 2003

OOB06 Assistant Professor Samuel Beswick, Peter A. Allard School of Law, The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada

OOB07 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

OOB08 Reprieve

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14 October 2020

[Derek Twigg in the Chair]

Lord Chancellor’s Oath and the Rule of Law

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

May I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to the normal practice, in order to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing requirements can be respected? Members should sanitise their microphones before they use them, using the cleaning materials provided, and respect the one-way system around the room, which goes anti-clockwise. Members can only speak if they are on the call list, and this applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches.

I also remind Members that there is less of an expectation that they should remain for the next two speeches once they have spoken; this is to help manage attendance in Westminster Hall. Members may wish to stay beyond their own speech, but they should be aware that in doing so, they may prevent Members in seats in the Public Gallery from moving into the horseshoe. That obviously will not be the case today, because we are not over-subscribed.

09:31

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Lord Chancellor’s oath and the rule of law.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I should start by declaring an interest, as a non-practising member of the Scottish Bar, the Faculty of Advocates; as an honorary bencher of the Middle Temple; and as the lead petitioner in the case of Cherry v. Advocate General, in which connection I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Lord Chancellor is required to make an oath that no other member of the Cabinet is required to make, and it reads as follows:

“I…do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law”.

When the Lord Chancellor took office in July last year, he took that oath at the royal courts of justice. Yet the past year has not been a happy one for the United Kingdom Government in respect of the rule of law.

In September last year, the Government suffered defeat in the Supreme Court of Scotland and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, when the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament was ruled unlawful. Rather than a contrite response, what we saw was a combative one, laced with denial. The fallout of those cases—the Miller case and my own case, and the first Miller case—has led to repeated attacks on the legal profession and the judiciary, and now to proposals to restrict the right of judicial review of Government action.

That was the start of the Lord Chancellor’s first year in office. It has been bookended this September by the resignation of the UK Government’s Scottish Law Officer. It will be recalled that the Advocate General resigned last month with a letter informing the Prime Minister that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions, and he is yet to be replaced.

The Advocate General for Scotland tendered his resignation in the wake of the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would

“break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

Of course, that admission was elicited from him by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

In addition to the UK Internal Market Bill, we currently have two further Bills before Parliament that are unprecedented in legal terms. Both the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill seek to create special classes of defendants in domestic law in respect of whom the criminal law will not apply as it does to you, Mr Twigg, or me.

We also have reviews pending in administrative law and human rights that would appear to threaten the scope for British citizens to challenge unlawful actions of this Government in court. Of course, part 5 of the Internal Market Bill already seeks to do that in respect of certain aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol.

There are concerns that the Internal Market Bill will undermine the Good Friday agreement. It certainly runs a coach and horses through the devolution settlement and makes a nonsense of promises made to Scottish voters during the 2014 independence referendum.

Last week, I spoke at a webinar organised to discuss the implications of the Internal Market Bill for the rule of law. It was organised by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. The webinar was attended by more than 1,000 lawyers from across these islands, and a further 1,000 in the waiting room were unable to get in. Among the speakers who expressed concern about the implications of the Bill for the rule of law were not just lefty lawyers like me, but Baron Howard—Michael Howard QC—a former leader of the Conservative and Unionist party and of Her Majesty’s Opposition, who I do not think by any stretch of the imagination could be described as a lefty lawyer.

Therefore, the concerns that I am articulating today are felt across the political spectrum. It was very noteworthy that during the seminar, Lord Neuberger, a former President of the Supreme Court, expressed very grave concerns about the implications of the Internal Market Bill for the rule of law. Such concerns, when expressed by a former President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in such trenchant terms as have been widely reported, are of some significance. They reflect the huge and widespread concern across these islands, expressed by the Law Societies and the Bars of Scotland and England and Wales, about the Bill, but also about rhetoric employed by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister in respect of the legal profession.

At the beginning of September, the Home Secretary claimed that “activist lawyers” were frustrating the removal of migrants from this country. Days later, an immigration solicitor was the subject of a violent racist attack at a London law firm, and the Law Society of England and Wales wrote to the Home Secretary, warning her that inflammatory rhetoric has consequences. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has doubled down on her rhetoric, and she has been joined in it by the Prime Minister.

At the Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary criticised people who make

“endless legal claims to remain”

in respect of asylum cases, and in the same speech she referenced those who

“lecture us on their grand theories about human rights”,

as well as referencing do-gooders and lefty lawyers. The Prime Minister, in his conference speech the next day, reiterated the sentiment, saying that the Government were

“changing the law…and stopping the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by what the Home Secretary would doubtless and rightly”

says the Prime Minister

“call the lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.”

The leader of the Scottish Bar, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, was so concerned about the comments that he has written what I would call an unprecedented letter to the Prime Minister in which he has expressed grave concerns on behalf of the whole Scottish Bar. I would like to read it out, because it is a short but powerful letter. It starts as follows:

“Dear Prime Minister

As I hope you know, the Faculty of Advocates represents the Scottish Bar. All Advocates qualified to practise before the Scottish Courts are Members of Faculty. All are bound by the cab rank rule.”

He explains that the cab rank rule means that advocates must be available for instruction by all and cannot pick and choose their clients. He goes on to say:

“Against that backdrop, I require to intimate, as Dean of Faculty and on behalf of all Members of Faculty, that I deprecate the recent pronouncements—from the Home Office, then from the Home Secretary, and latterly from the Prime Minister himself—to the effect that there is a problem with ‘lefty lawyers’ or ‘activist lawyers’ who are ‘hamstringing’ the justice system. Whether the topic is immigration, or crime, or the constitution, lawyers that act against the State are not being ‘lefty’, nor ‘activist’: they are doing their professional duty. It is simply unconscionable for Her Majesty’s Government to decry in this way the actions of professionals who, as the comments of Lord President Inglis”

in the famous case of Batchelor v. Pattison and Mackersy

“make clear, are not at liberty”

to pick and choose their clients. The dean of faculty goes on to say:

“In this country”—

by which I presume he means Scotland, but I think he would also apply it to the whole of the United Kingdom—

“(and the same cannot be said of all countries), instances of violence against lawyers are, fortunately, rare. However, in a climate of increasing populism, this sort of rhetoric is not only facile and offensive: it is potentially harmful. With great power comes great responsibility, and I have to say”

says the dean of faculty

“—with great respect—that I simply cannot fathom why it is thought in any way appropriate to attempt to vilify, in public, those that are simply doing their job, in accordance with the rule of law. I would accordingly, and again with great respect, ask each of you to eschew such unhelpful language, and to recognise that challenges to the executive are a necessary part of our democracy. Anything less would be a confession that we no longer live in a democracy.”

That letter was signed by Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates. As he is an old friend of mine, I can assure Members that he is not, unlike me, a lefty lawyer. He is simply somebody who cares about the rule of law.

As I look around, I realise there are many lawyers attending this debate. I do not need to take up too much time by defining what the rule of law is. The great English jurist, Lord Bingham, set it out finely in his eight principles of the rule of law. It is worth reminding ourselves, in relation to the Internal Market Bill, that the eighth of Lord Bingham’s principles is that the state must comply with its obligations in international law, as in national law.

The responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor for the rule of law were set out very well in our December 2014 report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee:

“The rule of law is a fundamental tenet of the United Kingdom constitution. In the context of the Government, it means more than simple compliance with the letter of the law: it means governing in accordance with constitutional principles. The Lord Chancellor has traditionally had a key role to play, both by defending the independence of the judiciary and by ensuring that the rule of law is respected within Government. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 substantially changed the office of Lord Chancellor.”

He

“is no longer the head of the judiciary or speaker of the House of Lords, and since 2007 the office has been combined with that of the Secretary of State for Justice. Yet the duty of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the rule of law remains unchanged. This duty extends beyond the work of the Ministry of Justice and requires the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the rule of law is upheld within Cabinet and across Government.”

The Committee also emphasised that the Lord Chancellor has traditionally performed an important oversight role in relation to the United Kingdom constitution as a whole. I would argue that that is highly relevant to the implications for Northern Ireland and for Scotland’s place in the Union, which arise from the Internal Market Bill.

The Committee heard evidence from Lord Falconer, who was very much involved in reforms that took place under the previous Labour Government. His evidence stated that the Lord Chancellor had a “special role” to protect the rule of law, and that to think otherwise was

“to undermine what the Constitutional Reform Act had sought to do.”

In summary, the Lord Chancellor’s duty to respect the rule of law extends beyond the policy remit of his or her Department and requires him or her to seek to ensure that the rule of law is upheld within the Cabinet and across the Government. My purpose in holding this debate today is to draw attention to the very real threats to the rule of law currently posed by the actions of this Government and to ask the Lord Chancellor, having regard to his oath, what he intends to do about them.

There has been trenchant criticism from various quarters, fully rehearsed in debates in this House, about the legal implications of part 5 of the Internal Market Bill. For example, the Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales have said that the clauses contained in part 5 of the Bill,

“enable ministers to derogate from the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law in broad and comprehensive terms and prohibit public bodies from compliance with such obligations. They represent a direct challenge to the rule of law, which include the country’s obligations under public international law”.

As we have heard, that is why the Advocate General for Scotland tendered his resignation.

The Attorney General for England and Wales has attempted to justify her support for the Internal Market Bill by reference to the legal doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament and the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the first case brought by Gina Miller on the circumstances surrounding the triggering of article 50. In that case, the Supreme Court held that, to be binding in domestic law, treaty obligations require to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, but it also held that treaties between sovereign states, such as the withdrawal agreement, have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state. It was clear that such treaties are binding on the UK under international law. I believe that the Attorney General has selectively quoted the case in order to justify her view of the Internal Market Bill. I want to know whether the Lord Chancellor agrees with me that a proper reading of the case makes a clear distinction between the domestic law and the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament, and the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.

What I am talking about was made very clear when Professor Catherine Barnard, who is the professor of European Union law at the University of Cambridge, gave evidence recently to the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union. She was crystal clear that while the United Kingdom Parliament may be sovereign under domestic law that does not impact on the rules of international law, and articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna convention mean that in international law international legal obligations take precedence. Professor Barnard also explained that there is a strong argument that the very existence of the Bill itself puts the United Kingdom in breach of its duty of good faith under article 5 of the withdrawal agreement.

I emphasise that because I have no doubt that it will be argued later today that the Government amendments prompted by the action of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst cure any problems that part 5 of the Internal Market Bill poses for our international legal obligations. I shall argue that that is wrong for a number of reasons, one of which is the argument outlined by Professor Barnard that the very existence of the Bill, evincing an intention unilaterally to breach an agreement freely entered into less than a year ago, is in itself a breach of the withdrawal agreement and our duty of good faith under it.

I know that many cheerleaders for the Bill in Parliament have been keen to emphasise section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which restated the principle of the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Of course that doctrine is a doctrine of the domestic law of England. It does not reflect the Scottish constitutional tradition, but that is perhaps an argument for another day. However, it is worth mentioning, because this Parliament is a Union Parliament, created by a treaty between two sovereign nations, Scotland and England. The United Kingdom is not a unitary state. It is a state of two countries that came together to form a Union. That fact is of relevance when we come to look at the impact of what is now clause 47 of the Internal Market Bill on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is also a point that may be of some relevance should the Scottish Government carry out their threat to litigate over the terms of the Internal Market Bill.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) with whom I have in common a great respect for Lord Bingham—although otherwise, in relation to many matters of law, we rather part ways—has been peddling a line in Parliament that there is a history, albeit a limited one, of Acts of Parliament that have broken international law. I was pleased to hear Lord Sumption say trenchantly in a recent interview on “World at One” that that argument is “absurd” because it ignores the fact that sovereign states such as the United Kingdom can limit their freedom of action by treaty and frequently do, just as the Prime Minister did last year when he signed the withdrawal agreement. Lord Sumption stressed that there is no right to pull out of a treaty unless the treaty itself enables a party to do so. A party to a treaty cannot disregard parts of it at will. That is a matter of international law.



There is also a potential problem, and I would like the Lord Chancellor and his representative here today to address the problem of the ministerial code. Again, I will not say what I think about the ministerial code; I will say what the former deputy Prime Minister, Sir David Lidington, said in a letter to The Times last month. He said:

“Sir, My old friend Sir Bernard Jenkin is mistaken in believing that revisions to the ministerial code in 2015 removed the duty to comply with the UK’s international legal obligations. My clear understanding as a serving minister at that time was that international law continued to be covered by the general duty placed on ministers to uphold the law.

In 2018 a campaign group sued the May government…alleging that the 2015 change meant that we had abandoned our international legal responsibilities. The Court of Appeal found their case to be ‘unsustainable’ and ruled that a minister’s ‘overarching’ duty to comply with the law included international law and treaty obligations even though those were no longer explicitly stated in the code.”

The Lord Chancellor’s Minister will know that Sir David was referring to the Gulf case. What I want to know is: does the Lord Chancellor’s Department accept that Sir David Lidington was correctly stating the law? If so, what does the Lord Chancellor make of his duties under the ministerial code in relation to a Bill of this Parliament, the very existence of which is, according to Professor Catherine Barnard, a breach of international law?

The Lord Chancellor has endeavoured in the public domain to justify the fact that he has not, unlike the Advocate General for Scotland, resigned as a result of the Bill. He told Sky News last month that he would resign if the Government broke international law “in a way that cannot be…fudged”.

Can the Minister explain to us whether the Lord Chancellor’s position is that the UK Government are already breaking international law, but he is happy with that because they are doing it in a way that can be fudged? He also said that he will resign only if the Government break the law in a way that is “unacceptable”. What is an acceptable way of breaking the law? I am sure the thousands of ordinary members of the public who have been fined for breaking lockdown regulations, while Mr Cummings did so with impunity, would like to know from the Lord Chancellor’s Department how he distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable breaches of the law.

The Lord Chancellor has also tried to argue that the amendments drafted by the Government and prompted by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mean that the powers now contained in part 5 of the Bill will be used only if the European Union is in material breach of its obligations. He has described it as a

“‘break glass in case of emergency’ provision”.—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 783.]

I would argue that there are a number of problems with that argument. First, there is the evidence of Professor Catherine Barnard, who told us at the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union that there is a strong argument that the very existence of the Bill is already a breaking of the obligation of good faith in the withdrawal agreement. Some of the other arguments have been made well in a speech by our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), in the Commons just a few days ago. She said:

“I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has taken every effort to ameliorate the impact of these clauses,”—

she was referring to part 5—

“and the Government have accepted and put down their own amendment. But, frankly, my view is that to the outside world, it makes no difference whether a decision to break international law is taken by a Minister or by this Parliament; it is still a decision to break international law.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 667.]

We have seen very much from comments not just from the Irish Foreign Minister, who described the amendments as “smoke and mirrors”, but also from senior Democrat and Republican politicians in the United States of America, that what really matters is the international perception of the Bill. I think the former Prime Minister was trying to persuade her colleagues in Government that the amendments do not make any difference to the international perception of what the Bill seeks to do.

The former Prime Minister also reminded us that an arbitration process is set down in the withdrawal agreement. She said:

“There is an arbitration process available. Under article 175, the ruling of the arbitration panel should be binding on the UK and the EU. The Government have acknowledged the existence of the arbitration procedure, but they are saying that they would enter into that in parallel with the operation of the elements of this Bill. The message, it seems to me, is very clear, which is, if we do not like the outcome of the arbitration panel, then we will break international law and we will not accept it. Yet, again, that is breaking the international treaty—an agreement that UK Government signed—because it is breaking article 175, which says that the view of the arbitration panel shall be ‘binding’ on both parties.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 666.]

Those are the words of the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—not mine. In the light of this very distinguished criticism, I wonder how the Lord Chancellor can reconcile his support for the Bill with his oath of office.

Finally, I want to turn to look at the implications of the UK Internal Market Bill for the Union between Scotland and England and for the position of Northern Ireland. In addressing the implications of the Bill for Northern Ireland, I make no apologies for quoting again what the former Prime Minister said in her speech about the Bill in the Chamber. She said:

“I believe that the Government’s willingness unilaterally to abandon an international agreement or parts of an international agreement they have signed and their willingness to renege on an agreement they have signed will lead, as has already been made clear in an intervention, to some questioning the willingness of the Government to fully uphold the measures in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That, in turn, will lead to some communities having less willingness to trust the United Kingdom Government, and that could have a consequence on the willingness of people in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. So far from acting to reinforce the integrity of the United Kingdom in pursuit of trying to appear to be tough to the European Union, I think the Government are putting the integrity of the United Kingdom at risk.” —[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 666-667.]

Those are the words of a former British Conservative and Unionist Prime Minister, describing the implications of the Bill for the Good Friday agreement.

There are also very concerning implications for undertakings made in respect of human rights protections in the north of Ireland from the British Government, both in the Good Friday agreement and in the withdrawal agreement. Once again, that is not just my view; it is the view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, who have advised that the Bill undermines

“the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement commitment to ensure incorporation of the ECHR, including access to the courts and remedies for breach of the ECHR rights. The Commissions are further concerned that the proposed amendments risk diminishing the commitment in Article 2(1) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol to ensure there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity as the UK leaves the EU.”

It has been made clear in the Chamber by hon. Members representing the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party in the north of Ireland that concerns about human rights implications of the Bill go right to the heart of the Good Friday agreement. Indeed, litigation is already contemplated by a group of concerned Northern Ireland citizens, who have instructed solicitors and counsel.

I turn to the position of Scotland, which is of course a particular concern to me as the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West and the Scottish National party’s justice and home affairs spokesperson. As well as breaking international law, the powers that the UK Government seek to give themselves in the Internal Market Bill constitute an unprecedented threat to the powers of Scotland’s Parliament and the devolution settlement. Why is that relevant to the Lord Chancellor’s oath to uphold the rule of law? It is relevant because—as we saw from the House of Lords Constitution Committee report—the Lord Chancellor also has an important role in protecting the constitution of the United Kingdom. The constitution of the United Kingdom includes the devolved settlement.

Last weekend in Scotland we marked the 20th anniversary of the death of the distinguished Labour party politician Donald Dewar, who was Scotland’s first ever First Minister under devolution. He was also the architect of the scheme of devolution set out in the Scotland Act 1998 whereby every power not specifically reserved to this Parliament is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill introduces—for the first time—a new principle into the devolution settlement by providing broad cross-cutting powers to allow Ministers to enforce internal market provisions across devolved fields. That is not my analysis, I am reading from the analysis of Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change.

Clause 50 reserves state aid to Westminster, after a dispute in which the Welsh and Scottish Governments argued that it had been devolved. Clause 48 gives UK Ministers wide powers to spend in devolved fields, which changes the previous assumption that they would spend only in reserved fields and that—with a few exceptions—financial transfers to the devolved administrations would go through the block allocation governed by the Barnett formula. That succinct analysis by Professor Michael Keating is the explanation of why the Bill undermines the devolved settlement. Holyrood is not getting any new powers that it did not already have, but Westminster is getting back sole control over state aid, and—in order to enforce the internal market—UK Ministers are getting an explicit power to cut across decision-making by the Scottish Parliament in a whole range of devolved fields.

It seems that what we are seeing, by virtue of those provisions in the Bill, is a rebalancing of the constitutional settlement as far as devolution is concerned, and a tearing up of the clear delineation between reserved powers and devolved powers that was devised by the late Donald Dewar, and set out in the Scotland Act 1998. That is important not just because it undermines the devolved settlement, but it is also important from a wider constitutional perspective, because in 2014—when people living in Scotland were asked whether they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom or return to our previous status as an independent sovereign nation—various promises were made by those urging us to remain part of the United Kingdom. One promise in particular was that if we did so our Parliament would get more powers, we would be strengthened, and we would become—to quote another Labour politician—

“the most powerful devolved parliament in the world”.

These were not promises made just by Labour politicians, they were promises made Conservative and Unionist politicians who, of course, are now the party of Government in the United Kingdom. A further Scotland Act was passed in 2016 that puts the Sewel convention on a statutory basis, and entrenched the Scottish Parliament against abolition. In terms of section 63A of the Scotland Act it cannot be abolished without a referendum in Scotland. The Internal Market Bill circumvents these protections not by abolishing the Scottish Parliament, but by removing the power it previously had to act unilaterally across a whole range of competencies that impact on the day-to-day lives of people living in Scotland. It is a very significant change, and some would say a complete and absolute undermining of the devolved settlement voted for by 75% of the people in the 1997 referendum. Thanks to the decision in the United Kingdom Supreme Court in the first Miller case, we now know that the Sewel convention was not justiciable despite being put on a statutory footing.

We also know, because of the Government’s subsequent actions, that the Sewel convention cannot protect the devolved settlement. The Sewel convention says:

“Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters…without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 791.]

Recently, however, that has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Last week, the Scottish Parliament withheld legislative consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but nobody seriously thinks that the Bill will not proceed because of that.

Indeed, the Institute for Government recently said that the

“Sewel Convention has been broken by Brexit”,

but I would argue that the Bill breaks the devolution settlement. That is important because, as I said, the constitutional relationship—the constitution of the United Kingdom—is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The constitutional relationship between Scotland and England is about not just devolution but the Act of Union, which continues because of promises made in 2014 that are broken by the Bill.

I suggest that many people in Scotland have suspected for a long time that the British Government’s word is no longer their bond, and that perception is reinforced by the Bill. The problem for the Lord Chancellor is that that perception is reinforced not just in Scotland, but across the world. In Europe, and as far as the United States of America, there are concerns about the implications of the Bill for the rule of law.

I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the Scottish aspects of the Bill and have not yet received a reply. He is a busy man, but I am keen to know his position. I, like many lawyers in Scotland, not all of whom, like myself, want to see an independent Scotland, but all of whom care about the independence of the Scottish legal system, are concerned about the provisions in part 5 of the Bill and their implications for the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session and for judicial review. In Scotland, judicial review is part of our system of civil justice, which is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 1998 and therefore the preserve of the Scottish Parliament.

More importantly, in the constitutional and pre-devolution context, the authority and privileges of the Court of Session, including its inherent supervisory jurisdiction, are protected by article 19 of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, which states:

“That the Court of Session, or College of Justice, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the laws of that kingdom, and with the same authority and privileges as before the Union, subject nevertheless to such regulations for the better administration of justice, as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain”.

It is a widely held view that legislation that sought to narrow the scope of the Scottish Court’s powers of judicial review and to curtail the right of judicial review could scarcely be described as for the better administration of justice. Accordingly, should the United Kingdom Government seek to circumscribe the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, they would be interfering with not only the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament, but the treaty of Union.

I respectfully remind the Lord Chancellor, as I did in my letter to him, that there is a large and respectable body of legal opinion to the effect that some parts of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, including article 19, are so fundamental that the United Kingdom Parliament does not have the power to legislate in contravention of them. That argument has been discussed in a number of cases, but never definitively ruled on. If the intention is to restrict the right to judicial review in Scotland, I would venture to suggest that that might be the opportunity to get a court to definitively answer the question about the entrenchment of fundamental parts of the treaty of Union. Of course, the outcome of such a litigation could have knock-on effects for the Union itself.

To summarise, we need to see the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in relation to Scotland through the prism not only of devolution, which is a modern development, but of the treaty of Union between Scotland and England. Without a Scottish Law Officer in place, this is an area in which the Lord Chancellor would be well advised, I respectfully submit, to take more of an interest.

I do not want to take up any more time; I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I finish by saying that there is a pattern of the United Kingdom finding ways to worm its way around laws and agreements freely entered into. Because of his oath to respect the rule of law, the Lord Chancellor is in a different class of Minister. What is he going to do about that pattern? What is he going to do to honour his oath? On taking office, he spoke of his illustrious predecessors as Lord Chancellor of England and drew a comic veil over some of the less illustrious ones. I guess my question for the Lord Chancellor today is: does he want to be remembered as a Thomas More or a Richard Rich?

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), in that order. I would like to call the Opposition spokesperson, and then the Minister, at around 10.40 am, and to give the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) a minute or two to respond at the end.

10:11

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Twigg, and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I have great respect for her as a lawyer; we do not always agree in our political views, but I take seriously what she says on legal matters. I ought to mention my interests as a non-practising member of the English Bar, as a consultant to a law firm and as a bencher of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. I will start with the topic of the debate: the Lord Chancellor’s oath. The hon. and learned Lady ranged widely in her speech, and I am sure she will forgive me if I do not follow some particular matters that she understandably raised relating to the constitutional settlement and devolution.

The irony of this debate is that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 does indeed place the Lord Chancellor in a different position from that of other Ministers, both because of the oath and because of their obligation under section 17(1) of the 2005 Act to respect the rule of law and defend the independence of the judiciary. Ironically, the Blair Government in 2005 never actually defined the rule of law in the Act. The late Lord Bingham, who has been much quoted already in this debate and probably will be again, noted that that was interesting and rather unusual, as it placed great reliance on a concept that was set out in statute but never defined. That, he concluded, clearly was not an accident; it was clearly because it was probably impossible, if not unhelpful, to find a pithy statutory definition that could be put in an Act of Parliament of something that has evolved over time. His conclusion in his admirable book, which I brought along this morning, is that it was desirable to leave the matter to be decided—as courts might need to, from time to time—in the practical, rather than purely in the abstract, as issues arose. That, perhaps, is wise.

That means that it was wrong for some in recent weeks, since the arrival of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, to make rather unjustified ad hominem attacks on the current Lord Chancellor—first, on his conduct throughout, and secondly, in making an assertion that the rule of law is potentially breached. An assertion is, of course, no more than that, and a legal argument, however distinguished, be it made by academic or legal commentators, is no more than that either. I have known the Lord Chancellor for his whole professional career, and the reality is that he is absolutely rooted in his commitment to the rule of law and to the profession, as he made clear when he took his oath and repeatedly since. I will come to part 5 of the Bill in a moment, about which my views are well known. However, I believe and am satisfied that the Lord Chancellor has acted diligently throughout all this to ensure that we deal with a potentially difficult situation proportionately and consistent with our obligations.

Since taking, the Lord Chancellor has also been clear in his support for the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Not all his predecessors in recent years have been; I say that frankly. There are people in all jurisdictions that we might wish to brush over, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West put it. For every Lord Rich there is a Lord Braxfield, perhaps, and others who we might not wish to dwell upon. The reality is that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), has been meticulous in this. I welcome his clear commitment in his letter to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to the Government’s continuing support for the provisions of the European convention on human rights. He has been willing to be outspoken on that.

Reference was made to the risk to the rule of law being undermined by the Government’s proposals to examine the scope of judicial review. When I started my law degree at the London School of Economics—which was, I hate to say, in the early 1970s—judicial review was a very new and evolving legal concept. There was little of it in those days. It grew, as many of us will remember, through the Gouriet judgment, the Grunwick case and so on, and perhaps rightly so. There has never been a fixed corpus of law in this area, as there is in others, such as jury trial. There is nothing wrong in that; the advantage of the common-law system is that it can evolve.

No one would seriously say that, prior to the development of the current system of judicial review in, let us say, the 1970s through to the beginning of this century, Britain was not a country that was subject to the rule of law. A willingness to review the way in which judicial review as a concept operates, and what are or are not the proper limits, cannot be regarded as an assault on the rule of law per se, on any objective basis.

[Joanna Cherry]

I take that on board, but the difficulty is that the individual who has been put in charge of the review has evinced very strong criticisms of the Supreme Court’s decision in the prorogation cases and has also evinced hostility to the European convention on human rights, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has already said. There is a widespread perception in the legal profession that what is intended here is to circumscribe the rule of law, not just because Lord Faulks is the chair but because of the Government’s rhetoric. Surely the hon. Gentleman must see that.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Lord Faulks is a fellow bencher of the Middle Temple and a distinguished lawyer. That does not mean that one always has to agree with everything that he says. It would not be fair or reasonable to judge somebody by past comments until we have seen the results of the panel as a whole. Lord Faulks is the chair of the panel, but there are other very distinguished people on it as well. I respect what the hon. and learned Lady says, but this is a classic case of not prejudging the issue until we have seen the outcome of the deliberations.

I am a great believer in judicial review, in appropriate cases. Has it sometimes been abused? Many people would say that perhaps that can be the case. When I was the junior Minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government, I was critical of the attitude adopted to some decisions by the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord Pickles, is he is now, in relation to the removal of regional spatial strategies. We were judicially reviewed by large commercial housebuilders, undoubtedly in pursuit of their own vested commercial interests. They sought to prevent our removing the comparatively easy route, so they could impose large housing developments on communities that did not want them. I was critical of those house builders for doing that and for undermining in law the wishes of local residents. The courts found that they were entitled to do it, but that does not mean that we were assaulting judicial review as a concept, simply by criticising the motive behind some of the people who bring it.

There is an important distinction, which I recognise. We criticised the clients—the people who brought the judicial review—but I did not criticise the lawyers who were instructed on their behalf. I would not seek to do so. It is important to say that we should not, whatever our views in politics, use political arguments to attack lawyers generally or by taking broadbrush approaches. The attacks upon the judges, which were not perhaps called out as much as they should have been at the time of the early Miller litigation, were wholly disgraceful and unacceptable. The current Lord Chancellor has made it clear that he would not countenance such attacks and such language without speaking out. That is very much to his credit and entirely consistent with his own personal integrity. I do not care for the use of language such as “lefty lawyers” or the broadbrush approach of saying that systems are being hijacked. That is not language that I would use. However, I am a Member of Parliament; I am not a speech writer.

I gently observe that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred to the taxi rank principle at the Bar. That is something that I have always worked under as well. To be fair, there have always been sets of chambers that would not prosecute, or would not act for landlords, for example. Some might ask whether that is in theory inconsistent with the taxi rank rule. It probably is, yet it is not something that warrants a great deal of personal attack. I just make the observation that those matters cannot be seen in a purely academic sense. I would not make too much of that, but that is where I stand as far as that is concerned. It is pretty clear where the Lord Chancellor stands, and where I suspect my hon. Friend the Minister stands as well, as far as those matters are concerned.

The other issue raised is part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, about which I was not a little critical when it was first introduced. I believe we have sought to improve that Bill. Is it perfect? As yet, that I do not know. Would the use of the powers in part 5 be wise politics? That is a very big question mark. However, that is not the same as, say, that it is per se constitutionally improper to put those clauses in the Bill, provided there are appropriate safeguards. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West might disagree upon that, but I think it is a legitimate area of legal dispute and the Lord Chancellor is entitled to have a different view from her and, indeed, perhaps from me in that regard, without it being suggested that he has failed to uphold his oath of office or his constitutional obligations.

I note the views, which have been referred to, of Professor Catherine Barnard. She is a distinguished academic and her views are worthy of respect. By their nature, however, she not being a judge or legislator, and valuable and worthy of respect though they are, they cannot be determinative of the point. It is one side of an argument that can properly be hooked. If, on those matters, there were no scope for difference of opinion, no scope for difference of legal interpretation, no scope for legal argument, there would scarcely be any scope for litigation and scarcely any scope for lawyers at the end of the day. It is perfectly possible for respectable lawyers to hold different opinions around matters of this kind, particularly in emerging areas of law or new legislation as it comes forward, without it being appropriate for us to say that either side is seeking to undermine constitutional principles or their professional or governmental responsibilities. That is the proper way to look at the position, as far as that is concerned here.

I am glad to say, in response to some of the endeavours, which I may have had a small hand in, the Government have made it clear that, effectively, they will only be using those powers should they ever be needed. I hope to heavens that they are never needed because we will get a deal, but should that be the case, there will be certain triggers that would have to be met, both in procedural terms but also in terms of substance. In particular, we would only do so had the European Union, in our judgment, demonstrated bad faith. Bad faith is recognised in international treaty law and in the Vienna convention as being a ground under which it is possible to derogate from an otherwise binding commitment.

The fact that we will be using this as a shield rather than a sword is important—it is the doctrine of equitable estoppel, in some respects. The Minister may well have more to say about that, but that is an important shift and one that I welcome. Therefore, the suggestion that the mere putting of those clauses on the face of the legislation is itself a breach of law is not one that is universally accepted, and I do not think therefore that it can be regarded as an act of impropriety on the part of the Government or of any Minister. As I say, there is a proper political debate as to the wisdom of using them, if we ever come to that, but that is not for today.

I want to say one final thing in relation to this. Lord Bingham was very clear that the rule of law itself is something that can evolve and must be flexible, but there are certain fundamentals. I do not think anyone would suggest that anything we are doing here alters the basic fundamentals. I am conscious of his eighth principle, but I do not think we are at that stage, and I hope we will not be. Moreover, he accepted that parliamentary sovereignty was a fundamental part of the rule of law too. There is always a set of checks and balances in that regard.

I have no problem with certain circumstances where the actions of Ministers properly should be reviewed by the courts, but I do not think this is really going to change that. Lord Bingham made it quite clear, though, that he did not accept the view advanced by, for example, Lord Steyn or Baroness Hale of Richmond that there are some concepts so fundamental that even Parliament cannot legislate to change them. He did not take that view. Again, there is a perfectly respectable dispute there and disagreement between highly distinguished former jurists, which makes the point that none of the arguments powerfully advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West are determinative of any failing by either the Lord Chancellor or any other Minister in respect of their constitutional obligations.

This is a worthwhile debate to have. In a sense, an hour and a half is not enough to do it justice, because as we go forward, we are going to have to think about our constitutional and legal settlements in a broader sense, how we will operate the separation of powers in a post-Brexit world and how, continuing, as I hope, as a unified state with devolution within it, we can perhaps refine the arrangements that are required to make that work in practice too. Those are all proper matters for further consideration, but do not, I think, impinge upon any proper allegation of any failure by the current Lord Chancellor or his Ministers to act in accordance with their constitutional duties.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call Rob Butler, I remind him that I intend to take the Front-Bench speakers around 10.40 am, so if he could keep his speech to around six minutes, so that the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) can get in, I would be very grateful.

10:27

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I am not a lawyer, let alone one with the esteemed reputation of other hon. or right hon. Members, nor am I an academic steeped in the study of centuries of history or intricate international treaties. But for 12 years before I was elected, I served as a magistrate and for about 18 months was the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council; consequently, I set great store by the need to obey and respect the law.

I approach today’s debate as a layman, albeit one with a firm idea of justice and a clear sense of right and wrong, and I also do so with great respect for the seriousness of the matters being considered. The rule of law is a central tenet of the UK’s constitution. The office of Lord Chancellor carries such prestige as an officer of state that it comes higher than the Prime Minister in the order of precedence.

The twin subjects of today’s debate are the oath of the Lord Chancellor and the rule of law, and I will consider those in a fairly narrow sense, which perhaps reflects the naivety of a new Member of Parliament. The first element of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to respect the rule of law. Despite that being a term with which we are all familiar, its meaning is, as we have already heard, subject to considerable debate.

A typical dictionary definition will elucidate straightforward principles, such as that all people in institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced. Eminent jurists have emphasised the principles of accessibility of power exercised in good faith and of equality before the law, whether prince or pauper. Indeed, I well recall the emphasis on the last from taking my own oath as a magistrate, when I promised to

“do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

However, probing a little further reveals that the concept of the rule of law, and specifically in the context of the Lord Chancellor, is not as simple as it might at first appear. As we have heard, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which fundamentally changed the role of the Lord Chancellor, does not define the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, nor the Lord Chancellor’s existing constitutional role in relation to that principle.

Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I have read the 2014 report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on the office of the Lord Chancellor. In addition to what she said, it also noted that

“the rule of law ‘is not readily defined or readily understood.’ Not all lawyers will agree on what the rule of law entails; differences of opinion will undoubtedly also occur between different Lord Chancellors… ‘the rule of law remains a complex and in some respects uncertain concept’.”

Those words are significant in the context of the matters we are debating, indicating that we should not try to oversimplify and must accept that there is room for nuance of opinion.

Another aspect of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to defend the independence of the judiciary. Rare indeed is the suggestion that the British judiciary is anything but independent. Indeed, sometimes the press, the public or, dare I say, politicians feel the judiciary is a little too independent. Many have been the tabloid headlines that criticise judges for imposing a supposedly light sentence on an offender whose crime has outraged public opinion, but that judge has invariably used their experience and knowledge to pass a sentence according to the law and sentencing guidelines, which can be appealed through higher courts but not influenced by any political opinion.

Even if there are protestations by hon. Members at the level of a sentence, there is never seriously a proposal to have a form of political accountability for the judge or magistrate. This remains the case, even in judgments that go against the Government, of which we have seen more than a few in recent times. I submit that the independence of the judiciary is further reinforced by the role of the Judicial Appointments Commission, the independent body that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales on merit, through fair and open competition.

The final element of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to discharge his duty to

“ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

Now, all of us who have served in the courts in recent years know that they have experienced considerable reduction in resource, as a result of necessary spending restraint by the Government of the time, but there is now an ambitious programme of court reform, which aims to bring new technology and modern ways of working to the way that justice is administered that involves the investment of £1 billion in the courts and tribunals system.

I take this opportunity to highlight the fact that, during the current coronavirus pandemic, the courts have risen to the challenge from the Lord Chancellor to ensure that justice could continue to operate. In particular, magistrates courts are responding magnificently. Consequently, disposals have outstripped receipts since the end of July. I also, unashamedly, highlight the initiative and imagination of staff at Aylesbury Crown court in my constituency, who have adapted their layout and ways of working, so that they can return to working at 100%.

Behind today’s debate seems to be a question whether the Lord Chancellor is in compliance with his oath. I have not been an MP long, but in my short time here I have met the Lord Chancellor on several occasions, questioned him in the Justice Committee and on the Floor of the House, and heard him speak from the Dispatch Box on all manner of topics. One thing is abundantly clear to me: the Lord Chancellor is a man of the highest integrity. He has spent his entire career in the law and respects the law to the core of his being. Indeed, at the ceremony to mark his swearing in, he said that he had sworn an oath to defend the independence of the judiciary and respect for the law that had far more than formal relevance. It is my firm conviction that he demonstrates his absolute and unwavering commitment to that oath day in, day out.

I said a few moments ago that I wanted to address the specific nature of today’s motion. In the few seconds that remain, I must recognise that it would seem odd were I not to say a few words about the Internal Market Bill, which, in many respects, prompted this debate. Clearly, that was a matter of profound importance for me, given the concerns that were raised about international law being broken.

Probably the first thing that I learned in my time on the Bench was that it is important to listen to both sides of the argument before reaching a decision, not jump to a verdict immediately after the prosecution has presented its case without hearing from the defence. I am grateful for the time that the Attorney General, in particular, spent talking to me about what was going on. I must say that the parliamentary lock that was achieved largely through the efforts of the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), combined with the knowledge that such a course of action would only ever be a last resort, provided me with necessary and sufficient resource.

The law is precious. It is both fragile and robust. Overseeing the rule of law is a profound responsibility marked by the weighty oath of the office of Lord Chancellor—an oath, I submit, that is fulfilled with distinction by the current holder of that great office of state.

10:34

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on securing this important debate.

I should say at the outset that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), I am not a lawyer, but as a journalist I have written a lot about international law, the making and breaking of international treaties, and EU law in particular, as Europe correspondent for The Times. I have also instructed a lot of lawyers. I spent perhaps tens of millions of pounds instructing lawyers on international legal disputes—some with foreign Governments—and I am proud to say that I have won every single case in which I have been involved. Dealing with all that is a painful experience, and I have quite a lot of experience.

I will make just two points because my comments have to be brief. I will start with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which prompted the debate, but I will not address all the points that the hon. and learned Lady made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury answered some of them. Secondly, I will address the impact that the Bill has on the UK’s standing, which we have not talked about much today, even though that was very much part of the political debate.

On the question whether clause 5 of the Bill breaks international law, I draw the attention of hon. Members to article 6(2) of the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement, which states:

“Having regard to Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom’s internal market, the Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom”.

The lawyers present will know that “best endeavours” is a legal term and a much stronger requirement than just doing one’s best to agree.

The Government included clause 5 as an explicit response to the threat from the EU’s negotiator, Michel Barnier, that the EU would not actually recognise the UK as a third country for agricultural produce, which would effectively have made it illegal for the UK to sell goods into the single market area, particularly Northern Ireland. That would have meant a ban on trade in agricultural produce from England and Scotland to Northern Ireland, which was unconscionable.

If the Government had immediately used the powers granted by clause 5, that would have been a breach of international law, but that is not what they did. There are three triggers for using those powers: first, if no deal is reached, which we do not yet know, although I certainly hope, as does the whole House, that one is reached; secondly, if there is no agreement of the Joint Committee on the border controls in Northern Ireland; and thirdly, after a vote in Parliament, if the EU breaches best endeavours and carries out its threat not to recognise the UK as a third country for agricultural produce.

If the EU did carry out that threat, I think it would be in breach of its treaty obligations, which would release the UK from its obligations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned. If we ever used those powers in those circumstances, in no way would they be a breach of international law. I am grateful that the Government recognised the importance of a parliamentary vote to ensure that that does not happen. I really do not think that the Bill is a breach of international law.

My second point is about the impact on the UK’s standing, which is what a lot of the political debate and concern have been about. I have written a lot about international law, and the UK has been one of the bastions of law abiding in the international community for centuries—certainly for decades—and is very well regarded by other countries.

One issue that I wrote about was the Maastricht treaty in 1992, which Sweden signed before holding a referendum on joining the euro. Sweden was committed by international treaty to joining the euro, but unfortunately, the people of Sweden said no in the referendum. Sweden said, “No, we are not going to join the euro,” and it is in permanent breach of its international treaty obligations, but that does not make Sweden a pariah state. One has to be grown up about these obligations.

I really do not think the Internal Market Bill breaches international law. I have taken advice from lots of legal friends about it, and they have reached the same conclusion. Even if it did break international law, it would not affect the UK’s international standing.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your brevity.

10:39

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as an associate tenant at Doughty Street chambers, a non-practising member of the Bar, and a visiting professor in practice in the department of law at the London School of Economics

Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, habeas corpus, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the system of common law—for centuries, the United Kingdom has led not only in the creation of the rule of law, but in spreading that around the world. That simple but revolutionary idea was born out of two others: first, that there should be no power beyond or above the law and, secondly, that the law applies equally to all people—women and men, rich and poor, black and white.

Today, it is too easy to assume these principles always existed; they did not. For many parts of the world, they still do not. Ask the people of the Congo, China, Russia or Venezuela how life is without the rule of law. It was won in this country only as a result of human ingenuity, struggle and tremendous sacrifice.

I am shocked to be standing here today debating the importance of the rule of law with a Conservative Government. I have never been shy about my disagreements with Tories, but this is an issue on which I have previously respected the party now in government. The rule of law used to be fundamental to capital “C” Conservative thinking. It was the basis for all that Tories once valued—the ownership of property, security, the right to personal liberty, the freedom to live in a society without anarchy, fairness in business, law and order. From Edmund Burke to Margaret Thatcher, and even up to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the rule of law has been just as valued on both sides of the House.

So bipartisan was the British devotion to this idea that we became the global home of the law. The UK has the second largest legal sector in the world, second only to the United States of America. It contributes £60 billion to the UK economy and is one of our strongest global exports. Businesses and individuals from all parts of the globe flocked to this country to write contracts in English law and settle disputes in our courts. They did that because they trusted us. Whichever party was in government, the rule of law would be respected. That is no longer the case.

There are previous political decisions that were made by Governments when the law was not entirely clear and when it was arguable either way whether an action was lawful. That is not what we are talking about today. Last month, a Cabinet Minister stood up in the House of Commons and stated openly that the Government will deliberately break the law. That did not force the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to resign. It was a decision plotted in No. 10 and supported by the whole Cabinet. Most shamefully, it was backed by the so-called Attorney General and the so-called Lord Chancellor. Both ignored the special obligations of their offices in order to keep the keys to them.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s comments were not an aberration. They were a statement of intent from a Government who appear to believe in lawlessness and disorder. The country will not forget the Government closing down Parliament unlawfully. The public will always remember the arrogance with which Dominic Cummings broke the law after months of national sacrifice—we will not forget the shamelessness and mendacity with which he explained away the breaking of a law that he helped to create.

Under this Government, the public are all thinking the same: one rule for us, another rule for them. One fool for us, and another for them. The law must be the same for everyone. If it is not, respect for the rule of law ends. That should be self-evident. It is a great shame that a principle this fundamental now has to be fought for once again.

It is not only the law that is to be targeted by this Government, but the lawyers and judges who spend their time dedicated to upholding it. When Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán rammed a law through Parliament undermining the independence of the country’s judiciary, we all condemned the regime’s shift towards authoritarianism. When the Polish Government passed a law to make it possible for judges to face disciplinary measures when they make rulings that the Government do not like, Labour and Conservative supporters were equally appalled. Brits from all political traditions should be just as outraged by the UK Government’s attack on judicial review, because it is from the same authoritarian playbook.

On 3 September, the Home Secretary said that deportations were being “frustrated by activist lawyers”. In saying this, she was not attacking activists, but inciting anger against immigration lawyers for representing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Words have consequences. On 7 September, a man with a large knife entered a London law firm and threatened to kill an immigration solicitor—cause and effect. The Law Society was forced to write to the Government to say:

“It must be ensured that no further lives are endangered as a result of her untruthful and deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. Put simply, this must stop now, before innocent lives are taken and other irreparable damage is done to those who work in this field.”

Who will stand for the law? Not the Prime Minister. At the Conservative party conference, he launched his own attack on “lefty lawyers”. This debate is not about partisan politics; it is about the future of our democracy. It is about the safety of our communities and the freedom that order can bring. Respect for the rule of law is for the benefit of every person in this country, whatever their political views. Without it, we descend into barbarism: the rule of the jungle, anarchy, lawlessness, disorder and mob rule. Attacks on the rule of law undermine the very basis of our civilisation. Enough is enough. This Conservative Government must remember their principles before they are lost for ever. As Margaret Thatcher once said:

“Being democratic is not enough, a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right. In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law”.

00:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to respond to a debate back here in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on securing the debate and thank her for her wide-ranging but tightly-argued important representations. I have 12 minutes to respond to her points, which were made quite properly at greater length, and I hope she will forgive me if I am unable to touch on every point she raised.

As its title indicates, this debate focuses on the Lord Chancellor’s oath and the rule of law. It is important to note a point that will not be lost on the people in this Chamber, but which bears emphasis: the role of the Lord Chancellor is different from that of the Law Officers who provide legal advice to the Government and assist them to find lawful and proper ways to achieve policy objectives. The Lord Chancellor does not provide legal advice to the Government of the day. His duties, while very important in their own right, are different.

The Lord Chancellor’s oath, as we have heard, was set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which preserved the principle of the “rule of law”, and as the hon. and learned Lady has already stated, it continues:

“I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible.”

As is immediately apparently, the Act does not define specifically the constitutional duty in respect of the rule of law. To say there are arguments might be overstating it, but there are certainly differences of emphasis about the scope and content. The 2014 report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which has been referred to, discussed this very issue of scope. Interestingly, it was Dominic Grieve who said in his evidence that the duty was

“currently considered to relate to his or her department, rather than an overarching guardianship role”.

However, as the hon. and learned Lady said, Lord Falconer took an entirely different view, and the Committee overruled and thought that it was wider.

The Cabinet manual is silent on this particular topic. It refers to the role of the Law Officers in

“helping ministers to act lawfully and in accordance with the rule of law”,

but it makes no mention of the Lord Chancellor’s duty in that respect.

One thing that is tolerably plain is that the role has evolved since the judicial roles fell away. As the report noted in paragraph 63, because of those changes,

“the roles of other individuals and institutions have taken on a greater importance in this respect.”

None of this is in any way to downplay the role of the Lord Chancellor, which remains very important, but that role has to be set in a wider context.

So, that is about the scope.

What about the content? The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the distinguished Chairman of the Justice Committee, have referred to Lord Tom Bingham’s magisterial work, “The rule of law”, in which he identified the core principle of the rule of law as being

“that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts.”

As the hon. and learned Lady said, Lord Bingham went on to outline eight principles; we have heard reference to the eighth today. It is also correct to say that other formulations exist; for example, Professor Lon Fuller wrote a distinguished treatise on the authority of law.

Even if lawyers debate its precise parameters, the expression “the rule of law” is generally accepted to include the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and upheld. It is important that we do not disappear down a rabbit hole on this. The expression is apt to include: one, equality before the law, which is the point that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) powerfully made; two, access to independent and impartial justice; and, three, a Government subject to the law, which is a point I will return to. These principles are indeed the bedrock of the freedoms and protections we enjoy in a modern and mature democracy. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is a lawyer, the right hon. Member for Tottenham is a lawyer, and so is the Chairman of the Justice Committee. I recognise that lawyers play an important role in upholding those principles. As we know in this Chamber, lawyers have a primary duty, indeed an overarching duty, to the court. Thereafter, they are obliged to fight their client’s corner without fear or favour, and that means doing their best within the law to defend their clients’ interests, and doing so whether or not they agree with the substance of the claim, or indeed the matter.

The Lord Chancellor made comments that particularly resonated with me in his Temple speech at the opening of the legal year earlier this very month. He said that

“it is wholly wrong for any professional to be threatened, harassed or worse, attacked simply for doing their job—we must call it out and deal with it. And make the point that those who attack people providing a professional service will be subject to that very same Rule of Law.”

I entirely agree with that.

Of course, the rule of law is not a purely British notion, although we might like to be proprietorial about it. Students of history will remember that the future President of the United States, John Adams, famously took on the role of defending British soldiers accused of the Boston massacre at the end of the 18th century. It was a deeply unpopular thing for him to do personally, but he was absolutely right to do it.

Let me turn now to the principles that I have rehearsed. The first is equality before the law. Let me take the opportunity to restate the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to our long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically, and that our international human rights obligations are fulfilled. This was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West as regards Northern Ireland. As the Lord Chancellor set out in his letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“The UK remains committed to the convention”—

that is, the European convention on human rights—

“and will continue to abide…by our obligations under it.”

After all, and I am sure that we all know this, it was a Scots Conservative lawyer, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who played a central role in the formulation of the first draft of the convention after the horrors of the second world war.

The important point that I want to make is that the convention contains a number of rights, not all of which I will restate here. One of them, of course, is article 14, which determines that

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

That matters, because it is relevant to article 6, which for lawyers is perhaps the pre-eminent article in the convention—I suppose that the right to life is quite important as well—and that is the right to a fair trial. Our courts must do justice and uphold the fairness of proceedings without discrimination. The Lord Chancellor himself is very conscious of that, and I pause to note that he has himself sat as a recorder of the Crown Court.

My second point—I will speed up—is about access to independent and impartial justice. An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of our constitution and democracy. Our judges are selected following a rigorous, independent, merits-based process, which is key to maintaining the quality, integrity and independence of the judiciary. Our constitution recognises that. A point that is sometimes lost is that judges of the High Court and above cannot be removed from office without an address passed by both Houses of Parliament. Judges are also largely immune from the risk of being sued or prosecuted for what they do in their capacity as a judge. They also benefit from immunity from being sued for defamation for the things they say about parties or witnesses in the course of hearing cases. They can and must dispense justice fearlessly, without fear or favour. They do that magnificently well, and we are extremely fortunate to have them. The protections exist for a good reason, and the Lord Chancellor jealously guards them.

The Government are subject to the law. In his speech earlier this month—the one at Temple Church at the opening of the legal year, to which I referred—the Lord Chancellor said:

“Sometimes a lawyer will find the argument they advance to be at odds with the Government of the day—but it frankly is a strength of our mature democracy underpinned by the Rule of Law that such debates can occur.”

Reform, which I accept that the right hon. Member for Tottenham takes issue with, is not, we would submit, automatically to be rejected. Many arrangements can benefit from a considered examination, and the Chair of the Select Committee made that point particularly powerfully. The independent—I stress the word “independent”—review of administrative law endeavours to look at that, but let me say this: the baby will not be thrown out with the bathwater. Judicial review is at the heart of the rule of law in this country. It allows citizens to challenge the Government and other public bodies. The Lord Chancellor is clear that the Government need to be challenged.

I listened to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West about the panel to which she referred, which had a former Supreme Court judge, Dominic Grieve, Lord Howard and others—including Jessica Simor, I think. Reference was made to ouster clauses, and I want to make the point that there is nothing in the relevant sections that seeks to ouster completely judicial review. Indeed, if a challenge were brought on the basis of procedural impropriety or all the other familiar grounds, those are not ousted. It is important to keep those concerns in proper context.

On the provision of resources, I know the Lord Chancellor is personally committed to supporting the courts through this pandemic. I mention that because it is part of his oath—adequate resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) was absolutely right. People seem not to have picked up this point, but the magistrates courts are doing an incredible job. Since the end of July, disposals have exceeded receipts, and that is to their great credit. We accept that it is much more difficult in the Crown court, but the boost that has gone into increasing the amount of technology in the system, and indeed the maintenance budget, is very welcome. It replicates a tripling of funding. We are making progress across all jurisdictions. The scale of the challenge is unprecedented, even if the current volume of cases is not, and it could be necessary to look to further creative solutions in the future.

I shall turn to UKIM in the minute that I have left available to me. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West is right: Catherine Barnard did say that the very existence of the Bill is a breach of duty of good faith. She said there is a strong argument to that effect, but, respectfully, there are strong arguments in all sorts of directions. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, that is not of itself dispositive.

Before turning to part 5 of the Bill, let me state in general terms that the Bill has been designed to offer businesses the certainty they need and to protect trade and jobs in every part of the UK. I do not accept for a moment that it undermines the devolved settlement, notwithstanding the powerful points that were made. When the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West mentioned Donald Dewar, I pause to recall that, yes, he is sometimes referred to as the “father of the nation”. However, I remember his son saying of his father, with great power, in a 2014 article in the Daily Record:

“If he was with us today, dad would be an eloquent and passionate campaigner for Scotland to keep her place within the union.”

I hope the hon. and learned Lady will forgive me for making that point. The key point about part 5 of the Bill was set out by the Government on 17 September. It would be used

“only in the case of, in our view, the EU being engaged in a material breach of its duties of good faith or other obligations, and thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of the Northern Ireland Protocol.”

Let me close by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West for securing this important debate. On a personal note, I am very pleased that the Lord Chancellor is in post. He has practised as a lawyer and served as a recorder, and he understands the law’s central role in a fair, free and ordered society. The rule of law matters, and the Lord Chancellor has an unshakeable commitment to uphold it.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Joanna Cherry, you have nine seconds.

00:05

[Joanna Cherry]

It has been a good debate, but I do not think there have been any answers to my pointed questions. What we need to remember is that it is not a question of growing up; it is a question of the weight of legal opinion. The weight of legal opinion on the Bill is clear.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I suspend the sitting for two minutes. I remind Members to leave via the entrance on the right-hand side.

00:05

Sitting suspended.

RAF Valley: Funding and Employment

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

11:03

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of funding and employment in RAF Valley.

Bora da—good morning. It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must declare an interest, as I am a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.

Anyone who wants to spend time in my beautiful constituency of Ynys Môn should know that there is an RAF base there. They might never have seen or even heard of it, but they will know it the first time one of the Hawk jets goes overhead. That is also a great way to spot a local because locals rarely look up when the planes fly over. They simply pause their chat for a few seconds and resume naturally when the noise has passed. Visitors, on the other hand, stand there with a shocked look that says, “What on earth was that?” My children hear the jets as they fly over our home near Valley, and I say to them, “It’s the sound of freedom.”

RAF Valley has long been a flying training station for the RAF and Royal Navy. It is the home of No. 4 Flying Training School, where No. 25 Squadron, under the command of Wing Commander Tim Simmons, and No. IV squadron, commanded by Wing Commander Jamie Buckle, provide advanced jet training for the next generation of RAF and Royal Navy fighter pilots. They train in the BAE Systems Hawk TT jet, which has advanced avionics and is the perfect leading trainer for pilots moving on to frontline aircraft, such as the Typhoon and the F-35 Lightning.

No. 72 Squadron, led by Wing Command Chris Ball, joined the base last year and carries out basic flying training in the Texan T1 aircraft. RAF Valley provides two thirds of the UK’s fast-jet training, delivering basic and advanced courses. The pilots trained at RAF Valley go on to secure the skies, protect UK airspace at home and defend UK interests overseas. The station is home to the UK military flying training system, one of NATO’s most advanced fighter pilot training programmes, and RAF Valley is an acknowledged centre of excellence. It is Britain’s equivalent of “Top Gun”.

RAF Valley is the base for the RAF mountain rescue service, which is expertly led by Squadron Leader Ed Slater. His team is on-call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to save lives and support the UK and local emergency services. Barely a day goes by in the summer without the Daily Post citing another daring rescue in Snowdonia—the kind of press coverage that my team can only dream of. The 202 Squadron is also based at RAF Valley, where, under the leadership of Squadron Leader Martin Jarvis, it teaches UK military helicopter crews highly skilled maritime and mountain flying techniques. There has been an RAF base there since world war two, when it was established as a fighter station to defend Merseyside, the industrial north and the Irish sea from enemy air and sea activity. From 1943, it was a major staging post for United States army air forces arriving from the United States to help the war effort. It has long been established as an operational training base.

Ynys Môn is rightly proud of its RAF heritage and RAF Valley is an integral part of its fabric. I declare a further interest, as my grandparents were in the RAF during world war two—indeed, it is where they met—so I have a real passion for the service, as I would not be here without it.

RAF Valley is more than just a military base. It is the second largest employer on Anglesey after the local authority. It has a Whole Force of about 1,500 personnel made up of approximately 350 military and civil servants and 1,150 industry partners.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. In the short time that she has been in the House, her industrious efforts on behalf of her constituents have been recognised by everyone, including me. I put that on record. She just referred to the numbers. Does she agree that the work carried out by the 1,500 RAF service personnel, civil servants and contractors shows that it is essential for the area—for not just the RAF station, but the community—and that the relationship between the RAF and the community is important? Does she also agree that the Minister should help her in his response?

[Virginia Crosbie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It is my privilege to support Ynys Môn. I agree that the RAF plays a significance role on the island.

Many other local people are reliant on work in the station’s supply chain, and many large companies support its output, such as BAE Systems, Babcock International, Ascent Flight Training, Affinity Flying Training Services, Airbus Helicopters and Eurest Support Services. From highly skilled engineers to kitchen staff and cleaners, every single one of them plays a key role at RAF Valley. It is a critical part of the island’s economy. Many children from the base go to local schools and learn Welsh, and staff and their families integrate within the community. Many return to live on the island when they leave the RAF.

The Whole Force team, led by Group Captain Chris Moon, intentionally develops close formal and informal local connections. Engagement activities include community council briefing days, working with Bangor University on history research projects and liaising with Wales armed forces covenant stakeholders. It has actively supported the local island games team which, we have just learned, has won its bid for the 40th anniversary of the International Island games to be held on Ynys Môn in 2025. RAF Valley organises safety campaigns, works closely with the local aviation society and provides personnel to support the local Royal National Lifeboat Institution, mountain rescue and first responder groups.

The rural outlying nature of Ynys Môn means that activities for young people on the island can be sparse. There are high levels of youth unemployment and school attainment is generally below average, particularly for boys. Seeing a clear gap in the market, RAF Valley operates extensive youth engagement programmes involving many local groups. Civilian and military personnel from the base, in particular June Strydhorst and Squadron Leader Graeme Muscat, are proud to support the Jon Egging Trust, with its inspirational and award-winning outreach programme for 14 to 16-year-olds. RAF Valley has hosted the under-16 and under-18 Welsh Rugby Union training camp and offers junior football and tennis camps in association with the Isle of Anglesey County Council.

With Bangor University, RAF Valley supports the Profi project, an experiential learning and mentoring programme aimed at 18 to 24-year-olds, and STEM Cymru projects. It also works closely with Careers Wales to support youth projects across north Wales and help young people to establish transferable skills and find employment. For local schoolchildren, the station hosts on-site STEM activities and school days, and is actively involved in the air cadets, girl guides and scouts. Many of the military personnel volunteer with local youth organisations while they are based at the camp.

Indeed, RAF Valley has an active station charities committee, and many charities across north Wales have benefited from funds raised by the station. Charity track days, aviation society spotters days and the Tour de Môn cycling event are just a taster. I cannot wait to stick on my white beard and face mask and join them on their Santa drop to Ysbyty Gwynedd this Christmas. From organising beach cleans to their thrift shop recycling project, to acting as custodians for a section of the famous Anglesey coastal path, RAF Valley is definitely part of day-to-day life on Ynys Môn. Indeed, the Padre —Mike Hall, who I met recently—told me that they even support entrepreneurs in their community centre.

I am fortunate that the RAF community embraced and welcomed me. I visited the station recently and was taken around by Group Captain Moon, who proudly showed off his station, and particularly his dedicated and devoted staff. He told me:

“Whilst the RAF might seem to be high tech equipment focused from the outside, it is our people, from across the Whole Force, that really give us our edge. Some of our people have worked here for over 40 years, and if you cut them open it would say RAF Valley on the inside!”

While there, I saw and spoke to members of the Whole Force carrying out a range of duties, and from the minute I arrived on station, the site’s “one-team” approach was clear. While visiting 72 Squadron, which played a key role in the battle of Britain, I met many of the military and civilian personnel of Ascent and Affinity. They are rightly proud of the heritage of their squadron. There was a real team atmosphere, and it was great to meet the dedicated workers of “Menai Cleaning”, proudly wearing their 72 Squadron name badges.

It was a privilege to have a go in one of the station’s state-of-the-art flight simulators. Although my flying was not perfect, I was told that it was similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I am thinking of giving them a “Top Gear”-style leader board to track the parliamentarians who visit.

Warrant Officer Nikkie Jones showed me around the air traffic control tower, where the professionalism and ability of the controllers was evident as they safely and efficiently directed all the Hawk, Texan and helicopter activities through the skies. Wing Commander Nikki Parr summed up the view of the team best when she said to me:

“In a career of over 28 years within the Royal Navy and the RAF, Valley is the best place I have ever served, with absolutely everyone pulling together to achieve our aim of getting Pilots to the Front Line; safely”.

Skilled jobs are obviously critical to the operational effectiveness of the base, and to the economy of Ynys Môn. Our island is over-reliant on tourism, which, as we have seen only too clearly this year, is a fickle mistress. We need good-quality, well-paid and reliable jobs for our young people to move into when they leave school. Too many are forced to leave the island to seek work elsewhere. RAF Valley, with its innovative technical partners, has provided a much-needed source of employment locally. The teams provide excellent opportunities, with high-quality training apprenticeships and long-term career progression possibilities. I will give a couple of examples.

Laurence Peers was raised in Holyhead and left school with no qualifications. He started working at RAF Valley in 2002, and today he is an experienced supervisor in the avionics and electrical trade. Indeed, it was Laurence who got me in and out of the flight simulator when I visited the station. Laurence said to me,

“please do all you can to keep giving the young people of this island the best chances in life if they wish to stay and live and make a reasonable living where they were brought up.”

John Patchett was posted to Valley in March 1984 and stressed that the Hawk team workforce has 40 years’ experience, and that the force needs to retain and build on that collateral. He told me that he and his colleagues chose to remain at Valley because

“it’s not only a workplace [or] a job to us, but a way of life. The island and nearby mainland is our home, or has become our home.”

His team wants to stay on the island and pass their skills on to new generations of young people who desperately need the kind of training and support that RAF Valley can give them.

Ian Blackie, who works on the T1 planes, told me that the RAF Valley team is absolutely critical to putting RAF and Royal Navy aircrew on to the frontline safely and on time. He said:

“To maintain these 45 year old fighter training jets requires a knowledgeable, highly skilled and dedicated workforce. This knowledge and skill set are developed over many years and are unique to the RAF Valley workforce, with both hands-on maintenance and technical support cells.”

I recognise and appreciate that the BAE Systems contract is currently under negotiation, and I in no way wish to interrupt those discussions. However, I wish to impress upon the Minister the importance of RAF Valley to Ynys Môn. RAF Valley is not “just an employer” but a team, a family; and like all great teams, it operates efficiently because every part of it performs its own role, and does it brilliantly. The people of Ynys Môn want RAF Valley to grow and flourish. We are the energy island, an incubation of innovation, a place for technological creativity. RAF Valley is part of our DNA.

This debate is not just about current jobs. It is about ensuring the long-term future of RAF Valley. It is about keeping RAF Valley as a centre of excellence for training pilots for both the RAF and Royal Navy. It is about retaining and encouraging investment in both the base and its workforce. It is about ensuring that RAF Valley has the most up-to-date equipment, the best planes and, of course, the exceptionally high calibre of technical staff that it has spent years developing. I ask the Minister to tell me not only how jobs will be maintained at RAF Valley but, more importantly, what jobs, apprenticeships and other opportunities he expects to be created for the next 20 years. I ask the Minister to acknowledge the importance of RAF Valley, and to give us his absolute assurance of the MOD’s recognition of Anglesey’s appreciation of the station.

Although I appreciate that negotiations are under way at this time, I want the Minister to acknowledge the significance of the RAF to Ynys Môn. The people in my constituency are rightly concerned about the implications of the negotiations and the timescales to which they are being conducted, so I ask the Minister to set out exactly where the negotiations stand at this time, and when those affected will know what is being decided. Finally, I want to look beyond 2025 and ask the Minister whether he will work with me and ministerial colleagues to get further operations to RAF Valley.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Have we been given notice of the hon. Gentleman’s wish to speak?

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

Mr Twigg, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) had communication from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). This was also cleared by my office. But I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman made it clear—he can speak for himself, of course.

[Wayne David]

Yes, I had submitted to speak, in fact.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I had not been given notice, but okay. My apologies, Mr David.

00:01

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Twigg.

Let me begin my short contribution by congratulating the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on so accurately and passionately presenting the case for RAF Valley. My particular interest in and concern with RAF Valley stem from the fact that last year I completed the armed forces parliamentary scheme and I was seconded to the RAF. Having completed the scheme and graduated, I am left with huge admiration for the RAF and the tremendous service that it provides to this country. As part of the scheme I visited RAF Valley, and as the hon. Member has suggested, I was struck by the tremendous commitment of the entire workforce there, but also by the huge contribution that RAF Valley makes to the wellbeing of the local economy. It is absolutely central to the future of Anglesey as a community. I was enormously impressed that there is a special focus, as we have heard, on pilot training. It is the centre for pilot training for the RAF and, to some extent, the Navy in the United Kingdom.

However, I have a concern, too. The concern is that 180 jobs could be cut from the essential Hawk contract at RAF Valley by 2033. The fear among the workforce stems from the contract negotiations, which I understand are taking place, between BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence for the T1 and T2 Hawk aircraft. For the T1 Hawk there is an active proposal, I understand, to move all the T1 depth maintenance to RAF Leeming by 2023. That move alone could accelerate the loss of between 50 and 70 jobs at Valley. It has been suggested by people who work there that that proposal makes no sense, either financially or from an operational perspective. I would like the Minister to comment specifically on that.

Unite, the trade union, suggests that the move is not only ill thought out. There has been a suggestion—no more than a suggestion—that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had some influence on the decision making that is taking place, because Leeming is part of his constituency, of course.

There is also concern that a further 100 jobs could be lost by 2033. That relates to the T2 Hawk. Therefore there could be, in total, a loss of 180 jobs. Of course, because the base is so central to the wellbeing of the island and the local economy, that would be a huge body blow to Anglesey. We know full well that the island has suffered a number of very difficult economic and job losses over the last few years, and this would be a further and significant body blow to the island. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, I am looking for reassurance and clarification from the Minister on the points that we have mentioned.

11:20

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Twigg. I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). I knew her before she arrived at this place. I thought she would be a brilliant advocate for her constituents and she has proved to be so, in the way that she has been tackling me directly about this vital base and vital employer in her constituency, and in securing the debate. She will be a redoubtable representative for Ynys Môn. I am also delighted to hear that she is a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with the RAF. I am sure that she will learn from them, and that that will be mutual. I wish her well with the course.

I am grateful, Mr Twigg, that you allowed the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to make a contribution. It was good to see him here. He is another alumnus of the scheme. There is great cross-party support for defence and what it means to Wales. It is incredibly important, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall come on to his points.

There are few better examples of the value of defence to a community than the situation at RAF Valley. My hon. Friend made some points about the station’s history, but I shall not dwell on that. I shall dwell on the present and future, as she would wish me to do. British pilots and jets are occupied day in, day out in the defence of our country, our interests and the free world. In the future, wherever those planes are taking off to protect our airspace or that of our NATO allies, taking part in critical combat missions or flying from the decks of our two deeply impressive new aircraft carriers, the people of Ynys Môn will know that those pilots trained and won their wings among them, on the island.

RAF Valley, as my hon. Friend mentioned, works as a team, harnessing the talents of its cadre of service personnel, civil servants and contractors to train the pilots of the future for both the Royal Navy and the RAF. A crucial aspect of generating that team is the strong working bonds with the local communities and employees and—critically, as my hon. Friend said—the employees of the future. I know that my hon. Friend and all who wish RAF Valley well want ongoing investment and the provision of state-of-the-art aircraft, to make manifest our commitment to the base’s future.

As a threat evolves, the training to meet the threat evolves, and the planes required for training evolve. We are committed to ensuring that RAF Valley is at the core of that evolution. The evidence already, at the base, is apparent. As a result of the decision to concentrate basic flying training at RAF Valley—moving assets, incidentally, from RAF Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire to the island—more focus and investment has been delivered into the base. The station has not only benefited from a sizeable part of the £3.5 billion set aside to deliver military flying training; we have recently also, specifically, spent £20 million on refurbishing the runway.

RAF Valley pilots are trained on the modern and sophisticated Texan and updated Hawk T2 aircraft. Those are a great leap forward from the platforms that they replace, with heads-up display that can accurately simulate weapon attacks and other threats, which ensure the maximum training benefit from every sortie. The Government committed, in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, to increase the number of fast jet squadrons and, thereby, pilots to fly them, all of whom will be trained at the expanded training system at RAF Valley, with more Texan aircraft coming on stream to deliver the training. All levels of fast jet training at RAF Valley are being complemented by advanced synthetic training that can accurately replicate the complex and detailed realistic scenarios that pilots need to train for.

It is not only fast jet training that has had that treatment. The lifesaving search and rescue training that also takes place at RAF Valley has also had a valuable boost, in the form of the new Jupiter helicopter. The overall result has been aircraft and facilities that are among the most advanced in the world. Through the hard work of its staff and the students themselves, RAF Valley is preparing to award Royal Navy and RAF wings to the first six pilots to graduate on the Texan next month. That is a fantastic achievement and a huge moment in a young pilot’s career, and it is the culmination of years of effort and preparation.

The impact of our investment in RAF Valley, on the ground, has been clear. Between 2017-18 and 2019-20 our industrial partners who undertake the critical roles of servicing the aircraft and running the training systems grew the number of their employees at the base from around 450 to just over 600, so nearly 150 additional personnel are being employed at RAF Valley to support the Texan and Jupiter aircraft. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, those new colleagues at the base, whom we welcome, are part of a total team of some 1,500, delivering for the base.

We recognise the importance of investing not only in infrastructure and the jobs of today, but in the skills of tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made that point very powerfully and she is absolutely right. At RAF Valley, we are proud of the work done on STEM training. Across Wales, some 90,000 students had access to the RAF’s first-rate STEM training programme last year. I know the value of investing in people in north Wales and how it can generate lasting loyalty and an inspiring workforce.

A Babcock-sponsored two-year apprentice programme, in partnership with Coleg Menai in Bangor, has run for four years, generating, to date, 29 apprentices who qualified in aeronautical engineering. I am proud to say that 28 of those are still working at RAF Valley. A further 19 apprentices, currently in training, will graduate in the next two years. Babcock is constantly alive to the need to recruit and retain talent at the base. Seven employees remain who were redeployed from RAF Linton-on-Ouse, and cash awards are paid to employees who successfully refer new colleagues.

Set against the context of that positive background of new assets who have moved to RAF Valley, of new roles created and skills training being delivered, I shall now address the understandable concerns that brought my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn to this debate, regarding the recent speculation around the future of Hawk T1 maintenance and what that might mean for those currently employed by one of our commercial partners, BAE Systems. As she is aware, Hawk T1s are no longer used operationally from RAF Valley. The remaining Hawk T1s used operationally are based at RAF Leeming, at the royal naval air squadron at Culdrose, and in Lincolnshire with the Red Arrows. While every capability is subject to the current integrated review, the Red Arrows T1s are expected to reach their out-of-service date in 2030 and the rest of the fleet in 2027, as set out in the strategic defence and security review 2015.

The RAF is currently undergoing a review of how best to deliver all aspects of servicing and maintenance for the Hawk T1s through to their OSDs. My officials are in discussions with BAE Systems and we are determining potential options for a Hawk 2020 support contract. I emphasise that, at this stage, no decisions have been taken. Any future decision will be based on a range of factors.

Making the right operational decision is critical. The RAF needs to ensure that its planes can be reliably serviced and are constantly available. That emphasises the vital importance of continuing to grow the skills base to provide the engineers that we need at RAF Valley and more widely. Naturally, we also need to consider value-for-money arguments, and we are also keenly focused on the UK Government’s commitment to levelling up the whole of the UK and supporting the Union. Discussions are ongoing and we will update the community as soon as any decisions are made. I re-emphasise that no decisions have, as yet, been made.

The personnel of RAF Valley have a deep commitment to working with and supporting the local community, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn touched on that. There are many examples of that close working relationship. I know that there is a strong team at RAF Valley, delivering for defence and also delivering many benefits to the local community. The bonds are very strong. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to set out the current situation and I thank all Members for their interest and the recognition of the vital need to continue to train our military jet pilots to the highest level of expertise and of the vital role played by RAF Valley. I had hoped to be able to give the hon. Lady a couple of minutes to reply, but I do not believe I can under the rules of the House. I apologise to her and thank her again for bringing the matter to this Chamber. As I say, the bonds around RAF Valley are very strong, as is our commitment to that vital and internationally highly regarded base.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Jet Zero Council

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Maria Miller in the Chair]

14:30

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I remind 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 respect the one-way system around the room. Members should only speak from the horseshoe and can only speak if they are on the call list. That also applies to this debate, for which we are fully subscribed. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups. I remind Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the next two speeches following their own once they have spoken to make sure we manage attendance in the room.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move

That his House has considered the work of the Jet Zero Council.

May I say what a huge pleasure it is to serve under what I understand is your first Westminster Hall debate, Mrs Miller? It is also great pleasure to have this debate responded to by my the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). I am particularly pleased to see him come on to the Front Bench, because it is the first parliamentary engagement that I have had with him. I know he will do us all proud and cares a lot about this issue. I am also grateful to Mr Speaker for allocating me this debate. London Luton airport is close to my constituency and is an important source of jobs for my constituents.

The UK has the third biggest global aviation network in the world, and we are a leading aerospace nation. Aviation contributes more than £52 billion a year to GDP and the sector directly contributes 230,000 jobs, which are largely high value and high skilled, in airframe development and manufacturing. All of that will be a continued requirement for the industry as it decarbonises. At the moment, however, as a result of the pandemic, there has been a massive reduction in the number of flights, but passenger numbers are expected to recover to 2019 levels by 2023-24 or possibly earlier, depending on the progress of scientific breakthroughs in dealing with the virus. Industry projections also show passenger numbers rising by 65% from 2018 levels to 2050. The UK also has a legally binding net zero target for 2050, and we need to reconcile that vitally important target with the projected increase in demand. Progress has already been made: between 2005 and 2016, Sustainable Aviation member airlines carried 26% more passengers and freight, with carbon dioxide emissions rising by 9%. That is still 9% too much, but it shows that improvements are possible.

Speaking to the International Gas Turbine Institute last September, the Prince of Wales said

“the need to decarbonise flight must remain at the top of the agenda”

and issued a challenge to do so by 2035. In February this year, Sustainable Aviation members made a public commitment to reach net UK aviation carbon emissions by 2050, becoming the first national aviation body anywhere in the world to make such a pledge. In June, the creation of the Jet Zero council was announced, with the objective of developing and industrialising zero-emission aviation and aerospace technologies. The first meeting was held in July. The council has an impressive membership of the great and the good of the aviation and aerospace sectors, and given its importance for aviation and aerospace employment, I think it would be sensible to have a worker representative on the council as well.

It could be said that the scale of the challenge is too big and that we should all fly less and that our aviation and aerospace sectors should contract. I disagree. Instead, we should harness our huge strength in aviation technology and engineering to find new solutions to allow us to fly without wrecking the planet. I want our constituents to carry on enjoying the pleasure and freedom of a sunny holiday, and I want UK exporters to find new markets for British business all around the world as they continue to fly on business travel.

But it is important that all that is done responsibly, so that we can fly with a clear conscience. That is why the work of the Jet Zero Council is so important, and why this debate matters so much. Not only do we need to turbocharge the science and technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, we also need to ensure that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of sustainable aviation so that the high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future are provided here. We cannot leave that to chance, as has unfortunately happened with other technologies in the past. Germany, France, Norway and Indonesia are already making progress in that direction.

Calor’s parent company, has already partnered with the Dutch airline KLM to build Europe’s first dedicated plant to produce sustainable aviation fuels in the Netherlands. A by-product of the plant will be low-carbon fuel for homes and businesses in the rural off-gas grid. Sustainable aviation fuels are a here-and-now solution using proven technologies that can be used in existing engines and transport pipelines, requiring no modifications to aircraft or refuelling infrastructure. At present, sustainable aviation fuels are the only option that can decarbonise long-haul flight, from which two-thirds of UK aviation CO₂ emissions currently arise. It is important to note that second-generation sustainable aviation fuels do not rely on feedstocks that should be used for other purposes. Current sustainable aviation fuel is developed from sustainable feedstocks, waste oils, fats, greases, industrial gases and—I am told—even municipal solid waste as well as agricultural and forestry residue.

The UK’s first commercial sustainable aviation fuel facility, Alt Alto in Immingham, received planning permission in June. It is the first of its kind in Europe and is a collaboration between Velocys, British Airways and Shell. Other UK facilities such as the LanzaJet project in Port Talbot are also under development—it seems to help to have a Californian or holiday-sounding name for these new sites. Sustainable aviation have asked for £429 million in Government-backed loan guarantees to support the establishment of the first flagship sustainable aviation fuel facilities in the UK. A grant of £50 million is being sought to move this work to higher technology-readiness levels, and to enable providers to move to commercial scale. A further £21 million is being sought to establish a UK clearing house to enable sustainable aviation fuel testing. By 2037, there could be 14 sustainable aviation fuel production facilities in the UK, which would create 13,600 jobs and add £1.9 billion to GDP when overseas export opportunities are included.

Alt Alto Immingham hopes to be producing fuel by 2025 and many of these jobs would be in our industrial heartlands, contributing to levelling up in areas such as south Wales, the north-west, Teesside, Humberside, St Fergus, Grangemouth and Southampton. There will also be a boost to the rural economy where feedstocks for facilities would be processed before final upgrading at an industrial plant. Electric and hydrogen technologies also have great potential to deliver zero emission short and medium haul flights.

The world’s first hydrogen-powered flight has taken place in God’s own county of Bedfordshire. As part of the HyFlyer, project, ZeroAvia commissioned at Cranfield University the first on-site hydrogen fuelling system capable of producing green hydrogen used to power zero-emission flight. In 2023 ZeroAvia will bring to market the first hydrogen-electric powertrain capable of flying aircraft with up to 19 seats in a certifiable configuration design for a range of airframes currently in use. It has the potential to generate significant new employment and investment in the aerospace sector. For example, easyJet, a major company at Luton airport, continues to work with Wright Electric on an all-electric 186-seat passenger jet, and only last month Airbus unveiled designs for hydrogen-powered aircraft that could be flying by 2035.

Technology improvements through fleet upgrades represent the largest long-term aviation decarbonisation solution in the sector. The Aerospace Technology Institute wishes to see funding doubled to £330 million a year to enable the UK to become a world leader in developing more efficient engines as well as hybrid electric and hydrogen aircraft. Every £1 of Government investment in aerospace research and development brings in another £12 in private research and development spending—pretty impressive leverage.

Airspace modernisation also has an important role to play in making use of aircraft performance capability and reducing emissions and noise. Today’s advanced aircraft still rely on old navigation technologies because the airspace structures they use were designed for the fewer slower aircraft flying in the 1950s. The new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge, and the national centre for propulsion and power that it will house, will ensure that the UK leads the development of zero-carbon flight and will play a central role in supporting FlyZero.

However, as I said earlier, the challenge from overseas is there. The German Government are already planning a large investment in a low emissions aviation research centre that will operate in direct competition with the new Whittle laboratory. The new laboratory will ensure that the new technologies are used across the industrial networks in Newcastle, Lincoln, Derby, Bristol, Glasgow and Lancashire as it partners with Rolls-Royce, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Siemens, Dyson and the Aviation Technology Institute. The new laboratory will co-locate with the aviation impact accelerator, the design of which is based on what Cambridge has learned from Dame Ann Dowling’s silent aircraft initiative. The residents of the villages of Kensworth, Studham and Whipsnade in my constituency will be particularly pleased to learn about that, because they are all under the flight path of London Luton airport.

The aviation impact accelerator will help speed up the delivery of new technology and scale up the infrastructure, investment and policy necessary for that. The new Whittle laboratory has already raised £23.5 million from its industrial partners, but it needs an additional £25 million from the Government to commence building in February next year. I hope that may be possible, because in the briefing in which the Secretary of State for Transport announced the formation of the Jet Zero Council, he said he was

“excited about a Cambridge University and Whittle labs project to accelerate technologies for zero-carbon flight”.

To speed up the council’s work, the Government should consider an airline scrappage schemes, with airlines encouraged to buy less polluting jets when available and take more polluting models out of service.

It is good to see hon. Members in the Room today. I look forward to their contributions and hope we have cross-party support for this important initiative.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

To ensure that all Members here and on the call list have the opportunity to speak, I advise people to take seven to eight minutes, if that is okay, so that we have enough time to move to wind-ups just before half-past three.

14:44

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mrs Miller; it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first of what will be many occasions in this now reactivated Chamber. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on successfully calling for this debate and on leading it with huge aplomb and great detail and knowledge of how important jet zero is to the United Kingdom.

It is worth putting the debate into context. At the moment, we face the crisis of the pandemic, with huge economic and employment crises coming quickly towards us. Just as in the second world war, when we laid down the foundations for huge education and health reforms, so too our current duty in Parliament is to think about the longer term and about how we can help to create an economic strategy that drives growth, jobs and innovation for a global Britain that can still play a major role in the world’s modern transport systems. That is precisely where jet zero comes into play. This is the nation that delivered the world’s first jet engine, and this is the nation that can deliver the fastest and best jet zero project. It is encouraging therefore that, on the one hand, the Government are committing funds to invest in the necessary research and development and that, on the other, industry and manufacturing are committing huge resource to doing the same.

As the Member of Parliament for Gloucester, where many years ago, Frank Whittle’s first jet engine limped down the Hucclecote runway for its first flight, I am delighted that just down the road at Gloucestershire airport, in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), huge work is going on between Electroflight—an entrepreneur and innovator-led company—and Rolls-Royce, to create the world’s first electric aviation engine. That project, which uses the acronym ACCEL—Accelerating the Electrification of Flight—is one step towards the goal that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire outlined.

It is an exciting project, but it is not just about Electroflight and Rolls-Royce. It also involves Airbus, which is the giant that effectively creates a network of mainframe contractors across the west of England—broadly, up the M5—and, when it comes to sub-contractors, across the whole country. The opportunities are therefore considerable, because Airbus stretches across the world. The project will impact all of us who have the privilege of serving as the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, particularly in Asia, where aviation will carry on growing, creating huge demand for all sorts of new aircraft.

New aircraft will probably be smaller compared with the previous tendency to buy larger aircraft. Of course, earlier this week, we effectively saw the end of the Boeing 747, which is the start of a trend in a different direction. The world expects to be able to travel, but also to be able to do so in a much greener way than in the past. For those of us who, like me, were airline managers in the ’80s, when it was unimaginable that anything other than carbon fuel would be used as the means to drive our aircraft, this is an especially exciting period.

What we all find exciting about this project is the way that industry is really excited to be working with the Government on an industrial strategy in which everybody’s aims are aligned. I am sure that the Minister will say more about the White Paper, which I believe will be published shortly and will lay out the Government’s ambitions for industrial strategy a few years since the creation of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I hope it will also set out how innovation and quality will drive us forward, and how our focus—whether in space, with satellites and launching pads, or on new engines, lighter ways of manufacturing aircraft, and all the things that make up the 35% of an Airbus that is made in the UK—has the full support of Government and, I hope, of Members of Parliament across the House, so that industry will know that in the aviation and aerospace sectors, the nation’s Government and representatives are fully behind its efforts to produce a newer, greener and more sustainable form of international transport.

14:50

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for securing this debate and for setting out the case for Jet Zero so eloquently. I can reassure him from the outset that there is very much cross-party support for this endeavour. However, I intend to set out a little bit of gentle challenge as well, because we need to ensure that we do everything we can at this point to support aviation.

Aviation was one of the first industries to be hit by this pandemic and I believe that it will be one of the last industries to recover from it, especially as measures such as quarantine remain in place and countries retain restrictions on visitors from the UK. The crisis continues to affect our aviation industry, and there are repercussions for the wider economy, too: the mass redundancies in airlines such as British Airways and easyJet are devastating for the employees and their families. Colleagues may be aware of the negative attention that was generated recently by what I regard as the rather insensitive comments of the Work and Pensions Secretary, when she suggested that cabin crew and pilots who lose their jobs can retrain as carers and teachers.

The consequences of the approach to the aviation sector’s crisis will be felt right across the economy, because aviation is a linchpin. It supports sectors such as tourism, it attracts inward investment across the country and it connects us to the rest of the world. Newcastle airport, which lies within my constituency, is an international and domestic transport hub, a strategic asset for our region, and it is central to our economic growth. Our airport supports manufacturing businesses, exports and higher education, attracting people to our world-class universities. So the Government need to understand the special status of the aviation industry and show much greater understanding of and support for it in the years ahead.

Treasury Ministers have repeatedly referred to a support package for aviation that has been provided, but I would say that the specific package that is needed has not been provided yet. Air bridges need to be arranged as soon as possible. There should be 12 months of business rate relief, which has already been given to airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These forms of support need to be provided to create a level playing field, so that we will all be able to “build back better” after this crisis.

The Minister today will also be aware of the growing concern in the travel industry and among travellers about testing being in place to replace quarantine measures. The current system relies on deterring people from travelling, and it is not effective as a public health measure because it does not do enough to pick up those people who have no choice but to travel and who may have covid-19.

I appreciate that Members may ask, “What’s this got to do with Jet Zero?” However, what we do now, in getting the right atmosphere and support package in place for aviation, is absolutely crucial to building the Jet Zero vision that we need for the future. I have to say that there does not seem to be that appreciation in Government yet that we need to keep the foundations that we have in our aviation industry in order to be in a position to build that greener, more sustainable aviation industry of the future. We need to create an investment environment so that people will invest in the future of aviation. It will take significant investment to create that green, sustainable future, but investors will not want to put that money into a distressed sector that has not been supported through this pandemic.

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation, I support the calls for investment in sustainable engines and fuel to make air travel cleaner and greener, to help the UK to meet its climate change targets, and to protect aviation jobs.

I strongly welcome the creation of the Jet Zero Council. It will be instrumental in connecting aerospace modernisation, sustainable fuels, technological developments, carbon offsetting and renewables in a coherent framework for delivery that Government and industry can support.

The Committee on Climate Change says that sustainable fuels are critical to cutting emissions from aviation, but at present the challenge seems to lie in international agreement on how to encourage their use. In a letter to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the chief technology officers of Boeing, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Safran, Dassault Aviation and Raytheon urged greater efforts to create,

“conditions under which sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) can be widely deployed”.

They warned that without broad agreement on tools and policies to encourage the use of green fuels, energy companies will not put up the trillions of dollars of capital investment required to meet the needs of the aviation industry.

I know that different approaches are already under consideration. For example, in August, the European Commission signalled it was considering an EU-wide requirement for a minimum amount of sustainable fuel on flights. However, we need to get to a place where even if different trading blocks have their own methods, we are driven by common targets so the pace of switching to sustainable fuels can be accelerated. Will the Minister respond to the concerns of the chief technology officers and work with our international partners to ensure that we do not miss out on these opportunities?

Decarbonisation of aviation will also rely heavily on market-based mechanisms in the short to medium term, so it is vital that these transitions run smoothly. Many aircraft operators that participate in the EU emissions trading scheme will also participate in the new UK emissions trading scheme. Will the Minister update us on how we will link those two schemes, as set out in the future relationship with the EU25?

I will touch on a couple of issues that relate specifically to jobs in the aviation sector. Sustainable aviation fuel is clearly required to meet our emissions targets and it will create many jobs. We need to ensure that that investment and those jobs go where they are needed most. I would argue that that is in the north-east. An airport scrappage scheme has also been promoted as reducing emissions and creating the quieter aviation that many people want to see in the future.

In addressing one of the immediate challenges we face, I return to the comments of the Work and Pensions Secretary. If we encourage everybody currently in the aviation sector to retrain as carers or teachers, we will lose the vital skills base that we need to build sustainable aviation, fuels and aircraft of the future. The current approach in the job support scheme, which provides only 67% of wages where those jobs cannot be undertaken, does not go far enough. Greater investment in retaining those skills and supporting those jobs now, as well as the jobs we will need in the future, is vital.

My final argument is that when we get things right on a cross-party basis and a governmental and business collaboration basis, a strong workers’ voice is always in there too. If we really want to make the Jet Zero Council work, we should have workers’ representation and the voice of workers, working with business and Government to maximise its potential.

14:58

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I echo the sentiments of my colleagues. It is great to be here at your first debate, Mrs Miller. It is also great to be with the Minister of Aviation, newly installed in the position. I congratulate him on that and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this very important debate.

I am keen to speak because tackling and stopping environmental destruction is the defining mission of our age. We have seen so much of it over the last 100 years, and we have to bring it to an end. That is why I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the environment. Clearly, one of the biggest environmental challenges is tackling climate change. As a country, we have adopted the legally binding target of net zero by 2050, and I strongly welcome that. A huge body of work is needed to achieve it.

In many areas, progress is already quite advanced. Electricity is now 40% renewable, largely from wind energy, which is an enormous achievement compared with what was expected 20 years ago. Electric cars are not quite commonplace, but they are becoming commonplace. The technology is well advanced and proven; they are fantastic cars to drive and we now have a Government target of abolishing the sale of internal combustion engines by 2040 and we are consulting on 2035, which I certainly support.

Aviation, however, is a conundrum, because it is a growing source of national emissions overall—now 8%, increased from 5% five years ago—yet it is a very difficult source of emissions to tackle. We are not quite there, as we are in other areas.

There are those who would say, “Well, we should stop flying. Fly less. Make it so expensive to fly that people cannot go on holidays.” I absolutely do not support that, for the reasons echoed by colleagues. Aviation is jobs. My constituency is near Luton airport and Stansted. It is incredibly important in terms of leisure and business that people carry on flying. The challenge is to make sure that flying can be carbon neutral and that is why I welcomed so strongly the launch of the Jet Zero Council earlier this year.

Tackling aviation is difficult because electric batteries are too heavy to fly in planes. They do not have enough energy density to be able to fly a plane across the Atlantic. Low-carbon fuels are here, but they are still at a fairly early stage of development. Aeroplanes also tend to be long-lasting—fleets last for 40 or 50 years. It is not like cars, which have quite a high turnover, so it is easier to introduce new electric cars.

However, there is a lot of innovation in this area, as previous speakers have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire spoke at length about the Whittle Laboratory, which is just on the edge of my constituency—it is just outside, so I cannot claim it is mine, but it is a fantastic laboratory. Imperial War Museum Duxford is also in South Cambridgeshire. It is known for its Battle of Britain aeroplanes and a Concorde, but it also has an AvTech—aviation technology sector—development, co-launched with Gonville and Caius College. The first company there is Faradair, an electric aviation company. It is developing a bioelectric hybrid aircraft, with the first flight aimed for 2023. It is aiming for an all-electric aircraft by 2030. It has a lot of energy and bright ideas and is definitely worth supporting.

Obviously, it is not only the UK that is doing this. Flight is of its nature international and the International Civil Aviation Organisation has been doing a lot of work trying to co-ordinate the industry. It has committed to a 2% annual increase in fuel efficiency. It has a global offsetting scheme—CORSIA—which starts in 2021. It is supporting sustainable aviation fuels and better air traffic management, which has been quite important for increasing the efficiency of aviation, as we have seen over the past five years or so.

Developments are definitely gathering pace. EasyJet is planning its first short-haul electric flights by 2030, which would be very impressive. Norway—I am half-Norwegian and am very proud of Norway—has the aim that all short-haul flights should be electric by 2040 and all electricity in Norway is renewable, so that would be completely carbon neutral, and it is investing in that.

With all these developments, there is a huge opportunity for the UK. We absolutely need to make it a national mission. If we are ahead of the curve, there are huge export opportunities as well.

On recommendations and policy, I would be interested, first, in including international aviation emissions in the 2050 target of net zero. Domestic aviation emissions are already in that target, but I understand the Government are thinking about the international emissions. That would be a good step, in order to put pressure on the sector and make it part of the national mission to become net zero.

Secondly, we should think about nature-based carbon offsets. Offsetting has a slightly bad name, because schemes are often not very robust. They can be made robust, however, and the Government should think about having a universal mandate on airlines, to give passengers an option for a robust offsetting of their flights. We could end up with lots more money for tree planting, which would be wonderful.

We need to do a lot more work to develop sustainable aviation fuels, as we have heard. There needs to be a whole regime to support the development and take-up of sustainable aviation fuels. For example, aviation duty is not taxed because it is cross-border and it has been impossible to get international agreement, so we have air passenger duty on flights taking off. We could think about moving to a system where air passenger duty reflected the efficiency of aeroplanes in the way that vehicle excise duty reflects the efficiency of cars. It may be too early to do that yet, but we could certainly move in that direction.

We will not get a UK-only solution on this. We should try to lead the world but we definitely need to work with other countries. We should absolutely work internationally and that should be a big part of what the Government are doing. This is a huge opportunity for the UK and we really must take advantage of it. We need a massive national commitment and the Jet Zero Council can lead the UK on this, and I commend the Government’s work on it.

15:05

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate and on the excellent speech he gave in opening it and the way he laid out the case so clearly.

I pay tribute to Sustainable Aviation, which is a coalition that brings together the aviation sector––airlines, manufacturers, airports––to work across the sector and move towards sustainable aviation and clean flight. It has done incredible work over a number of years to drive and focus the sector on the issue. It has been a delight to work with it in recent years in some of the roles that I have played in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned that the UK has led the world in innovation in aviation for over 100 years. I see another great opportunity before us as a country to once again take a lead, and lead the world in developing clean flight. I am delighted that the Prime Minister set out in his characteristic way a positive vision for the country to get behind and work towards having the first zero-emission transatlantic flight. It is a vision that I wholeheartedly get behind.

Aviation is crucial to today’s world for trade and the economy. We all know the huge challenges that the sector faces now, but we have to believe that that will be reversed and that we will once again have a growing, thriving aviation sector. We should use this moment as a great opportunity to make significant change that perhaps would have taken some time to develop but that, with some focus, could happen more quickly than it would otherwise have done. I believe that we will see that in many areas of our economy.

Moving towards clean flight can very much be part of that. As several hon. Members have highlighted, we are making progress. There are some great and exciting developments such as sustainable biofuels and electric and hydrogen-powered flight, all of which will help the sector become the clean way of getting around that we want it to be. I know that some people are sometimes cynical about this but there is no doubt of the Government’s commitment to get to net zero by 2050. We are leading the world as the only developed nation that has made that legal commitment. We should use this as an opportunity to take a lead globally and demonstrate to the world that clean flight is within the realms of possibility in the very near future.

I believe that the current attitude often shown towards flying––that it is the dirty way of getting around and we should all feel bad every time we get on a plane––can be changed. We can get to the point of zero-emission flight in the coming years. At that point, flight will become the chosen way to travel quickly and cleanly both around the UK and around the world. I genuinely believe that we can get to that point. Instead of being the dirty cousin of transport, flying will be the green choice, because we can fly cleanly and get places quickly. That is the ambitious aim that we should focus on working towards.

I know the Minister well and he will not be at all surprised that I want to raise my belief that our current challenges demand a response from the Government to ensure that we have everything in place to grasp this opportunity in the next five to 10 years. Our regional airports will be absolutely crucial, because the likelihood is that the first clean flights will be short-haul domestic flights. That is probably the first step, and if we do not have successful and operating regional airports across our country, we will not be able to make the most of the opportunity.

I am genuinely concerned that if we do not support the sector and our regional airports across the country, some of them will be lost and closed. The chances are, if they close as a result of the current crisis, there is every likelihood that they may never open again. Heathrow will be there, Gatwick will be there, Manchester and the other big airports will be there—they will get through this. It may be challenging, but they will get through this and will still be with us for many years to come, but our smaller regional airports—such as the one that I represent, Cornwall airport Newquay, and many others across the country—face a crisis now.

There is a risk that our smaller regional airports will be lost. If they are lost, the impact on the sector and on our ability to fulfil our ambitions for clean aviation will be greatly damaged. I say again to the Minister, who I know gets this, but through him we can get a message to the Treasury: we need to step up and provide more support for the sector and in particular for our regional airports, because they are struggling with the challenge of the current crisis. If we want them to be there, to survive and to thrive through this, they will need some more support. Please will the Minister take a message back to Government, in particular the Treasury, that if they are serious about fulfilling those ambitions, we need to do a bit more to help our regional airports?

To wind up, the only way that we will achieve our ambitions is by having a thriving aviation sector that has the funds to invest for the future. It will not happen if we do not have an aviation sector that is able to have confidence about the future and to invest in the future of aviation. Therefore, it is crucial at this time for the Government to stand behind the sector and to provide the support it needs, so that it can work with us to achieve our great and exciting ambitions for clean aviation.

15:13

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mrs Miller, and I thank the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his contribution and for setting the scene.

I have had so much email correspondence from different constituents about this that I took the opportunity to make a contribution which, obviously, will be on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aspect, but very much coming from Strangford as well, because I have numerous aerospace industries in my constituency. Therefore, if the Government take forward this strategy, which I hope they will, it will benefit my constituency and, indeed, many others. This matter is essential, and I am very thankful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and to put that on the record. I understand that this is his second debate in Westminster Hall. I missed his first one—I do not know how I did that, but there we are! I was not in the Chamber, so I was probably engaged elsewhere. As I said, however, I am pleased to see him, because we have a personal friendship and know each other. For the record, I have every confidence in him to take on the mantle for all of us here together, collectively, and ensure the delivery, so that we can all benefit across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I have been contacted by Sustainable Aviation. Members will know about that organisation and be aware of the background. They have provided a detailed briefing about the methods that Government could employ to obtain the target set by Jet Zero. They highlighted that between 2005 and 2016 Sustainable Aviation’s member airlines carried 26% more passengers and freight, but they only grew CO₂ emissions by 9%. That is a clear differential that has to be addressed. They have a methodology, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, that I hope he will adopt. That would complement what was said by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, who set the scene, and the other contributions that have been made from both sides of the Chamber.

The industry must be noted and celebrated. In a world where many appear to exist only to find fault—society seems, in many cases, to be like that—I wish to congratulate the industry for doing what it can to make sustainable changes. Let us give credit where credit is due for the direct and positive attitude it has adopted to try and make sure we can move in the correct direction.

Other Members have mentioned APD. The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to that and has had many discussions with Government about it, although maybe not with this Minister. To be fair, we did have a discussion and a Zoom meeting about a fortnight ago, and APD was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—I just recalled that now. APD is important for us, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) talked about it as well. Many regions of the United Kingdom can gain from it.

My friend, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), is keen on the idea of using hydrogen to tackle the issue. He hopes that companies can be equipped with the skills and the interests to provide an opportunity to develop that.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) mentioned issues about electric energy. I do not know much about that, but I read the papers with some eagerness and I regularly see stories about electric planes and electric flying. Many parts of the United Kingdom have the ability and the interest to develop that.

In February 2020, Sustainable Aviation members made a public commitment to reach net zero UK aviation carbon emissions by 2050. That is a challenging target, but if they have set it, they must think it is achievable. They are the first national aviation body anywhere in the world to make such a pledge. The decarbonisation road map, published alongside the pledge, sets out a plan to achieve that by working with Ministers. It is clearly a partnership, because that it how it works and that is how they will gain their way forward.

The plan wants to do four things: commercialise sustainable aviation fuels, SAF; invest in cleaner aircraft and engine technology, although it is a challenging time to do that because many planes are not being used and the investment needed is not there, although there is a methodology to do it; develop smarter flight operations; and develop high-quality carbon offsets and removals. Under the plan, the UK will be able accommodate 70% growth in passengers through to 2050. If we follow this plan, I believe that we can deliver what the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire asked us all to endorse and support, and take net emission levels from just over 30 million tonnes of CO₂ a year down to zero.

I and others speak out on behalf of the aviation sector not because of the jobs alone, but because, let us be honest, the best way for me to get to the House of Commons is to fly. I fly from Belfast City to Heathrow every Monday, or thereabouts, and go back on a Thursday. Air travel for me is a way of getting here. For some it is a necessity. It is a necessity for me and, I suspect, a number of those here in the Chamber, as well as others among the 650 Members. When it comes to business and to flying, I support it as I believe it is a way forward. As with anything in life, changes need funding. I understand that there is a request for £500 million of Government funding over the forthcoming comprehensive spending review period to support SAF commercialisation and research and development.

Figures are easy to look at, but when we think about them further then we realise how big they are. The breakdown provides further clarification, which deserves consideration. I am not disrespecting anybody, but it is not just another pledge. Some £429 million is requested in the form of Government-backed loan guarantees for first-of-a-kind SAF facilities, so they will be paid back. The loan guarantees will help establish the UK as a global leader in SAF. Kick-starting SAF production in the UK will fully support the establishment of the first flagship SAF facility in the UK to unlock the wider potential out there that we can all gain from. First-of-a-kind SAF facilities are very hard to finance. The reason why SA is looking for the loan guarantee is simple. Conventional bank debt is not available, or, if it is available, it is offered at a prohibitively high cost, so it simply does not work out. A Government loan guarantee scheme that is tailored to meet the needs of emerging SAF technologies, providing a proportion of the total capital required, would unlock private finance to fund the first commercial scale facilities. Some £50 million in grants is required to help SAF technology providers transition from lower TRLs 3-6 and to support providers at higher TRLs to move to commercial scale. The UK is presently losing out to other countries that provide greater support and grant funding. “Invest today for the return tomorrow” is what my mother would tell me. She made sure that I followed that principle from the early age of 16, as I suspect many others also did.

Fully exploiting the network of UK expertise will enable the UK to showcase cutting edge facilities, creating a network of flagship SAF production facilities and providing a clear path to commercialisation. Some £21 million is required as part of the £500 million that is talked about. It is £429 million in loan guarantees from the Government, £50 million in grants, and £21 million to establish a UK clearing house to enable SAF testing. That remains one of the major barriers to new fuel supply chains. Aviation fuels need rigorous testing to ensure that they meet the safety and quality standards for aviation, and the United Kingdom is home to some of the foremost experts in fuel testing and approval. Others have referred to the expertise that we have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I always say, and I will say it again: we are better together. That is the way it should be. Even my colleague and friend on the front row, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), would have to endorse that to make things happen, we do that better together. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could benefit from the proposals that we have. We all need to feel the warmth of prosperity at a time when lots of the news is not good. Indeed, it is sometimes quite distressing.

I will conclude with this. It is clear that this is the time for the Government to determine how serious we are to facilitate the conversion to jet zero. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to these and other proposals raised today by other hon. Members, by the shadow spokesperson for the Scottish National party, and by Labour Members as well. I have an industry in my constituency that I will support. I want to see it doing it well. I support Shorts/Bombardier, Magellan in Ballywalter and other companies in Crossgar and elsewhere. I support all my aero industries. I encourage the Government to put their money—if I can say this—where their mouth is and make the changes not only possible but probable for the sake of the industry and the future of our planet, because we have a duty to do that. Coming from an Orange background, I am not usually one for plying green strategies, but this is a green strategy that we can all support.

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

We now move on to the Front-Bench speeches. I ask Members to take about 10 or 11 minutes. I call Mr Alan Brown.

15:24

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate and leading it so admirably. I apologise in advance: I have a funny feeling I will repeat a lot of what he said, but that shows agreement. He hoped for cross-party support, and I think that will be the outcome of today’s debate.

The hon. Gentleman correctly set out how important aviation is overall to the UK in terms of the £52 billion it brings to the economy. At the same time, we have to recognise, and reconcile with that fact, the challenge of achieving net zero, despite an increase in demand going forward. Interestingly, that concurs with the findings of Climate Assembly UK, which recently reported. As citizens, they accept that there will be a continued increase in the use of aircraft, but there need to be changes, in terms of some of the solutions outlined today, in order to get the balance right and achieve net zero. I note that they do not think that there should be quite as big an increase in world aviation as is projected.

As the hon. Gentleman set out, we obviously need to find new solutions, with sustainable aviation fuels being integral to that—I will return to that issue. He also highlighted the hydrogen fuel system getting developed in his area—in Bedford. I wish that well. I also agree with his calls for additional Government investment, particularly the £25 million that he says is needed to get the Whittle laboratory under construction next year. It will be good to hear what the Minister says on that.

I also agree with the call for an airline scrappage scheme. That would obviously generate turnover of aircraft in order to get new cleaner, greener aircraft, and it could generate another spin-off—the work that would be involved in decommissioning the aircraft that were scrapped. The Prestwick aerospace cluster, which is adjacent to my constituency, is looking to move into that market, so if the Government helped to incentivise the market with an aircraft decommissioning or scrappage scheme, that would certainly be really welcome. I would also like to suggest a bit of worker rep on the council. I hope that that is something the Government could look at.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) gave us a wee bit of a history lesson on the original jet engine and spoke about the development of the electric jet engine. Obviously, we want to see that developed. Also mentioned was the importance, when a big company such as Airbus is involved, of a UK-wide supply chain and all the spin-off jobs that come from that. That is really important, and it is crucial that we remember that.

Next up was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She said of her comments that hon. Members might pose the question, “How does this relate to jet zero?” And I must admit that, initially during her contribution, I did wonder. But I accept the argument: we do have to sort out the here and now because there is an aviation crisis that needs to be resolved. She correctly highlighted the injustice that has been perpetrated by BA and similar redundancies from easyJet. Unfortunately, the Government response has not been robust enough. I would remind people in the Chamber to support the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the fire and rehire Bill, which would stop companies such as BA treating their employees like cattle, disposing of them and rehiring them on lower conditions.

I commend the hon. Lady’s work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation. I agree that there needs to be international collaboration on the use of sustainable aviation fuels, and it is important that we get jobs located where they are required and where currently local economies might be struggling. The proposals for where the sustainable aviation fuels may be located back that up. It would create much-needed jobs where they are actually required.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) also does good work, as chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group. He, too, highlighted the importance of the challenge that we have going forward on climate change. It was good to hear about the work being undertaken with Faradair in terms of hybrid and electric planes. Again, we hope that that leads the way, but he correctly highlighted Norway, which, yet again—it leads the way on so many things—has a commitment for short-haul flights to be fully electric by 2040. It is worth noting that Norway leads the way in relation to electric vehicles, the use of renewable energy in terms of hydro, and its sovereign wealth fund, created from its oil funds. We really need to look at Norway for lessons and copy it instead of just always talking about the UK being world leading. It is a fact that other people do this.

I agree with the suggestion about revisiting air passenger duty and reflecting the efficiency of aircraft emissions. I think the Government need to look at that. Another elephant in the room, it seems to me, is the fact that kerosene, which is used mainly for aviation, is still zero duty rated. That is unsustainable going forward for trying to incentivise the use of sustainable aviation fuels. We need to look at the tax system in the round to incentivise use of clean green fuels and generate an income for reinvestment in that sector.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), as always, stood up for regional airports, including his own. I add my voice to the call for the support of regional airports; that is vital. The hon. Gentleman made the good point that the initial short-haul flights will be between regional airports; we need to remember that. I do not quite share his belief in the Prime Minister’s vision, but hopefully I will be proved wrong and we will see that delivered in the future.

No debate would be complete without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaking at length about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and goading me about “better together”. It is great to see him back in his place, sticking up for the aerospace industry in his constituency and again highlighting the importance of sustainable aviation fuels and the ask of industry from the Government. It is good to hear how much faith the hon. Gentleman has in the Minister. Hopefully, the Minister will repay that faith in his summing up and confirm the money that the Government are going to invest.

Aviation, as we heard, is a vital sector for connectivity, outbound and inbound tourism, and even exports of goods. For those reasons, it is vital that the industry is supported. Tonight, I will be launching a petition on support for the travel industry, because the Government really need to step up to the mark there.

On a positive note, I welcome the setting up of the Jet Zero Council. We want to see the green recovery in general and the UK Government have an opportunity to lead the way in sustainable aviation. It is fine to be a world leader in terms of the legislation for 2050 net zero, but we need the corresponding action and investment to back that up. As others have said, the UK Government have missed out in the past in offshore and onshore wind, where there was not the drive or the vision in the Government investment to make the UK world leading in that. The manufacturing and other aspects went elsewhere. As such, we need to step up to the plate in terms of net zero aviation.

As for being world leading, the Scottish Government set net zero legislation before Westminster, with an earlier date of 2045 for net zero, and they are the first Government in the world to include international shipping and aviation within the net zero targets. They have also committed to decarbonising aviation by 2050. Can the Minister advise whether the UK Government will follow the SNP’s lead in Scotland and the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, which is to include international aviation emissions within their net zero targets?

The UK is hosting COP26 in Glasgow next year, which is a tremendous opportunity to lead the world in a number of initiatives and commitments. The UK Government’s “Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge” document stated:

“Internationally, we are committed to negotiating in ICAO for a long-term emissions reduction goal for international aviation that is consistent with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, ideally by ICAO’s 41st Assembly in 2022.”

Can the Minister advise what progress has been made regarding those negotiations and whether there are any commitments that can be included within the nationally determined contributions for COP26? That certainly would set a tremendous example.

As we have heard, one of the key aims of the Jet Zero Council is the delivery of sustainable aviation fuels plans. Again, that is a chance to be world leading, but action is needed fast, especially as we have heard that Norway has mandated airlines to reduce the amount of standard aviation fuel that they use. France and Germany are driving and leading sustainable aviation fuel collaboration, so the UK needs to move fast.

Other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for Strangford and for South West Bedfordshire, highlighted the need for the Government to provide the £500 million asked for, which would deliver the private investment to see sustainable aviation fuel plants up and running in the UK. In terms of the Government-backed loan guarantees, I suggest that if the Government can find £20 billion for Hinkley power station, and potentially another £40 billion for two more power stations, the £500 million over a period of five years is quite a small ask. I look forward to the Minister’s confirming that in his summing up.

When we look further, we have renewable transport fuel obligations to further incentivise the use of sustain- able aviation fuel. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire also touched on airspace modernisation. That in itself will facilitate a reduction in emissions, by allowing more efficient flightpaths, but the modernisation programme is currently at risk because it is being delivered by NATS, which relies on income from airlines. Reduced numbers of flights mean reduced income for NATS, and that puts the modernisation programme at risk. Direct support from Government is something else that the Minister needs to consider.

[Richard Graham]

On nuclear power, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the crucial things about the electrification of short-haul flights is that we will need more electricity? In that context it is important to replace our nuclear power stations, to generate that electricity.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I agree it is important. They need to be replaced because half the existing nuclear power stations will be phased out in the next four years. However, they do not need to be replaced by nuclear; they should be replaced by renewable energy, so I absolutely do not agree on that point.

We also heard about Airbus being a Jet Zero member, and how it is developing the ZEROe hydrogen aircraft. We look forward to hydrogen aircraft being up and running. I draw Members’ attention to a post-briefing note that highlights the fact that hydrogen emits twice as much water vapour as existing jet fuel. That is a potential issue, and perhaps the Jet Zero Council could look at that, in collaboration with the Government. The need for wider sector support from the Government, by doubling of Aerospace Technology Institute funding to £330 million a year, is also rightly identified. What assessments have the Government made of those asks?

There seems to be cross-party support for Jet Zero and the aim to get net zero aviation by 2050, but there are clear asks for the Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm those financial commitments that have been asked for around the tables.

3.36 pm

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. The fact that we had contributions from Members with constituencies as far afield as Strangford and St Austell and Newquay, taking in Gloucester, Newcastle upon Tyne North and South Cambridgeshire on the way, says an awful lot. Each Member stressed the importance of the sector to their constituency. I was on the board of London Luton airport a long time ago, when I was a councillor in Luton, and I appreciate the importance of the airport to the town and to Dunstable and the wider area. Of course, now I am a Bristol MP, and we have a vibrant aerospace sector—and we are home to Concorde, although I note that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) says that he has a Concorde as well. Technically ours is just over the border in Filton, but I think Bristol lays claim to those areas when it is in our interest to do so.

We all know how important the subject of the debate is and, particularly at such a difficult and challenging time for the sector, it is important to take a considered, nuanced approach to the issues that we are discussing. We might, if we had had the debate much earlier in the year, have been able to focus purely on decarbonisation and the need to make progress with that in the sector, but covid has, as with so many other things, turned everything in the aviation world on its head. There have, as we have heard, been unprecedented falls in demand for flights because of the pandemic. The sector has faced immense financial hardship and it is predicted that it will not fully get back to its feet until 2023 or 2024 —or, given the degree of uncertainty, who knows?

Now, therefore, the discussion of decarbonisation must also deal with how to save aviation jobs in the short term, ranging from those in manufacturing, technology and design to those in airports and airlines, and the supply chain. We should not forget the many small companies that also rely on the industry and need to be part of the shift. It is one thing to consult bigger companies as part of the Jet Zero Council, but for every big company at the forefront of innovation there will be many other small and medium-sized enterprises that rely very much on being taken along on the journey.

Labour has called for a sector-specific package for aviation, which will be conditional not just on the protection of jobs—including an end to firing and rehiring on inferior contracts—but on progress in meeting environmental targets. It is important that those two objectives should be intertwined. Some nations uncritically bailed out their aviation sectors because of the pandemic without considering the climate impacts, but other nations have been both ambitious in protecting their aviation sectors and sensitive to the need to decarbonise the sector. France, for example, provided more than €15 billion, much of it to Air France, conditional on a number of things. For example, France expects the airline to renew its fleet with more efficient aircraft; to source 2% of fuel from sustainable sources by 2025; to achieve a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide from domestic flights by the end of 2024; and to ensure that overall emissions from all flights are halved by 2030.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. I hope that we hear from him how the UK can follow France in taking such a lead, because this is too important an opportunity to miss, given that we need far more intervention and investment in the aviation sector—more of a lead from the Government—than we perhaps would in normal times. How can we maximise the opportunity to get the sector back on its feet and also accelerate the progress we all want to make towards net zero?

Intervention is desperately required, both to safeguard jobs and to allow us to become world leaders. Setting up the Jet Zero Council, bringing together all those top minds in the industry to discuss the issues, is a good start. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, it is a notable omission that there are no workplace representatives on the council. I hope the Minister will address that in his response, because this is very much about everyone involved in the sector, not only the companies behind it.

I confess that, when I first took on the role of shadow Minister for green transport, I was quite sceptical about some of the claims about sustainable aviation fuel being the way forward. There was lots of talk about sucking carbon out of the sky, but it was not really backed up by much science in the debates or the representations that I heard. In the six months that I have been in this job, and having had so many meetings with people, I have been on a steep learning curve, and I now think there is huge potential for us to make progress in developing sustainable aviation fuels. As well as speaking to sustainable aviation figures, I have spoken to Velocys, which is pioneering production in the UK; I think it has £500,000 funding for a centre in Immingham. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire talked about it trying to create sustainable aviation fuel from waste, which is a really interesting development.

I also met the Electric Aviation Group, which has a connection with Bristol and with companies such as Airbus. Unfortunately, it has not been invited to join the Jet Zero Council—I have just had a letter back from the Minister about this—but it is working on a hybrid electric aircraft for UK skies. It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that easyJet is also looking to develop an electric plane soon. The Electric Aviation Group says that, eventually, easyJet could probably fly hybrid planes to most destinations that it flies to in the future. It is obviously a bit more complicated for longer-haul flights. Hydrogen was mentioned by a number of Members, and the fact that Airbus, for example, is exploring it via its ZEROe concept. We obviously want to go down the path of clean, green hydrogen if we can, rather than blue hydrogen. I hope that the Jet Zero Council helps us move on to that path.

As I said, it is quite exciting how much has been done on sustainable aviation fuels. I think that a lot of progress will be made in the next few years. As other Members said, that in itself does not address the immediate issue, which is that—putting to one side covid and the fall in aviation emissions that we have had as a result of people just not flying—the trend of the last decade is aviation emissions either stagnating or increasing, whereas other sectors have been pretty successful in cutting emissions, such as the energy sector, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said. We are just not seeing that for aviation.

Aviation counted for 8% of UK emissions in 2019, according to the Committee on Climate Change. I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire on the need to include international aviation emissions in the UK’s net zero emissions legislation. Domestic aviation emissions have fallen to some extent, but those international emissions are not currently included in that legislation. I do not know whether the Minister will have something to say on that, because, as I understand it, the Government have said that they want to look at how we can include international aviation and shipping emissions in that target. That would act as a real incentive; rather than just focusing on emissions from domestic flights, which are a tiny minority of journeys, we must look at the international picture.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also talked about carbon offsetting and planting trees, and options such as those must all be included. We also need to consider the issue of aviation demand, once passenger numbers start to return to normal levels. The debates around airport expansions and attributing responsibility remain important conversations to have, particularly given the recent court ruling against Heathrow expansion.

An estimated 70% of all flights in Britain are taken by just 15% of adults, and I think the Treasury is due to consult on the potential for greening aviation taxation soon. We need to look at how aviation can achieve a sustainable level of demand and remain affordable for ordinary families. I am certainly not arguing that ordinary families should not have the right to fly, travel and go on holidays, but I would argue that we need to place more responsibility on the minority of frequent flyers. Perhaps covid has alerted people to the fact that they do not necessarily need to fly across the world for a business meeting—there are things such as Zoom now. The UK’s replacement for the EU’s emissions trading scheme may well be another opportunity to green aviation taxation appropriately, so I hope we see some ambition from the Government on that in the coming months.

To conclude, I urge the Government to balance things out: in the longer term, the Jet Zero Council is a very exciting proposition, but we know that it will not deliver the solutions that we need to deal with aviation emissions in the short term. Alternative fuels have a role to play but, given the crisis in aviation, what we need from the Government now is a coherent package that looks ahead to international leadership at COP, but also looks at how we can save jobs, reskill people who work in the aviation and aerospace sectors, and create those jobs of the future—saving the industry and saving the planet at the same time.

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, particularly on your first day in Westminster Hall. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this very important debate and giving colleagues across the House, after listening to his speech—which, if I may so, had great expertise and eloquence—the opportunity to discuss the crucial subject of tackling climate change. I also thank him for providing me with an opportunity to highlight how the United Kingdom is showing, and planning to show, bold and ambitious leadership in this area, including through the new Jet Zero Council. He has—

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. May I gently ask the Minister to address the Chair and not the hon. Member?

[Robert Courts]

I beg your pardon, Mrs Miller. It is only my second debate, so that is a schoolboy error at the beginning. I shall ensure that I address the Chair.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire is quite right to view this matter in a positive and forward-looking way. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) made the same point, and I agree entirely with that sentiment. Last year, the UK maintained its place at the vanguard of reducing carbon emissions and became, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) is right to point out, the first major economy in the world to set a 2050 net zero target.

It is critical that aviation plays its part in delivering the UK’s net zero ambitions. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay also pointed out that there is opportunity here. We are in the vanguard of the biggest step forward in British aviation since the post-war era, a step in which this incredible industry continues its global leadership in the fight against climate change. I will dwell at the outset on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He is quite right that succeeding in this challenge will benefit not only the planet, but the economy, because this would potentially give us a share of a market expected to be worth £4 trillion globally by 2050.

We already have a range of programmes supporting research and technology on zero-emission flight, including the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, which has £1.95 billion of public funding committed for 2013 to 2026, and the Future Flight Challenge of £125 million of public funding. These programmes have helped to deliver incredible progress in recent decades in the fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made an important point about the short-term steps that can be taken to help with sustainable aviation. Fuel efficiency in the short term for commercial aircraft is an important and significant first step in reducing carbon emissions.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is quite right to point out the steps that industry has taken. It is good to see him back in his place. I thank him for his kind comments. Although he missed yesterday’s debate, he will be glad to know that his hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned him in the debate, so he was here in spirit, if not in body. The Government will continue to look at the further support that we can provide to the ATI and, in turn, places such as the Whittle laboratory, which was mentioned, to support our zero-emission flight ambitions.

Several hon. Members mentioned airspace modern- isation, which is a key part of the overall picture, as is the case with airport emissions. Our airspace modernisation programme will allow aircraft to fly more direct routes, using performance-based navigation systems, and reduce the need for holding stacks. Several hon. Members have rightly mentioned sustainable aviation fuels, SAFs, which are a major part of the picture. We can achieve substantial greenhouse gas savings compared with fossil fuels, and these will play an important role in the transition to net zero.

We are looking to build a sustainable aviation fuel industry in the UK, reducing emissions further, securing green growth and supporting the jet zero agenda for post-covid-19 economic recovery. By 2040, this sector could generate between £0.7 billion and £1.7 billion per annum for the UK economy, with potentially half of that coming from the export of intellectual property and provision of engineering services. This industry could create between 5,000 and 11,000 green jobs, disproportionately in areas of regeneration. We are already supporting this sector through recent changes to the renewable transport fuels obligation and the capital funding that is available through the future fuels for flight and freight competition.

We now have the opportunity to further capture the economic and environmental benefits of this technology. We are working across Government and with stakeholders in industry, such as Sustainable Aviation, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, to build upon the existing package of support, to effectively scale up SAF production in the UK and to drive down its costs.

[Alan Brown]

What about the £500 million ask from the industry to get various plans up and running?

[Robert Courts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. We will be consulting with all stakeholders across industry to see what can be done. I cannot make that commitment at this stage, but I have heard what he has said and it will be taken forward.

To return to the subject of the debate, having talked about some of the short-term and medium-term steps that we are taking, let me turn to the Jet Zero Council in the medium to longer term. The UK will continue to deliver on the measures that I have mentioned, but that is not enough. Decarbonising aviation will not be straightforward, but I want us to stop viewing this as a challenge and instead view it, as many hon. Members have said, as an opportunity. Britain has always led the way on aviation and we will continue to do so. There is a huge prize in sight: developing the sector that meets the challenges of the future. We will be front and centre, capturing the first mover advantages.

In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport created the Jet Zero Council, a partnership between the aviation industry and Government to reduce aviation’s carbon footprint and put the sector on a path to net zero emissions by 2050. The Jet Zero Council brings together Ministers and CEO-level stakeholders from every part of the aviation sector. It is a technical, focused body. It can only have a finite membership, but I have heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Bristol East about the importance of workers. They are crucial to the success of our net zero ambitions, and we will make sure that we fully engage with their representatives as the work of the Jet Zero Council progresses.

The council will drive the ambitious development and delivery of new technologies and innovative ways to cut aviation emissions, utilising multiple perspectives and bold new thinking. That will include developing and industrialising clean aviation and aerospace technologies, establishing UK production facilities for sustainable aviation fuels, and implementing a co-ordinated approach to the policy and regulatory framework needed to deliver net zero aviation by 2050.

The council’s focus on clean aviation technologies has been echoed by the Prime Minister, who set out the Government’s ambition for the UK to demonstrate a zero emissions transatlantic flight. In July, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced the launch of the Aerospace Technology Institute’s FlyZero project. Funded by the Government, the 12-month project brings together experts from across the aviation and aerospace sectors to establish the opportunities in designing and building a commercially successful zero emissions aircraft. Last month, I saw the fruits of that work: a trial flight of a hydrogen electric aircraft made possible by £2.7 million of Government funding through the ATI’s HyFlyer project.

Things are currently incredibly difficult for the aviation sector, as we all understand and as a number of hon. Members have referred to. The unpredictable covid-19 infection rate makes it difficult to plan ahead, but the sector will recover, and when it does, we want it to come back better than ever before—more sustainable, cleaner, greener and even more ambitious. Covid-19 has meant that people have had to profoundly change the way they live, work and travel, and it is only right that aviation changes to become greener as we build back. I encourage all hon. Members to actively support the UK’s leading role in sustainable clean aviation. Our aviation industry and our economy depend on it.

15:56

[Andrew Selous]

I thank the Minister for his response and I thank hon. Members, from pretty much the whole of the United Kingdom, who have contributed. Three central points stand out. First, how do we get from here to there? We have to bear in mind everyone who works in aviation today who is having a really tough time. We do not want to lose those skills and we have to look after those people. Secondly, the urgency of the climate challenge, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) talked about, is pressing. Coronavirus cannot stop us recognising that. Thirdly, we have to keep the UK in a world-leading position, so that jobs and the high skill value are here in the UK.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s response. He talked about bold and ambitious leadership, keeping the UK front and centre, and keeping our first mover advantage—

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. I will have to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

[Andrew Selous]

I have finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the work of the Jet Zero Council.

00:04

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Capital Infrastructure Projects: Bristol

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

16:13

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for capital infrastructure projects in Bristol.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani.

The Mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, is very keen to promote what he calls the “One City” approach. It is not the job of one organisation or one individual to deliver what Bristol needs; it is for the whole city to come together. In that spirit, rather than taking up my allotted 15 minutes today, I will share it with my colleagues —my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). We are even being extremely generous and allowing someone from over the border in south Gloucestershire to contribute—the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) cannot take part in the debate, as she is a member of the shadow Cabinet, but she is with us in spirit.

Bristol is generally seen as a really buzzing, thriving city. We are always being listed as one of the top 10 places to visit or to live. We are a net contributor to UK GDP, we have the highest number of net start-ups outside London and, as of September last year, we had the highest employment rate of the UK core cities. However, as with any city, there are challenges too. There are inequalities in income and opportunities. There is poor transport infrastructure and a desperate need for new affordable housing.

It was revealed at the weekend that the biggest increase in house prices in the whole UK over the last decade was in Easton ward, which was in my constituency but is now in Bristol West. Prices there went up 120%, from £129,000 to £283,000. The neighbouring Whitehall ward was eighth in the country; prices had gone up 102%. These are fairly modest houses. We need to build far more housing, and more affordable housing. We also need to build on our economic success by regenerating neglected parts of the city. The biggest scheme is the regeneration of Temple quarter, around Brunel’s historic Temple Meads station. This would mean 22,000 new jobs, at least 10,000 new homes and an economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum. The Secretary of State wrote to the Mayor last month saying Temple quarter showed a lot of promise and had impressive private sector backing.

There are two shovel-ready elements of the scheme. The first is the regeneration of Temple quarter and St Philip’s Marsh district. A business case has already been submitted to the Department and to Homes England. Bristol is asking for funding of £100 million. Secondly, the University of Bristol’s new Temple quarter enterprise campus is an innovation hub with a focus on digital quantum technology, engineering and green growth. The university is asking for £150 million from the Government, which will leverage £650 million of investment from the university and its partners.

It is estimated that this development would bring an estimated £626 million into the regional economy over the next decade and act as a catalyst for a further £2 billion of development on adjacent sites. In the short to medium term, this obviously means jobs in construction and in the long term many more employment opportunities will arise. I know the Government are very keen to support shovel-ready projects. In this case, a contractor is on board, planning permissions have been secured and construction could start in January 2021 with the campus opening in 2023. Because of covid, without Government support the project will be delayed by at least three to five years.

The other Temple quarter projects are the upgrading and renewal of Temple Meads station to support a doubling of passenger numbers to 22 million per year, increased rail capacity and faster trains. The last major upgrade to Temple Meads station was in 1936, and I think anyone who regularly uses the station will not be surprised to hear that. It is not a station that befits a city of Bristol’s standing and size and it desperately needs work.

We also need investment in flood resilience infrastructure to help future proof our city against climate change, to protect our heritage tourism and cultural sites, and improve cycling and walking routes. It would also unlock land for up to 4,500 homes, protect 12,000 existing homes and businesses from flooding and add £6.2 billion to the local economy.

This may sound like just a long list of asks, but all we ask for today is that the Government seriously consider the case Bristol and the West of England Combined Authority have made when it comes to bids where we might compete against other cities and towns for existing pots of money or future allocations. We were disappointed to be turned down for the housing infrastructure fund for the A4-A37 Temple Meads to Keynsham strategic growth corridor, which runs through my constituency. We already have huge pressures on the A4 and surrounding roads, yet thousands more homes could be built in the vicinity in the next few years, partly in Bristol, but also over the border in the neighbouring local authority of Bath and North East Somerset. The pressure will come on the Bristol roads, however, as people travel into the city to work and for leisure and shopping. Those homes are desperately needed, but the city will grind to a halt if we do not also invest in public transport. We also need to look at the pressure on schools, GPs and other local services.

I hope that if a successor to the housing infrastructure fund is announced in the spending review, any submission from Bristol will be looked on favourably. We hope too that the Department and Homes England will consider the business case for Temple quarter. We know that as a city we can deliver, but we need help to do so.

Before I hand over to my colleagues, I have three questions for the Minister. First, how will the Government support Bristol in seeking integrated investment to unlock its strategic development sites, including the shovel-ready projects in Temple quarter? Secondly, my colleagues will talk about transport issues in more detail, some of which concern the Department for Transport, but other Government Departments are involved too. Given the different funding streams and the role of different Departments, how can the Minister ensure that the strategic value of each of Temple quarter’s interconnected projects are realised and supported? Finally, will the Minister agree to visit Bristol or attend one of our forthcoming “One City” partnership meetings to hear how we are trying to lead the city out of a potential recession and how to support these key capital projects?

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Before I ask other Members to respond, I alert Members that this debate will not go beyond 4.43 pm.

16:20

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ghani, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing the debate. We love our city, and we are proud to represent it. As well as generating wealth and opportunity for our constituents, Bristol is the driver of the economy of the wider west of England and, indeed, that of the south-west of England. The debate has a far-reaching effect for the Government. For too long, however, parts of Bristol have been overlooked in wealth distribution and infrastructure development, meaning that the inequalities across the city continue to blight many communities, including some of mine in Bristol South. Today, I draw the Minister’s attention to some of the shovel-ready projects that will go some way towards levelling up opportunities for my constituents.

The first amongst those is Hengrove Park, Bristol’s largest housing development site set to deliver around 1,400 homes. It is a 25-hectare public park with a potential for around 6,000 new jobs. Long envisaged as a critical part of rebalancing the city’s economy, key parts of the plan are already in place: South Bristol Community Hospital, funded by the last Labour Government after 60 years of local campaigning; South Bristol Skills Academy, the only college in Bristol South; and the site of a soon-to-be-completed advanced construction centre. We will have a ready-made source of cutting-edge skills to help rebuild our economy and retrain people for the future, while offering quality apprenticeships to local people. But we need the final part of the jigsaw: the houses and supporting infrastructure to breathe new life into the project. Will the Minister support the council’s request for £35 million investment for the enabling infrastructure, and demonstrate to the people of Bristol South that they are included when the Government talk about levelling up opportunities across the country?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, transport is key to the city’s economic recovery. In a city historically hampered by poor transport links and a somewhat ageing road network, it is right that our city leaders are seeking to scope out an ambitious vision to deliver an innovative and low-carbon transport system for the city region. In the immediate term, I draw the Minister’s attention to the long-awaited and much-delayed reopening of the Portishead line, which runs through my Bristol South constituency and will massively ease congestion and support development around the Ashton Gate area. The project has been in incubation for long decades. North Somerset Council completed a submission of the development consent order that was accepted by the planning inspectorate to proceed to examination last December. At such a critical time, this is low-hanging infrastructure fruit for the Minister. It will create jobs and opportunities, and if there is a rationale to wait another year then perhaps he will write to let us know why. Otherwise, I implore him to talk to his colleagues and hurry up. We are desperate for that to happen.

I echo my hon. Friend’s comments in support of the city’s largest infrastructure project at Temple quarter. Located partly in my constituency, it is of vital importance to the city’s economic recovery and will offer significant jobs and training opportunities locally, as well as helping improve the city’s connectivity. I draw the Minister’s attention alongside that to the electrification of the railway from Bristol Temple Meads to Weston-super-Mare. It has been agreed by the Department, but has been paused. Bizarrely, any train running along that line is currently forced to switch off its electricity when it hits Bristol and to turn to diesel, because the electric line ends there. That means that my constituents in Totterdown are forced to suffer the pollution of diesel fumes as the train chugs down to Weston-super-Mare and beyond. This is another freebie for the Government wanting shovel-ready projects that will offer jobs while reducing carbon emissions. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts and, of course, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East, to welcoming him to Bristol South so that he can see the opportunities for himself.

16:23

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for calling this debate and for kindly allowing me to contribute today. Although I am the Member for Kingswood in south Gloucestershire, I wanted to voice my support for the capital projects she mentions. We may represent different political parties, but I believe we represent a common goal which is to enrich the Bristol region and to increase investment in it. In particular, I wanted to express my support for the Temple quarter district proposals and for the University of Bristol’s Temple quarter enterprise campus. As a former universities Minister, I have seen first-hand the layout of the proposals, and as someone who started out his career teaching at the University of Bristol, I know that it will benefit not only the city but the whole of the Bristol and south Gloucestershire region. The Temple quarter development not only can regenerate an area of Bristol, realising its full potential, but can unlock the potential for future investment in innovation for the whole region. It is an important bid, and several are being considered as part of the Government’s determination to level up the regions.

I am sure the Minister is aware of the future high street fund bid to transform Kingswood High Street. Although Kingswood is in south Gloucestershire, that project would also benefit east Bristol, as Two Mile Hill joins my constituency with that of the hon. Member for Bristol East. The point I am trying to make is that we will all benefit from major projects that can transform the region, which is why this proposal is also backed by the West of England Mayor, Tim Bowles, who has already made significant investment through the West of England Combined Authority in these projects, including £55 million for the Temple quarter enterprise zone and £16 million for the university campus. However, as other Members have already said, we need investment from central Government to realise these exciting projects.

In addition, as has been mentioned, this development will see desperately needed investment in Bristol Temple Meads station, which I believe could lead in turn to a transport revolution for the Bristol region that will benefit all surrounding regions, particularly if the MetroWest phases 1 and 2 are realised. That would allow people to travel from the Severn Beach line through to Bath via Temple Meads without changing trains. The proposed additional housing that was mentioned—I think it would be around Hengrove—would also be extremely welcome, because it would help to protect surrounding green-belt land for the region.

In conclusion, although I am a proud south Gloucestershire MP, I am also a proud Bristolian who wants a visionary future for our city and our region, and the landmark projects that have been mentioned today will go a long way to delivering that future.

16:26

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is a learned and veteran MP, for securing this important debate today. We have already heard the cross-party support for the shovel-ready projects in Bristol: the Temple quarter project, Bristol Temple Meads and the University of Bristol campus. We have also heard the rationale for that development—that it would not only contribute to the local area but to the regional and national economy.

In north Bristol in 2018, we concluded our north Bristol transport plan, when my constituents and I, and stakeholder groups, prioritised investment to deal with commuter traffic. We know that the Greater Bristol region is growing at speed. We also know from the Minister’s Department’s algorithm that the number of houses being built in the south Gloucestershire area is due to increase significantly, and with that will come more commuter traffic, on top of the problems that we already have in that regard.

That is why the mass transit system that connects with the Temple Meads development project is so important, because if we are to get the benefit of the full economic opportunities from these developments in the city and from the attractiveness of our city region to many around the country, people need to be able to move around easily to grow those economic opportunities.

The last thing that I will say to the Minister is that we know, of course, that 30% of carbon emissions in the west of England come from transport. We have been talking about these issues for a very long time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) mentioned, the Portishead line was first debated when I was in primary school. I would quite like the projects that we are discussing today to be completed more quickly than that.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response today. I hope that he will consider the Mayor of Bristol’s “One City” plan, which I think provides national leadership about the way that we can work across stakeholders, parties and our regions to get the best for our country. I also hope that the investment that we have called for today will come forward, either in the comprehensive spending review or in the later Budget.

16:28

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this short but important debate. It seems to me that she has set up shop in Westminster Hall this afternoon. But in all seriousness, the debate that she has led is an important one. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the honoured interloper, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), on their contributions.

Let me begin on a very positive note, which is that I certainly enjoyed my visit to Bristol earlier this year, just before the covid emergency caused us to have lockdown. The rain did not alter the fact that it is clearly a buzzing and thriving city, as the hon. Member for Bristol East described it, and I shall be very happy to visit it again when circumstances allow, to see the work that she, her colleagues and other leaders from the city and the combined authority are undertaking.

As we lay the foundations for our recovery from the covid emergency, the Government are determined to invest in communities such as those in Bristol and across the western gateway, so that we can get them back on their feet and fulfilling their potential. I am heartened by what I have heard about the collaborative work being done across the community and across the city, between leaders and partners, to realise their vision for sustainability, activity and inclusive growth. It is right that we look to build on that momentum together and support our regions in this levelling-up opportunity, and that will be the focus of the upcoming spending review.

I understand that city leaders and the metro Mayor are working together across sectors in response to the pandemic to support the region’s journey to recovery. The Government are also committed to playing their part in providing immediate financial stimulus and capital infrastructure investment. The getting building fund is just one recent example of that commitment to job creation and the green recovery, accelerating shovel-ready projects in local areas. It is a £900 million fund targeted at places facing the greatest economic challenges as a result of the pandemic. We announced more than 300 successful projects in August, which were agreed with mayors and local enterprise partnerships to boost economies and local growth.

The west of England received £13.7 million in funding for seven projects through the getting building fund, and the seven projects are expected to directly create 1,144 jobs. In addition, the west of England has secured £202 million from the local growth fund, which has helped to fund a number of important projects in the city of Bristol, including £6 million for the Bristol Beacon, to transform that iconic music venue; £4.7 million for the city of Bristol’s Advanced Construction Skills Centre; and more than £7 million for the MetroWest phase 1, which was referenced by several colleagues earlier—a project that will see the reopening of the Portishead line and the introduction of half-hourly services on the Severn Beach line, significantly improving rail connections to and around Bristol.

The region has seen a further investment through an £80 million transforming cities fund and £6 million of funding to create an enterprise zone in the centre of Bristol, where small, innovative businesses can prosper. I make this commitment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor: we will look carefully and considerately at all sensible projects that are brought forward. I will not make specific commitments on his behalf, but we are keen to ensure that, through the spending review and through other avenues, buzzing and thriving cities such as Bristol are supported. I encourage colleagues across the House and in local government to submit their thoughts and ideas for the spending review.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I got the impression the Minister was concluding, but maybe I am wrong and there is a lot more to come. It is important to stress that, although Bristol is a successful, buzzing, thriving city, there are inequalities, as we saw with the recent Black Lives Matter protest, and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) has the lowest staying-on rates in education and higher education in the country. Bristol is very much a city where there are inequalities and a need to level up.

[Christopher Pincher]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I will say a little more about the single housing infrastructure fund in a moment. She will know, of course, that a few weeks ago we announced our next iteration of the affordable housing programme with £12.3 billion of investment in affordable homes, the majority of which will be for discounted rents.

To address a point the hon. Member for Bristol South made about the Planning Inspectorate, I cannot comment on specific matters before it, but I am always keen to talk to colleagues there to ensure that the inspectorate is working at pace to quickly yet judiciously work its way through the applications and cases before it. Of course, it has the challenge of the covid backlog to deal with, but I know that people are working very hard in that regard.

The Government’s continued commitment to levelling up also means building the homes that this country needs, and I am glad to hear that Bristol has ambitious plans for house building. We remain committed to driving up supply in areas that really need it. I have mentioned the affordable homes programme, which we believe will support 180,000 new affordable homes for ownership and rent over the next four years in the percentages that I described.

We have also supplied an additional £450 million to boost the home building fund to help small developers—small and medium-sized enterprises are crucial in our recovery—to access finance for new housing developments. As the hon. Member for Bristol East will know, we have radical plans to reform our planning system to make it more democratic, transparent and speedy.

[Darren Jones]

Will the Minister set out how his Department works with the Department for Transport when allocating funds for significant housebuilding to ensure that transport infrastructure is funded alongside that? I and many of my constituents welcome the investment in housing—not just in Bristol, but in south Gloucestershire—but the commuter traffic problem is of great concern. The mass transit system, for example—the development of Bristol Temple Meads and the extension of the rail network—seems like an obvious investment that should go alongside housebuilding.

[Christopher Pincher]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the MetroBus system is already up and running, and there are plans to extend it further. As for his specific question, we work closely with other Departments on supra-regional issues—let us call them that. We also have the single housing infrastructure fund, which is an ambitious fund to ensure that we can provide the infrastructure required to unlock the housing that is needed by his community and others—I will say a little more about that in a moment. It is essential that we have the right infrastructure—the roads, schools and GP surgeries—and it is right that that is put in place before people move in. That is one objective of our new planning proposals and of the infrastructure levy that we will put in place alongside the single housing infrastructure fund to ensure that the right infrastructure is put in place at the right time.

In the short time remaining, I will say a few words about green recovery. Tackling climate change is also a priority for the Government. Last year, the United Kingdom became the first country in the world to put into law the ambition to wipe out our contribution to climate change by 2050. I am glad to hear from colleagues —either directly or outside the Chambers—that there are projects for sustainable energy infrastructure in and around Bristol, and I will keep my eye on them.

Investment is only part of the picture, however. If we are to secure a rapid recovery from the pandemic, as well as deliver on our levelling-up agenda, we will need a comprehensive place-based strategy with central Government and local government working in lockstep with businesses to target the specific challenges and opportunities that our communities face. The devolution and local recovery White Paper will be published by the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government, who represents Thornbury and Yate and who will set out plans with cities such as Bristol, and their surrounding areas, at the heart of that vision.

I also want to mention the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund. I appreciate that local leaders want to be on a secure financial footing so that they can continue to drive innovation and invest in local infrastructure, and that includes the certainty of replacement of EU structural funds. The 2019 manifesto committed to creating a shared prosperity fund, which binds the whole United Kingdom, to tackle inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations. The Government will create a fund that is easier for local areas to access and will further support places to recover from the effects of covid-19.

We recognise the key role of local partners in EU structural funds, and we will continue to work closely with interested parties across the United Kingdom on the design of the new fund, taking into consideration what has worked in the past and how we can best deliver on domestic priorities. Final decisions about the fund will take place after the spending review. I look forward to further opportunities in this Chamber, or near to it, to further update the House and colleagues.

[Karin Smyth]

I appreciate the opportunity of yet another fund, but I gently say to the Minister that we have been talking today about projects that are ready and have been in the pipeline for a long time. We have gone through lots and lots of processes. We are all of one mind, and we would like the Government to talk across Departments, do a bit of joined-up thinking and focus, recognising how ready and willing we are to just get on with it.

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful for that prompt from the hon. Lady. I recognise the value engendered in the Temple quarter regeneration programme. All propositions that are put forward have to be considered carefully on their merits. There are some tight business case requirements to meet. If they are not met—as with the last housing infrastructure fund bid, unfortunately for the proponents—I would encourage people not to lose heart, but to redouble their efforts and submit again. Our ambitious fund is designed to help communities that need support, and we are determined to give that to them.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for leading the debate, and I congratulate all Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood on his contribution in support of the Temple quarter. I look forward to looking closely at the propositions that have been made, and to debating them robustly, if necessary, across the Chamber in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (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 am suspending the House for two minutes.

00:02

Sitting suspended.

Productivity: Rural Areas

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

16:45

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered productivity in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I understand this is your first outing in the Chair and it feels like a lifetime ago since I led a debate in this place, so I hope this will not be our last outing together.

I begin by posing a question to the House and to the Minister. It is abundantly clear that more people are considering living and working in rural and coastal communities. Many are choosing a better life balance, weighing up where they want to raise their children and taking advantage of some improved broadband connectivity —and covid has increased that trend. As the trend accelerates, this is my question to the House: is the countryside ready for that change? I have considered the question a lot and I think it could be, but addressing the productivity gap is vital in ensuring that rural communities are safeguarded as we go about those changes.

Cornwall is recognised as having the lowest productivity rate in the UK. According to Office for National Statistics figures released in February 2019, it was 32% below the national average. I know there are colleagues here today who have similar challenges in their areas. We should be very clear that the rural productivity gap is in no way the fault of hard-working people in all our communities, but the result of a combination of geographical and historical factors. I am committed to addressing that long-standing injustice; I know my friends in the House will be as well.

First, it is worth examining some of the reasons the productivity gap exists and what we can do to address it. In terms of local government and national Government, local government officers and UK civil servants are bound to a funding formula for infrastructure projects that means they have to seek best value for money. That has led to money being funnelled into already affluent areas, and, on paper, they see a greater return on that investment. However, that compounds and further widens the productivity gap we are here to discuss today. The first step on the road to levelling up the United Kingdom would be to change that model, recognise the potential value of investment for a specific area and establish how much improved value there would be over the baseline. For example, to get a 1% improvement in London’s economy, we would have to invest tens of billions of pounds, but a 1% investment in the Cornish economy would exponentially increase productivity in the area. So, £1 million invested in Cornwall would make a greater contribution to increasing productivity across the nation than £1 million invested, for example, in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.

On education, for far too long, young people in North Cornwall have accessed higher education outside the county. Once they have qualified, the majority never return home. Many are old school friends of mine, who sought better paid work in other places around the country. I know Tony Blair had a big push on getting 50% of young people through university. My view is that that has compounded the problem, forcing many young people on to paths that are unsuited to them or to study degrees that are often of little benefit to the economy local to where they grew up.

I am pleased the Government are offering more vocation-based skills learning and degree-level apprenticeships. I hope we can do more to improve the life chances of young people in and around the country. In North Cornwall, our offer for young people has drastically improved. Callywith College in Bodmin was recently rated outstanding in six areas by Ofsted. I look forward to working with the college and expanding its future offer.

On housing, it is a sad fact that the gap between average wages and average house prices is the highest it has ever been in England. In Cornwall, that trend is particularly acute. The problem is worsened by high levels of second-home ownership, and many homes are beyond the reach of the local population. They are generally bought by buy-to-let landlords, which drives up rents. However, we are seeing an increase and a trend in second homes being occupied for longer periods of the year. Some families are choosing to relocate already to make their second home more permanent, and I welcome those moves. However, the under-supply of housing has already damaged many lives and communities in Cornwall. An increase in the rural population will exacerbate that issue, so we cannot avoid the need to build more homes in rural communities.

On supply and construction, Cornwall is leading the way on modular housing and newer forms of building to get the speed of builds up. I hope that the changes outlined in the planning White Paper will continue that roll-out and improve innovation and the solutions that we have to find to sort out the housing crisis. The planning Bill should also support economic development, business diversification, innovation and job creation in the countryside. I firmly believe that if we do that, we can address some of those rural challenges.

Moving on to health outcomes, the physical distance that some people have to drive to visit GPs and cottage and general hospitals often means that more people live with conditions and have to undergo lengthy surgery for treatment. They often rely on family members for that travel. For example, someone living in Bude in my constituency who has an appointment in nearby Barnstaple’s hospital might have to take half a day’s holiday from work just to run their relative to an appointment. That obviously has negative impacts on workplace productivity, but also on quality of life. The covid pandemic has proved that digital appointments with GPs can work, and some consulting can work. Further digitalisation of the NHS could mean rural and coastal communities accessing some of the best medical expertise in the country over Zoom or Skype without the need to travel vast distances.

I know lots of people will talk about physical infrastructure in their own communities, and we have seen a move from the Government to improve physical infrastructure distribution around the country, but it is clear that road and rail schemes often improve connectivity, productivity, journey times and people’s life chances. I have no doubt that colleagues will cover that topic, but I have a particular scheme in North Cornwall that the Treasury has already part funded, and it exemplifies how important infrastructure can be. The Camelford bypass has been talked about for more than 100 years. At its worst, the A39 through the town is gridlocked; at its best in the winter it can be tedious and extremely polluting. Camelford has one of the highest NOx emission rates in Cornwall. A bypass will improve health outcomes and connectivity, cut journey times on routes frequented by many workmen and traders, and in many cases will also improve people’s life chances because they will be able to access good quality employment. We recently saw improvements to the A30, which have led to improved journey times and created hundreds of jobs in the county.

Many colleagues will wish to raise digital connectivity. In many rural communities, improving broadband and mobile coverage is the single biggest step needed to address rural productivity issues. In Cornwall we have seen significant investment in speed, which has increased exponentially, but we still have far to go. Cafés, farms, white-collar workers and more can have more productivity, but are limited at the moment by poor internet speeds. It is crucial for tourism in Cornwall. Visit Cornwall recently did a survey that showed that the top two searches for holiday accommodation in Cornwall were broadband and hot tubs. Although I am absolutely convinced that hot tubs are important to people, I think we can agree that broadband is a necessity. Digital infrastructure should be the most important part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

We have also seen a move to remote working. A shift to remote and flexible working was happening pre-covid, and that is growing exponentially. I suspect many colleagues in the Chamber today will be aware of that trend. Legacy broadband and mobile investment can grow value added and support new employment opportunities in rural communities. We should encourage people to take advantage of the fantastic rural digital connectivity and to set up businesses in rural areas, giving them better quality of life and creating more and new opportunities for employment.

There have been a lot of efficiency savings in agriculture and farming in recent years, including robotics in milking parlours. Tractors are bigger and more efficient than they used to be. We have only scratched the surface of what we can do in terms of agricultural tech and robotics in our communities.

I appreciate that many hon. Members want to speak, but it is worth making the point that the rural productivity gap is not a north-south divide, as it is sometimes reported. In my view, there are two economies in the UK: London and the south-east and the rest of us. I believe that the Government are committed to levelling up and will not lose sight of that focus, despite the challenges that we are undergoing with the covid-19 pandemic. People who live in rural communities are up for the challenge. The Cornish are entrepreneurial, hard-working and never miss an opportunity to make a few quid, so with the right support from the Treasury, I have no doubt that they can close the productivity gap.

I ask the Minister to respond on the following points. Will she continue to invest in technical colleges and degree level apprenticeships? Will she ensure that everyone in the UK has access to good-quality broadband and mobile? Will she support planning policies that are designed to promote economic growth for our rural and coastal communities? Will she continue to push for a bigger role for digital and virtual in our health service?

Will the Minister try to ensure that R&D funding is funnelled into innovation in the farming sector? Pilot schemes are often floated around the country. Will she consider the least productive areas for some of those pilot schemes and procurement things that happen in Government? I will leave it there as several hon. Members wish to speak. I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say as well.

16:57

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for securing it, because we need to treat the whole country in a similar way. Sometimes, we believe that the west country goes as far as Bristol and no further, so we have to make sure that we get things done.

For instance, the A303 has been talked about for far too long. In fact, I found a reference from Edward du Cann, who said in 1958 that we needed to do more with the A303. We can get going. We can deal with a tunnel under Stonehenge, but we can also deal with a road through Somerset to make sure it gets into Devon and then on to the A30 into Cornwall.

My hon. Friend spoke about broadband. We need to get that done, because again, it is very much about digital connectivity. In my constituency, there are further education colleges in Axminster, Cullompton, Honiton and Tiverton. There is a great drive towards improving those colleges and giving people a good education, so that we can get practical people into jobs that they enjoy, can do and can make a good living at.

In Tiverton, there is a school in a flood zone that we cannot repair because it would flood again. Therefore, as I have said many times, to actually level up the community, we need a new school for Tiverton. If the Minister happens to have £40 million with her today, that would be extremely useful.

To be serious, levelling up across the country is essential, because all hon. Members have great communities, great people and great businesses, but we also have areas that need levelling up. Sometimes, a great rural constituency with lovely farms and lovely countryside does not really show those pockets that need levelling up.

16:59

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this important debate. Some 37% of the Northern Ireland population live in rural areas, so they contribute to a large section of our overall economy. Unfortunately, they are somewhat missed out when it comes to the delivery of public services and public transport, which is also a problem when people go to develop a business in a rural setting. People might need transport for it, but there is no connectivity.

One of our biggest bugbears in Northern Ireland is rural broadband and the difficulties with it for businesses going forward. We have bucked the trend to some degree with businesses such as Randox in my constituency. It is a large employer based in a rural area, but it has also come across the difficulties of planning policy and what I call zoning. Zoning problems do not allow businesses to expand. They are good and developing businesses, but because someone has a wee red box drawn around an area, nothing more can be done. That can reduce the opportunities for a business to expand.

Now a Northern Ireland Executive is in place, we hope for access to the apprenticeship fund. Businesses in Northern Ireland contribute to it, but need to be able to access it to bring forward rural apprenticeships. In my constituency, the Greenmount agricultural college is a leading college for agriculture not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the UK, and we want to support it to bring diversification for farms and those involved in our agrifood industry, which is a major player in rural productivity.

17:01

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for raising this critical issue. For me, there is an answer to the productivity gap, and it is technology and infrastructure, as we have heard. Even before lockdown, a quarter of the rural population worked from home. With small and medium-sized enterprises being the engine of the rural economy, digital connectivity is vital, but Somerset is sprinkled with areas that have unreliable and intermittent connectivity.

New investment in broadband in those dead zones is of course great news, and the shared rural network agreement is another step forward, but there is still a lingering belief that the rural economy is purely focused on agriculture. Of course, we have a thriving industry that is based on agriculture—in my constituency, the fabulous cheese makers of Wyke Farms, Montgomery Cheese, Godminster and Barber’s, and innumerable cider manufacturers—and they are all vital to the local economy, but it is equally important to stoke the fire of businesses such as the logistics and supply chain company Vallis Commodities in Frome, the operations of which depend on Somerset’s physical and digital infrastructure.

Investment in road—I dare not mention the A303 again —in rail and in digital infrastructure will pay dividends for decades to come. Just stick in the money and sit back and watch as the resourceful and dynamic people of the west country beaver away in effect to give it all back with interest. If the shared prosperity fund is to achieve its purpose of smoothing inequalities between different communities, let us do that within a framework that balances protecting the bucolic glory of our small towns and villages while equipping them with the tools that they need to flourish.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

A mouth-watering contribution.

17:03

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

Anyone who could make a living among the lakes and dales of south Cumbria, just would—the problem, of course, is the ability to make that living. One in four of my constituents in work works for themselves, and they are entrepreneurs. We want to encourage that strongly, and the fact that we have 95% officially superfast broadband in my constituency is hugely welcome.

That 95%, however, does not ring many bells for the chief executive officer of a trading and development company in our big town of Kendal, which has a 0.05 megabits per second upload speed. The reality, and the figure that matters, is not the 95% superfast broadband, but the 9.7% of my constituents who have fibre to their home. That compares with the 27% nationally, and even that figure is a disgrace. That is what matters the most, that 90% of my constituents rely on copper wires, a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.

Given the time available, I simply want to make this case to the Minister: if the Government want Britain to be levelled up with the rest of Europe and the rest of the developed world, that is where we need to start. We need to aim for 95% fibre to the home or the premises right across the country, starting in rural areas, because that is where it will do the most good.

I said that one in four of my constituents works for themselves, and that they are entrepreneurs and creative. Even more could be if they were given the ability to be better connected. I look at our community at the moment, struggling from covid and doing their best to work from home, in circumstances that were utterly unthinkable just six months ago. I am sure we will not go back to how things were before. When we go back to work more generally, post-covid, we need to be able to compete, and we will do that only if we decide that we will adopt that 21st-century solution, and build fibre to the home.

00:01

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

I am very proud that in Clwyd South, my constituency on the Welsh borders, we have achieved the first universal service obligation in Wales, but it has been hard work and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, there is much more to be done. There are real problems with BT Openreach. We must make sure that the £5 billion investment that has been promised by the UK Government gets into the system, and that we can untangle a lot of the problems. Yes, we have made progress, but there is more work to be done.

The second area where we can improve rural productivity is by devolving as many powers as possible locally. I was a county councillor, a town councillor and mayor of my rural town before I became an MP, so I have had practical experience of trying to improve rural areas. In Clwyd South, Wrexham County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council made many of the key decisions affecting rural life, from roads and housing to schools and local facilities. Sometimes we forget that many of the levers to achieve what we want to achieve lie at the local level.

Finally, I emphasise that in rural areas the proportion of small and medium-sized businesses is much higher than in urban areas. Therefore, policies that bolster those businesses are extremely important, particularly the availability of office and workshop space. That is a major problem in many rural areas and we need to create the planning conditions that allow for that, combined, as other hon. Members have mentioned, with improved provision of skills, training and apprenticeships.

00:03

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate you, Ms Ghani, on getting to the position that you are in. It is lovely to see you there and I wish you well. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for setting the scene. I will talk about Brexit and the opportunities, because that is where I feel that we have those chances.

The dairy industry and connected agrifood industry is a massive rural key. One dairy corporate in my constituency in Northern Ireland has 2,500 farming families depending on it. We look forward to moving forward to continue trade and to enhance that. When it comes to productivity, Brexit will give us that opportunity. Mash Direct, Rich Sauces and Lakeland Dairies in my constituency have shown that global trade is possible, exporting as far away as China. That is something that the former Minister for International Development enabled us to develop.

To move forward, we need the Government centrally and the Minister to work with the Northern Ireland Assembly. They need to work alongside each other, to negotiate the choppy tides of leaving the EU, to hit the wide-open seas of free trade and commerce, and to reach the global potential that exists. In my farming constituency, it reaches down from the big companies, which between the three of them employ some 2,500 people, plus the farmers who live off them. Glastry Farm produces excellent ice cream. I said last night that Portavogie prawns are the best prawns in the country; well, Glastry Farm ice cream is the best ice cream that there is. It is a local farm that has diversified and done what it can to increase rural productivity.

I quickly underline the importance of post offices and banks, because of the wellbeing they provide. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) is a member of a party—the Scots Nats—whose Members have spoken out in the House about bank closures many times. I have been in every debate; I want to make sure that is on the record.

I want to ensure that we address the issue of broadband, to reach out to isolated rural areas and to help small and medium-sized businesses, because if we can do that, we can raise productivity and we can all do better across the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

00:05

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate and the excellent case he made for the importance of infrastructure in reducing the rural productivity gap.

A good example of how to do that is the Hope Valley railway line that serves New Mills, Chinley, Edale, Hope and Bamford in my constituency. It is a popular service and arguably one of the most beautiful railway journeys in the world, but in the period running up to December 2019 it scored only 52% on the public performance measure for train punctuality, making it one of the worst services in the country. One does not need to be a genius to realise the negative impact that has on our economic productivity.

I am pleased that we are making progress, with the modern class 195 trains recently starting service and phasing out the ancient Pacers. I am campaigning for an upgrade to the capacity on the line so that we can get more frequent services, which would make a huge difference to a huge number of residents in my constituency.

While on the subject of transport, it would be remiss of me not to mention the communities that are cut off entirely from the railway network and have extremely limited bus services. A good example is Gamesley, which by some measures is in the top 1% of the most deprived places in the country, yet many local residents are forced to pay for a taxi to get home, because the last bus finishes at 5 pm. We need a new railway station for Gamesley. I look forward eagerly to the Government’s national bus strategy, and I welcome the new X57 bus, which will provide a new service between Manchester and Sheffield. That will be a big boost for people who, like me, live in Glossop, and for those in Ashopton and Bamford.

I want to talk about poor broadband and mobile phone coverage, which holds back lots of areas. That is why roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband is so important. It is encouraging that we are finally starting to see full-fibre getting out to some of the hardest-to-reach places in High Peak, but we have to get it to the homes, not just to the cabinet, which makes a big difference to speed. Openreach has recently announced that it will be extending full-fibre to 11 Derbyshire market towns and villages, including Buxton, Glossop and Chapel-en-le-Frith, which I wholeheartedly welcome.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that improving rural productivity is a big challenge. There is no single silver bullet or single Act of Parliament, but if we work together, we can deliver for our constituents.

17:11

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my Cornish colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), on securing the debate. I endorse everything that he said, and I will not repeat too much. However, I particularly want to endorse the Camelford bypass, which I know he has been working tirelessly on since he has been in this place.

To live in Cornwall is to have to diversify—there is no doubt about it. When someone moves to Cornwall, there is no walking into a well-paid job in a bank or anything like that. One has to think about how one will learn a living. Most people who live and work in Cornwall have one job and one or two businesses, or even more. That is how one earns a living.

Last night in the Chamber, we spoke extensively in the debate on the Fisheries Bill. One point that I wanted to make—we were cut short on time—was about how we get more fisherman into their boats. As part of a rural injection of money, I would like to see, if possible, an apprenticeship scheme for fisherman, so that young guys and girls coming out of college who are not particularly academic, but who have good watercraft and have lived by the sea all their lives, are attracted to the industry. We could help them get their own boats, so that we start to see a resurgence of the inshore fleet, rather than such young people having to leave and go elsewhere.

We have a fantastic college in Truro—the Truro and Penwith College—which is doing a fantastic job at trying to match courses to skills. It has taken on the T-levels, and I know that is the college’s move going forward. It is doing a brilliant job at it. We also have the University of Exeter and the University of Falmouth, which are doing a fantastic job on the academic side of things.

I see that Cornwall is moving towards the green recovery. We have lithium and green hydrogen. We have plans for floating offshore wind. This morning I was talking to Starbucks, which is now making its reusable cups in Cornwall. It is happening, and all it needs is just a bit of imagination and initiative from the Government to see how we can spend the shared prosperity fund and tailor it to what our areas actually need.

00:04

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate.

Rural productivity is an issue of great importance to my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge. I recently visited a dairy farm in the constituency where farmers are working hard to improve productivity by introducing new technologies that will increase milk yields. Such technologies require the collection and processing of real-time data from cattle, and this in turn requires reliable, high-speed and affordable broadband. All businesses are becoming more reliant on broadband, and there is now a direct relationship between internet speed and how much productive work can be done. In the rural broadband survey that I am currently conducting in my constituency, however, nearly 60% of respondents tell me that their broadband is slow or very slow, so it is hardly surprising that rural productivity is falling behind.

Businesses and people working from home do not require broadband just for sending emails or online shopping. The nature of work has changed, and high-tech solutions and high-quality virtual meetings require a high-quality connection. There are no easy answers to these problems, and we need community power as well as support from central Government in order to seek innovative local solutions.

Of course, broadband speeds are not the only factor limiting rural connectivity. Poor bus and train services restrict opportunities to travel to well-paid work in the local area, in stark contrast with vastly better services in urban areas. Again, I believe there is an opportunity for community power to improve transport connectivity. South Pennine Community Transport, a fantastic local community interest company near my constituency, is trialling a new regular bus service between rural villages and Stocksbridge town. The service will connect people to jobs and leisure services and could be financially self-sustaining in under two years. Many millions of people live in rural communities in this country, and it is not just for economic reasons that we need to level up. Rural life, culture, tradition and values are a valuable part of this country’s history and our future, and we need to make sure that young people are able to stay in those communities and have productive jobs.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I thank Mr Warburton for swapping seats with Ms Jones so that she can contribute.

00:06

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Thank, you, Ms Ghani. It is kind of you to call me in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing it.

My constituency is heavily rural. We have seven livestock markets and only four supermarkets. We have no district general hospital, no motorway and limited train and bus services, but the digital divide, as has come up in the debate, is the most significant factor holding back the vast capacity for rural productivity that exists across the UK. Specifically, the lack of high-speed broadband that plagues a large proportion of my constituency limits businesses’ and households’ capability to get connected. In the age of e-commerce and online learning, not being able to get online can mean not being able to reach full potential either as a business or as an individual. It certainly holds back the many tourism businesses in my constituency.

In Sennybridge, in my patch, only 50% of households have superfast availability, which is well below the 95% average across the United Kingdom. Sadly, we in Wales have a Welsh Labour Administration, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, who do not value rural areas. Investment in superfast broadband has been concentrated in the urban south Wales valleys, and sadly it does not reach up into my constituency in mid-Wales. I was therefore overjoyed in March when the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s plan to invest £5 billion to help to build gigabit-capable networks throughout the UK by the end of 2025. I encourage the Government to ensure that that capacity is built without delay. I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) about BT and Openreach, but I urge the Government also to do what they can to support small and medium-sized enterprises in that space, so that there is real competition in the broadband roll-out sector.

Our levelling-up agenda depends on ensuring that households across the UK, even in the most rural areas, have access to superfast broadband, so that we can close the digital divide and take full advantage of rural productivity capacity.

17:17

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The issue has been looked at in considerable detail by the Council of Europe, across the wider Europe that it is responsible for. One of the things that has come out of that is that, while we may want to see rural areas as one block, they are actually quite diverse. Many rural areas are some of the most prosperous in this country. In many there is a shift to a new rural economy with reduced dependency on land-based activities and a more diversified economy. What we need to do in those areas is support entrepreneurship and innovation. In my constituency, at Culham, which is the UK’s centre for fusion activities, we are bringing in many exciting new international companies and setting up a centre for apprenticeships that can operate across the whole area and carry on quite significant scientific activities. That all depends on access to technology and connectivity. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned the issue of broadband, and I completely agree about that.

There is a demographic issue that we all, I think, are concerned with—that rural areas should be the home not just of retired people but of young people who are innovative and out there, and who are getting on with making the areas where they live prosperous and quite strong. If I had time I would quote from the OECD, which has also looked at the area in question. That would reinforce what I have said about the need to value innovation and entrepreneurship in taking forward the prosperity we want in rural areas.

17:19

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called by you, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for introducing this great debate on our countryside. I have two minutes, so it has to be a list, for which I apologise to the Minister. I suspect that the Government have heard a lot of it before.

I have two seaside resorts in my constituency: Swanage and Weymouth—and the Isle of Portland; I must never forget that. We are heavily resort-based, and we need some love and investment. We have large pockets of deprivation in my seat of South Dorset. Although we are extremely grateful for the huge sums of money we have received for the Weymouth Pavilion, Swanage railway and the Tank Museum, adding up to about £1.25 million from various sources, I am afraid that we need more.

I initiated a business panel, because I think business people are better at promoting what we need than politicians, because a lot of my constituents do not agree with what I say, understandably. This panel is now looking at what we will need for the next 30 to 50 years, in which I would include—I will push the Government hard on this—a road north. We cannot get out of Dorset and Hampshire; we have to go to the A34. This is utter madness. We need a relief road in Weymouth, so that the port can expand, which it is already doing, creating huge numbers of jobs.

As colleagues have said, we need better connectivity with broadband and mobile, which is currently appalling. Weymouth College is the only place where young people in my seat can aspire to move on to better careers, university and all the things that are so important for the young. We need more money to bring this college, which is doing a fantastic job, up to the standard that is required to deliver that opportunity to the young.

Finally, a forgotten element is the outdoor education centres. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility. Schools are not sending children there. They should be allowed to because they are safe and bubbled, and children should be able to enjoy a day out in the countryside.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson. Mr Doogan, you have a joyous five minutes. You do not have to use it all.

17:21

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I guarantee I will. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for bringing this debate.

Rural communities’ needs must have greater prominence in Government policy. We would do well to ensure that this debate provides traction for that ambition. Across the UK—especially in England and Northern Ireland, where the topography is literally more accommodating—rural populations and their needs as taxpayers and citizens, together with their economic contribution are too easily and routinely overlooked. That is an opportunity lost.

The City of London and North sea oil and gas were the powerhouses of the UK economy for nearly 30 years or so. From Caithness to Cornwall, if we removed the net economic output from rural communities across these isles, we would see one heck of a dent in the UK’s economy. Rural communities and economies need a far greater slice of the investment cake if they are to increase productivity. Resources are the end result; the means to that is a shift in perspective and central Government policy. Centralised institutions and Whitehall must react to this.

We need our great regional cities—whether Aberdeen, Belfast, Cardiff or Durham—to be reborn as regional hubs. This base must exploit their existing and manifest competitive advantages. These can then act as economic nodes for regional opportunity in a far more targeted way, supporting start-ups and peer support between businesses, and generating and cultivating the multiplier effect, which can spread growth, opportunity and prosperity out to landward areas.

In Scotland, great strides have been made to enable decentralised power much closer to the people, under devolution in Edinburgh. This has been replicated in Wales, Northern Ireland, London and the other mayoral assemblies in England. In an independent Scotland, it would be unforgivable to repeat the difficult-to-unwind centralisation mistakes of the UK. That sounds like a political point, but I would contend that it is a political science point. By any stretch of the imagination and by any international comparator, the UK is chronically over-centralised in London. That comes at a significant cost to the rest of these islands.

There is great concern regarding physical and digital connectivity. Both are extremely important. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall highlighted, without superfast broadband, the nicest hotel in the village would find it difficult to get custom and impossible to get repeat custom, and customer reviews would reflect that. I am afraid that superfast broadband is no longer a luxury add-on; it is absolutely essential for the hospitality industry. Without that, individual businesses are working with one hand tied behind their back, because there is nothing they can do about it. That requires significant public investment. Following that investment, there is a need to build a more sustainable model where economic activity and output creates the demand for a more market-led support for services and infrastructure.

The Scottish Government, where we have the powers, have in the “Programme for Government” put the rural economy at the heart of the agenda. We recognise the importance of diversity in the rural economy and we are committed to a range of measures to support that growth. The rural economy is a major source of growth in Scotland, with its economic contribution worth about £35 billion in gross value added. Figures from 2015 show it was 27% of Scotland’s economy. There are 67,000 jobs in Scotland in farming alone. The Scottish agriculture sector, which is no different to that in great swathes of England—not least Cornwall—is worth about £1.3 billion to our economy. Farming is at the heart of Scotland’s economy and has the potential to contribute to our national recovery from covid, as it does elsewhere.

It needs to be accepted that different challenges are faced by rural businesses. The Scottish Government are addressing those, including through a new place-based approach to integrate business support for rural micro-enterprises. As other hon. Members have said, it is really important to look at the aggregate effect. There are not massive companies in rural settings—that is not what characterises rural entrepreneurship. There are many different economic enterprises—often, as has been pointed out, in the same household—all contributing to a significant economic output.

I am grateful to have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I wish the hon. Member for North Cornwall every success in taking this issue forward with his colleagues in Government.

17:26

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here for your debut in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this very good debate. I also congratulate all those Members who were elected for the first time at the most recent general election—not for the election victory, I hasten to add; we would rather that had not happened—on having already learned the fine parliamentary art form of squeezing a five-minute speech into two minutes. As a result, we heard a wide range of important points.

When I read the room, I was not sure about whether I should have more trepidation about addressing this gathering as a Labour MP or as a London MP. I want to explain why both of those things are complementary to what we have just heard. First, the regional imbalance in the UK economy is not working for London and the south-east, either. This city—one where I am a suburban MP—is overheating and overcrowded. It is in the interests of London and the south-east that we are rebalancing the economy across England and the rest of the UK. The concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in London and the south-east does not work for London, for the rest of England or for the rest of the UK. I hope we can achieve genuine consensus about how we redistribute power, wealth and opportunity from London and the south-east to the rest of the UK to create a genuinely balanced economy that benefits everyone and strengthens our country as a whole.

The Opposition not only not disagree with so much of what we heard in the debate but strongly support it. We understand the diversity of the rural economy in this country. Jobs and businesses in farming, forestry and fishing are important for the people who work in them, the communities who benefit from them and, of course, the consumers who enjoy them too. However, they are not the grand total of rural businesses; in fact, 85% of rural businesses are unrelated to farming, forestry and fishing. It is really important that public policy makers, whether in Government or around the Westminster village, understand that point and think about the diversity of the rural economy and how we support those businesses to succeed.

It is also a really important point that, in the context of the productivity challenge we have in the economy as a whole, rural economies in the UK are less productive. The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point well that that reflects not on the workforce but on the conditions in which those businesses operate. It is also true that employment is generally higher in rural areas but pay is lower. We heard some illustrations of why that was, with people holding down a number of jobs—in fact, running a number of businesses—to make ends meet. That point was made powerfully during the debate.

What are the conditions in the wider environment that are causing some of these challenges? Of course, some challenges arise out of business size and density, and there are not the same conglomeration effects as in urban areas.

We have heard contributions on the challenges of accessing finance and the closure of bank branches. We ought to think, in the context of the connectivity that we have had to create during the course of covid, about how to better connect rural businesses with each other. We need to make sure that we are investing in our people, which is about access to skills and making sure that people do not need to leave the places where they grew up in order to have a successful career or to build a successful business. It is important that we invest in infrastructure, whether that is buses, rail or other forms of public transport. There are also ongoing issues of digital connectivity—this country is a digital laggard. We only have to look at the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to see that we are so far behind other European countries on digital connectivity.

Notwithstanding all the other challenges that our country faces at the moment, I really hope that, as we think about how to break the back of this covid crisis, we think about how we build a better, stronger, more resilient economy beyond the crisis, making sure that we invest in rural communities and their people, businesses and infrastructure. I hope we can build a cross-party consensus in this area to generate good ideas for the next Labour Government to take forward.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can conclude by 5.43 pm, that will give enough time for the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) to wind up the debate.

17:31

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

It is a delight to be with you on your debut chairing of a Westminster Hall debate, Ms Ghani. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing this important debate. As the Member of Parliament for Saffron Walden, a beautiful rural constituency in north Essex, I share many of the concerns raised today. In fact, if I was not a Treasury Minister, I would no doubt be here talking about the same things. I thank hon. Members for their many insightful and constructive contributions.

As recently as last week, the Prime Minister expressed his view that the only way to ensure true resilience and long-term prosperity is to raise the overall productivity of the country. In saying that, he was not talking only about our cities, as the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) referenced. When this Government talk about boosting productivity, levelling up and building back better, we are talking about the entire country—north and south, east and west, urban and rural.

Rural areas do not just make up most of this country by land area. They are integral to the commerce and culture of every nation and region of the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) noted, our rural communities are diverse. In England alone, more than 9 million people live in rural towns, villages and hamlets, each a unique settlement with its own distinctive history and identity. These communities produce much of the food we eat and preserve the green spaces that we love to visit and that our wildlife relies on.

The Government are proud of the contribution that rural businesses make to our national economy, and we are determined to help rural areas harness their full economic potential. Rural areas typically have higher rates of employment and lower rates of unemployment and economic inactivity. The historic backbone of economies in rural areas has been British farms and their world-class produce, which is why the Government are committed to protecting farm budgets for the duration of this Parliament. In the years ahead, we will take advantage of leaving the common agricultural policy to transition away from area-based direct payments, which do little for the environment or productivity, and towards a new system based on giving public money for public goods, which will help our farmers to become more productive, more efficient and more environmentally sustainable.

Fishing, too, is crucial. It is the mainstay of many UK coastal communities, providing jobs and valued produce here at home and sending lucrative exports abroad. The Government have committed to maintaining funding for fisheries across the UK nations throughout this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) asked me about apprenticeships for fishing. I can tell her that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is working with employers to develop a range of courses for that.

I have already made the point about rural communities generating crucial economic capital. They are also home to much of our natural capital, which has not been mentioned so much in this debate. We want more private investment in that natural capital, which will in turn create jobs and support our world-leading target of reaching net zero by 2050.

Stronger transport links were raised by many Members. They play a particularly critical role in rural economies. We are spending more than £27 billion on strategic and local roads through the road investment strategy 2 from 2020 to 2025—the largest ever investment in England’s strategic roads. That includes the £2 billion committed at Budget to building the A303 tunnel, which I know several Members are interested in. We also confirmed at Budget the development funding for the A39 Camelford bypass, as part of the major roads programme.

Transport links must be levelled up across the country. That is why, earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a £5 billion investment to transform bus and cycle links in every region of England, supported by the ambitious cycling and walking plan that was published in July and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) mentioned, by a national bus strategy, which will be delivered in the coming months. In the Budget, the Chancellor also announced a £2.5 billion potholes fund over this Parliament, to address the local road maintenance backlog.

We heard from many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and for Angus (Dave Doogan), and my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), about further education and degree-level apprenticeships. Higher and degree-level apprenticeships form an important part of our skills and education system, providing people of all backgrounds with a choice of high-value vocational training, alongside traditional academic routes. As part of our plan for jobs, the Government have introduced new payments to employers in England from 1 August 2020 until 31 January 2021: £2,000 for each new apprentice hired who is aged under 25, and £1,500 for each new apprentice hired who is aged 25 or above. Those payments apply to newly hired apprentices, including those at degree level.

Many hon. Members mentioned digital infrastructure, including my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Truro and Falmouth, and the hon. Member for South Antrim. It is the information superhighway that we need to support our rural economy. As my hon. Friend for Somerton and Frome said, it is not just about farming and infrastructure. We have announced landmark investments in digital connectivity, including £5 billion to support the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband in the hardest-to-reach areas, which I know will please my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), and £500 million to extend 4G coverage to 95% of the UK’s landmass. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned, that will keep people and businesses connected.

As we fulfil our manifesto commitment to boost productivity and level up the whole country, we will not forget that rural communities have their own needs and challenges, some the same as, and some different from, those faced by people in large towns and cities. For instance, second-home owners can leave a shortage of affordable housing, particularly for local workers. For that reason, nearly 165,000 affordable homes have been provided in rural local authorities since 2010, but the Government recognise the need for more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, that is the only way that we will keep young people in our communities, which is why at least 10% of the new affordable homes programme will be delivered in rural locations, and why those homes will be exempt from the new right to shared ownership. Restrictions on shared-ownership homes are in place in rural protection areas to keep affordable home ownership options available.

The national planning policy framework allows entry-level exception sites in rural areas to be used in perpetuity for affordable housing where sites would not normally be used for housing. In the Government’s recent consultation on changes to the current planning system, we set out our intention to protect the important role that rural exception sites play in delivering affordable homes—I have seen for myself the difference that that is making. Local planning authorities are encouraged to support opportunities to bring forward such sites, but we recognise that that delivery mechanism is underused and we intent to update the planning guidance in due course.

Our rural economy was once dominated by the trade in natural commodities, but in 2020, it is much more than just farms, fish and fir trees. It is about the businesses and entrepreneurship that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) quite rightly mentioned in his speech. Today, our rural communities are often as vibrant and economically diverse as our cities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall asked if the countryside was ready for a new post-covid economy. I believe so, and the Government will do all they can to support that. The Government are committed to helping those communities to thrive over the long term, as we level up every region and nation of the UK, boosting productivity and spreading opportunity.

17:39

[Scott Mann]

It has been an absolute pleasure to lead the debate. We have had a tour de force from around the country—Scotland, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Wales, Northern Ireland, Dorset, Somerset and, of course, Cornwall—and it was a pleasure to hear from the Minister. I know that she understands the issue well, and I hope that, in the light of what she has heard today, she will consider the countryside to be a living, breathing workplace, as we all do.

I know that we all in this Chamber stand ready to support making the countryside more productive. I thank hon. Members for participating in the debate, which was a pleasure to lead, and I look forward to working with the Government to deliver on what we have discussed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered productivity in rural areas.

00:05

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Written Statements

Wednesday 14 October 2020

International Vaccines Procurement Initiative (COVAX): UK Participation

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

I am confirming that the United Kingdom has joined the global COVAX initiative to expedite the discovery, manufacture, and fair distribution of an effective coronavirus vaccine to 1 billion people globally.

The UK is a strong supporter and champion of COVAX and its mission to deliver fair and equitable access to covid-19 vaccines around the world. We are pleased that over 170 countries and territories have announced their intention to join COVAX. Through this initiative, countries are pooling resources to support “at risk” investment in manufacturing and secure advance purchase agreements with manufacturers for the supply of their vaccines. COVAX will procure vaccines for both high-income and lower-income countries and will distribute vaccines equitably.

The COVAX facility is being run by the vaccines alliance (Gavi), with the support of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI). It has two parts:

a self-financing facility to allow upper-middle and high-income countries to pool investments in candidates in exchange for early access to vaccines; and

the advance market commitment (AMC) fund, to support 92 low and lower-middle income countries to buy vaccines.

We have contributed £71 million to the self-financing facility. This will give us an option to buy vaccines available through COVAX for up to 20% of the UK population (13.5 million people). Any vaccines secured through COVAX will be complementary to those the UK has already secured through its agreements with vaccine developers.

The Prime Minister announced at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that the UK will allocate £500 million of ODA funding for the procurement and delivery of covid-19 vaccines in low and lower middle-income countries. This is in addition to the £48 million we allocated to the AMC at the global vaccine summit in June 2020.

This new funding includes a commitment to match £1 for every $4 committed by others, up to £250 million, encouraging other countries to fund the global effort to fairly distribute vaccines across the globe and leverage an additional $1 billion for the AMC. Canada, Germany, Sweden and Japan have all made commitments of over $422 million. This means we have, so far, matched almost £106 million of this funding.

In addition, the UK has worked with the World Bank to develop an ambitious $12 billion proposal for vaccine financing, which was also announced at UNGA. The World Bank will make up to $6 billion of its financing available to middle-income countries and $6 billion to low and lower middle-income countries, to help them secure access to covid-19 vaccines.

[HCWS511]

Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee Meeting

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

The next meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee will take place in London on 19 October 2020, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.

The meeting will be co-chaired by me and vice-president of the European Commission, Mr Maroš Šefčovič.

The agenda will include four items:

Introduction and opening remarks from co-chairs

Stocktake of recent specialised Committee meetings

Future specialised Committee meetings

Update on withdrawal agreement implementation

Citizens’ rights

Joint implementation report

Progress on Joint Committee decision on triangulation

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Progress on Joint Committee decisions foreseen by the protocol

Progress on Joint Committee decision on correction of errors and omissions

Dispute settlement—discussion on progress on Joint Committee decision on the establishment of a list of arbitrators

AOB

Concluding remarks

The UK delegation will include me and the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt).

Representatives from the Northern Ireland Executive have been invited to form part of the UK delegation.

[HCWS514]

Appointment Update

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The fire in Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was an unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened.

The Government set up the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to get to the truth about what happened and to deliver justice for victims, survivors, bereaved families and the wider community.

Ensuring that such a terrible tragedy can never happen again remains a priority for this Government.

In February this year, I announced my intention to appoint an additional panel member to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Section 7(1 )(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows me to appoint panel members to the inquiry panel at any time during the inquiry. In appointing a panel member, section 8(1 )(a) and (b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 require me to ensure that the inquiry panel (considered as a whole) has the necessary expertise to undertake the inquiry, and to consider the need for balance, considered against the background of the terms of reference, in the composition of the panel.

Phase 2 of the inquiry is the largest phase in terms of the number and range of issues to be considered, and given the diversity of issues, and the expertise already available to the inquiry, I am pleased to appoint Ali Akbor OBE as the inquiry’s third panel member.

Ali is currently the CEO of Unity Homes and Enterprise, a leading housing association supporting sustainable and diverse neighbourhoods in west Yorkshire. Prior to his role at Unity, Ali was finance director for the Community and Social Services Directorate at the City of Salford. In December 2019, he was awarded an OBE for services to the community in Leeds. His knowledge of, and professional expertise in social housing, local government and community engagement are highly relevant skills and experience which will add great value to the inquiry panel.

I am confident that Ali’s appointment will ensure that the inquiry panel has the diversity of skills and expertise necessary for the scope and complexity of issues to be addressed by phase 2 of its work.

I wrote to the chair of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, on 12 October informing him of my decision and to seek his consent to the appointment in accordance with section 7(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005. Sir Martin replied on 13 October consenting to the appointment.

Ali will read into the work of the inquiry while he formally steps back from his role at Unity and will join the inquiry panel on 2 November for the start of module 2 of its work. It is intended that Ali will sit for the duration of the inquiry and, alongside his two fellow panel members, will be jointly responsible for the whole of the inquiry's phase 2 work.

Our exchange of letters can be found on gov.uk.

[HCWS513]

Warm Home Discount Scheme: Pensioner Support

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The warm home discount scheme (WHDS) provides up to £350m per year to tackle fuel poverty and the pressure placed by energy prices on low income households.

Around 1.2 million pensioner households who receive the guarantee element of pension credit are automatically eligible for the WHDS and will receive a £140 discount off their energy bill. Thanks to DWP IT we have data matched nearly one million eligible claimants who will receive this discount automatically.

A further 220,000 pensioners will receive a letter encouraging them to check their eligibility and apply. Pensioners can call to check their eligibility on 0800 731 0214.

Where eligible, the deduction will be taken automatically from energy bills before March 2021, with most pensioners receiving their discounts between now and January.

Up to a further 1.2 million low income, working age households can also benefit from a £140 discount from their supplier. These customers must meet an individual energy supplier’s criteria for the scheme to qualify, which will include being in receipt of certain means-tested benefits.

The WHDS also provides a range of initiatives to benefit fuel poor and vulnerable households, including debt assistance, benefit entitlement checks and energy advice to domestic customers in or at risk of fuel poverty.

More information on the warm home discount scheme is available at gov.uk/the-warm-home-discount-scheme.

[HCWS512]